On Monday, Technology Minister Karen Andrews - for whom FOMM has some admiration as about the only current government minister capable of getting our manufacturing into top gear again - threw down the gauntlet to social media companies to protect Australians from "vile hate speech" on their platforms.

About 50 MPs at the last count have joined the Parliamentary Friends of Making Social Media Safe group, being put together by the Nationals' Dr Anne Webster and Labor's Sharon Claydon. But, they are a bit late, monstrously too late say some of my tech-savvy friends, if as Google states, the earliest evidence of the term "social media" was from entrepreneur Ted Leonsis, then an executive with America Online, in 1997.

One of them points out we may not have had to put up with Trump's spiel these past five years or so had these social media entrepreneurs been pulled into gear by politicians and real media operators who, too, failed miserably in that time to perceive the dangers ahead.

Make no mistake, some big names in the newspaper industry were amongst those who were "blind" and still are.

About the time that social media was beginning to emerge, your author was one of three regional newspaper delegates on the board of Pacific Area Newspapers Proprietors Association - acknowledged then as the peak industry body not only in the Pacific area but parts of Asia.

We three regional delegates were concerned enough about the approaching social media situation to try and seek the board's help in having the federal government's Attorney-General at the time, Phillip Ruddock, have the situation reviewed.

Admittedly, our prime concern at that stage was about the potential from the new medium - in the hands of untrained journalists, reporters and writers - to ignore, neglect and pillage the defamation, libel and slander laws that, quite rightly so, all legitimate media owners are required to meet, observe and pay subsequent damages if made against them. As I recall, we didn't have long to wait about that issue. Some piece of untrue gossip published on a social media outlet brought litigation from two sports people. Yes, you have probably guessed it, the "proprietor-editor" of the social media rag had not a cent to bless himself with.

Little did we envisage at that time the dreadful and frightening mess of last week in Washington, inspired by a madman via social media.

Something which, a conservative friend of my weekly drinks group said this week, must never be allowed to occur again.

Anyway, we took our motion to the meeting that day; it went down something like 11-3 with our metropolitan newspaper delegates trumping us, so to speak, but with one from News Limited telling me: "Rupert (Murdoch) will keep an eye on it". No one did or has since, until now more than 20 years on.

What is true and of great concern, is Dr Webster's theory to treat the social media platforms like newspaper, radio and television stations, "so they can be sued for defamation or prosecuted for inciting violence."

Here, yet again, is an example of the significance and importance of our nation's need to review the federal constitution. The need such matters akin to social media's short history going unchecked for so long requires not only a legal watchdog on such matters but that it is done with expeditiousness, not stalled or delayed.

There is somewhat of a parallel in the recent matter relating to the frustration that drove a group of Lake Albert recreationalists to install so-called illegal shutters as a show of protest about council's delay in fixing water levels.

Any reasonable person can sympathise with the group - anything to do with water anywhere in this nation in recent decades automatically gets the "shutters down" treatment from governments and politicians of all persuasions.

It is not good enough, nor is the excuse in the lake's case that it was due to COVID. Water levels have been an issue for a lot longer than that.

Politicians must understand that people want action expeditiously, not delayed nor hidden.