You must log in or register to comment.
Is anyone talking about the fact that it’s the predatory, short-term-quarterly-gains oriented behavior of the platforms themselves which is in fact rampaging though democracies, massively affecting and survielling Adult’s behaviors on a loop of ragebait-induced dopamine/seratonin manipulation?
Because Kids are going to connect with one another, on whichever the next platform is that’s not banned. What’s more, the institutions they attend will inevitably ask them to do so as…things like Youtube arent exactly 100% avoidable.
Pretty pathetic to clamp down on Youth Liberty in a society that has basically none, when centrally-hosted platforms owned by corporate behemoths are all-but-physically trampling the landscape like some kind of fucked up gentrification-glorifying-voiceline-repeating Megazord
It is easier to enforce access than to enforce ethical algorithm. Sadly, it is not perfect, but it is better than allowing it.
Well we agree but it’s only as much better as it is effective…because when it’s not it’s giving the impression of doing something while in reality it’s legitimizing the stripping of the autonomy.
“best worst case?”
Good. Now block Shitter.
Pssst! Hey kid, wanna buy some memes?
deleted by creator
Parents should be Parenting?
If they haven’t been parenting what have they been doing for the last 40 years?
And if thwy have been parenting how’s that workout for us so far?
There’s been no age ban on social media since the internet was founded but there’s record mental health crisis on young people.
Yeah! Parents should totally be allowed to give their car keys to their 14 year old to go out and drive drunk if they feel their kid can handle it.
That would require us paying one parent enough to cover the other parent being a child care expert. But nobody gets to profit off of that so fuck society, everybody works, and nobody gets community goods except the wealthy.
deleted by creator
but but that requires actually effort and budget that we’d have to take away from Australian oligarchs!
if social media is fediverse, you’re right; if social media is agents of surveillance capitalism, fuck social media
what’s “social” about what most people call social media?
deleted by creator
even YouTube got in an exception list. So it’s not an “all or nothing” approach, it seems.
- Lemmy is too small for governments to care
deleted by creator
A social safety net you say… like a place we could gather all the children to teach them things and let them play under supervision?
deleted by creator
What? No! They can have their own age appropriate place to learn and play under supervision.
deleted by creator
But what about those Parental Responsibilities you were talking about earlier? Are you saying we now need extra social safety nets for kids who don’t fit the mold and get bullied? Extra places for them to learn and play under supervision? Because I don’t think that’s going to be economical without boarding them there, away from their parents.
This isn’t even delegating. It’s more of an equivalent of stuffing your fingers into your ear holes and going “nanananan CAN’T HEAR YOU”
Well that’s not going to work out.
Not a bad choice.
Probably going to get downvoted for this, but this just makes kids look for VPN’s and other ways to skirt this restriction. It may make VPN’s less useful for the rest of us as a result when certain services are forced to comply with the law, breaking those services for those of us using VPN’s. It sounds like a great idea but I don’t know that the implementation will make a noticeable or effective difference.
Just because it isn’t perfect it doesn’t mean it’s useless.
Just because there is no way to stop 100% of all crime it doesn’t mean taking measures to reduce crime is futile.
There is a lot more to this than just blocking the site. It will also change social norms. Right now, if a 14 year old as social media, nobody bats an eye; but with the 16 year requirement, through all the sudden, parents aren’t too comfortable with letting their 14 year old have social media. So not only will they need to find some free VPN totally not spyware to use (and even know that that exists and how to use), they will also have to hide it from their parents, as it is no longer socially acceptable for 14 year olds to have social media.
And before you say “Kids can easily get a free VPN and hide it.” Never underestimate tech illiteracy.
deleted by creator
???
How is restricting access behind an age requirement the same as the “Great Firewall”. Right now, as we speak, you cannot use social media until you are 13. They are just increasing that requirement to 16.
There are many many many other things that are already lock behind an age restriction and I don’t see you freaking out. Here are a few examples of things locked behind an age restriction:
-
alcohol
-
gambling
-
cigarettes
-
pornography
Media has age restrictions. Books have age restrictions, movies have age restrictions, games have age restrictions. Media has had age restrictions for a very long time and it’s high time the same standards are applied to social media.
deleted by creator
Yup… right what I suspected! The Slippery Slope Fallacy!
Whats gonna happens when politicians realize kids are just gonna click “I’m at least [Age]”?
Many pornography work like that and can, as such, be easily bypassed. But does that mean we should drop the age restriction for access to pornography? Of course not!
Here is another example:
Murder. Murder shouldn’t be legal and it is not. However, despite this restriction, some find ways to get away with murder. Does that mean that laws against murder are useless since we cannot stop murder 100% of the time? I highly doubt it.
It is impossible for any law enforcement to prevent 100% of all crimes, but that is not justification for those law to not exist.
Either you have a toothless law, or you live in a country with Great Firewall of China.
False dilemma fallacy.
Again, I’ll refer to pornography. Many pornography work on the trust system. By your logic, that means we should drop all laws restricting access to it. However, that is absurd.
The point isn’t to stop 100% of all usage. It is simply there to reduce the usage. You are forgetting that we are talking about human beings. Beings which have a natural tendency to conform to social norms as to not be cast out of their tribe (since humans cannot survive in the wild without each other, such would be a death sentence).
This law would set the societal precedent that people need to be of a certain age to access these social media apps (as shown by scientific data, which revealed that social media usage can have many negative effects on a developing mind). This societal precedent will, hopefully, make it taboo for people bellow 16 to access social media, which will, in turn, reduce, but not outright 100% stop, underage social media usage.
The point is to prevent the detrimental effects to the mental health of teens and preteens. That doesn’t work unless you plug the holes. That’s the problem. Fallacy in argument or no fallacy.
The point we’re trying to make isn’t that we don’t want the restriction. We just understand that it’s not going to work specifically because it requires the same thing the under 13 privacy laws already include. Companies to comply (which they will, probably with detriments to legal users), and that parents be involved in what their children are doing online and restrict that accordingly to comply with the law (which we already know they aren’t).
I as a full grown adult am not willing to provide my details (picture of a government issued ID or similar) to most online entities. I certainly won’t ever be giving it to social media or a porn site of any kind. But that’s what’s going to end up being required to enact this law and make it enforceable. Is the law going to fine parents whose children aren’t in compliance? Is it going to fine businesses for not enacting enough restrictions? Is it going to outlaw VPN’s for use on social media?
Where is the burden of proof and who’s privacy gets invaded in order to enforce the law?
I was not (in my original comment or any subsequent ones in the thread) intending people to take this as “we shouldn’t do this because XYZ”. And I am aware that you weren’t responding to me. I was saying that it’s going to be problematic to enforce and isn’t likely to have the results intended.
It’s not about the handful of people per hundred who commit a murder. It’s about how 75-85% of teens will find a way to circumvent the law because they don’t understand the dangers and parents aren’t doing their part. So the rest of us will have to jump through hoops to use any social media.
If 75% or more of people the law effects aren’t following the law, the law doesn’t do what is intended and is going to have to be reworked.
-
The thing about kids getting a VPN, free or paid is that it will spread like wild fire. It only takes one kid who knows how to do something. They tried this at my highschool, blocking websites and such. That was more than 20 years ago and we knew how to use VPN’s or similar then and once we figured it out it was an open secret.
I’m not saying the law shouldn’t exist or that we should do nothing. I’m saying that this isn’t going to be effective as it is and could end up leading to worse things.
Most kids are not going to pay a subscription for a VPN, I don’t think that would be as big of an issue as you think.
deleted by creator
There are free VPNs that are subsidized by payers and are legit (though most are not). Calyx and Proton to name two.
Also Tor is free, and the most popular site on the darknet is Facebook, so I dont think you’re informed about the nature of Tor traffic.
Also here, where a VPN or proxy is a “must” for using the internet normally, there are also some ran by charities. But yeah, the omnipresence of shady free VPNs is very concerning.
Well unless they go for free vpns and get data mined to the moon and back… Which is a far worse outcome imo.
There are free vpn services? How do they data mine you?
Well they have to host the servers and pay for them somehow… So they take all of your traffic going through their servers and sell it. They know when you go to any website, at what time, and how long you were there… That’s why anyone recommending a VPN strongly recommends vpns that do not keep logs of what their clients do when connected to their servers. Even some paid vpns double dip and keep logs and sell them as well as charging for access.
To be fair, I wouldn’t really count on a VPN not collecting logs - if I can’t check it, better assume they’re collected. This may not matter as much, but I still wouldn’t rely on this for anything sensitive.
Also, the free VPNs can harm you in more ways than just selling your traffic logs, such as making you a part of a proxy botnet.
Us right now are on a service that’s totally going to follow this law. /s
Now everyone gets to hand over their ids to the tech companies.
Tech company’s probably already have enough info to know a person age without requiring an id. They could even use ai for something actually useful
We should make a bet how long it will take before the ID databases get leaked.
Australia requires mobile phone providers to verify IDs before providing cell phone service. As a result, in September 2022, Optus leaked the records of 10 million Australians including passport and drivers license details.
So negative 2 years, 2 months.
But this is just asking for more.
It would take too long.
Making the bet that is, it would be leaked before you are done setting up the betting system.
Identification would need to be handled by a 3rd party to even remotely work. Then they pass on the “yes they’re over 16” tick to the social media platform, with no actual identity details.
Edit: and likewise, Identity company have no details about the social media account name or anything. Just a token transfer of sorts.
Identification would need to be handled by a 3rd party to even remotely work. Then they pass on the “yes they’re over 16” tick to the social media platform, with no actual identity details.
The legislatiion specifically allows SM sites to handle ID.
I guess Australia.gov can be the site in the middle handing out the tokens
I feel like every law I see coming out of Australia is just telling their citizens they’re not allowed to do something else mundane. All while the government services get worse, and the corrupt become more entrenched.
What a shithole.
Like what?
Often the things that seem mundane actually aren’t
Like vaping is just tobacco 2.0… and we don’t need everyone to have easy access to guns (especially not kids). Networks like Facebook are so unmoderated at the moment they should be held to account.
Asbestos and engineered stone? Enough said
And that’s mainly everything I can think of that’s banned that I can think of…
Like vaping is just tobacco 2.0
What is this, govern me like a strict old nan?
Is dancing allowed down there as well or is it a gateway to thievery or something?
For real. A whole fucking country infantilizing themselves. Pathetic to see bootlicking at this level.
And it’s not even a good government. I guess I could empathize, if the government was not corrupt and delivering fantastic quality services. But they’re shitting on these people, and telling them to say thank you for it.
Wow. You’re such a rebel. /s
If you want to fight authority, start by fighting against the rich assholes causing 30% of stonemasons (and others) to get silicosis. The guys making the money aren’t the ones getting sick. Help them live long enough to get justice.
Fight against the companies and rich assholes who are still giving lots of people cancer by using asbestos products to save money (and are putting asbestos in products and not declaring it). The people manufacturing this shit are getting rich, not the people installing it (or who have it installed)
And fight back by helping people live longer, so they can get justice against tabacco companies for lying to them and making shitty claims like claiming menthol cigerettes are medicinal. Companies like Vape4lyf had nothing in place to prevent sales of vapes to kids whilst starting petitions claiming they were needed for quitting smoking (10 year olds aren’t quitting). Every shitty vape company out there is basically advertising their products as safe
Do you think the execs give a shit if your kid dies? Nope, they have lawyers on retainer, and they’ve become increasingly good at fighting any lawsuits and running down the clock. Do you think they give a shit if the people around other smokers die from second hand smoke? Nope, because you can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt a specific company caused an issue. People are suffering.
Nothing says “badass” like a guy who is willing to fondle the balls of the marlboro man whilst he lies to you and dodges responsibility. Vaping is Tabacco 2.0. They’re making the exact same claims they did in the past for other products.
I’d suggest you grow a pair and stand up for people. That takes courage. It’s not bootlicking. What you’re doing is bending over for millionaires who give no fucks about you, and defending them
Prohibition never works. Even if you put an anti-corporate spin on it.
How do you figure?
Seems to be working against Asbestos companies.
And if anyone tries to cut up engineered stone onsite, it will be obvious. In fact, companies are getting actively fined. And my mate who got silicosis I’m fairly sure got a payout.
Seems to be working fine with our Gun control.
Seems to be working for lots of food items
Seems to be working for lots of things. You simply don’t realise it works, because you’re not aware of them.
If Vaping is banned, shitheads aren’t going to be vaping in public blowing smoke in our faces. And, if they’re smoking at home, people like myself can kick them out. I’m not too fussed about the ones who are respectable (I had a housemate who smoked weed, but they did it outside).
Do you really think allow free sale of highly addictive drugs like meth is a good idea? Fuck No.
You keep telling yourself you’re a badass fighting against bootlickers or whatever. But you’re actually just a pawn for the multi-billion dollar Tobacco industry
The fact that you think banning asbestos in construction is similar to prohibition is evidence your education system is fucked too.
deleted by creator
No part of my argument had anything to do with safety or health.
A person’s autonomy is their business. Leave them well alone. Their life, their path.
Or I guess alcohol doesn’t have a purpose then, and we can get rid of it too?
The fact is it impacts everyone else, the public services will have to deal with the fall out.
Everyone is really concerned, GHiLA. We think you might have an addiction. But we’re here to help. Please remember the bans are only for under 18s. You have to remember. Look at your wife, she’s dying of… asphyxiation or something. Because you keep hotboxing the bedroom.
Oh I’ve got like three at least, that I know about.
You guys are one of them.
uwu
Vaping companies like Vape4life were writing petitions on Facebook arguing that Vaping was great to help smokers stop smoking.
Meanwhile, the same dodgy companies were selling vapes to 10 year olds online (they had NOTHING in place to stop underage people buying them). What possible health use could underage people have for vapes?
Meanwhile, every vaping fuckwit around was smoking vapes illegally on trains and in heavily populated public areas. And every asshole (including my ex housemate) was vaping inside (I literally told her not to). When you told them to do it outside, they always say “vaping is just water, it’s perfectly safe”.
If you want to “eat the rich”, you should be telling Smoking companies to fuck off. They’re lying to their userbase, whilst their exec’s become wealthy millionaires. And when their clients get cancer (or the people around them get cancer), they run down the clock on the lawsuit so they don’t lose any money.
Fuck Tabacco and cigarette companies.
Also, I had some absolute wanker the other day throw a lit cigerette on my nature strip (I was amazed, and I was sitting in the car), on a hot day. I’m lucky I saw him do it and he didn’t start a grass fire (and yet, if one was started, he’d be responsible, not the tobacco company). Everyone in cigarette companies knows this happens and could provide a way to extinguish them in the box, but instead, they know people are chucking them on the ground
i have attached the photo of the guy (if anyone in Victoria happens to recognise him)
And it is super common for people to throw cigarettes out of their car, leave them on the ground, or throw their vape cartridges on the ground. Smokers and Cigerette companies had EVERY opportunity to be respectful. There might be some respectful ones, but, there are plenty who aren’t
I work tech in schools (in Australia) there are definitely tech savvy enough kids that will probably spool up their own fediverse instances
I work with tech security and once a corporate blog post I wrote got from 1,000 monthly views to 100k because kids were looking up proxy tool guides and it was for Roblox lmao
This law is incredibly illiterate
I know right. I used to be a kid who bypassed school firewalls and restrictions all the time. This is going to make no difference.
It will likely make a big difference. Freedoms being taken away day by day and we shrug it off.
“freedom” of kids and teenagers to rot their immature brains on “social media”?
freedom to be manipulated by Zuckerberg and his minions?
freedom to learn what a “real man” is from sexist assholes
freedom to develop bottomless insecurities before constructing a semblance of a “self” to get you through the grit of societies
at least they recognize the problem and … pass hopeless laws 🤷
Freedom to raise your kids, and freedom to live your life as you choose, yes. Laws aren’t needed for this. Content management should come from parents, and if websites are pushing agendas or misinformation you don’t want your child on, you should be dictating what they are viewing.
You don’t (lawfully) ban kids from parts of the library because you are worried they might read about things you don’t like, you monitor which books they are reading and tell them not to read such, or discuss why/why not those resources do not agree with or match the principles you agree with.
This is the equivalent of banning kids talking to each other at school, on the bus or at the mall/park. If a platform is pushing harmful information then block that site, or bring a suit against the site for pushing harmful information.
Edit: If you don’t want your kid on certain apps or sites you can start with things like this: https://families.google/familylink/ Don’t force it on other people with laws, I believe parents should have the choice for themselves. Apps like that allow you to block social media sites, restrict their app usage and reset passwords if needed.
You don’t (lawfully) ban kids from parts of the library because you are worried they might read about things you don’t like, y…
libraries are carefully curated. Popular “social media” of today is a shit show.
This is the equivalent of banning kids talking to each other at school, on the bus or at the mall/park.
no, it’s not “equivalent” to that at all. Are they banning messengers?
Kids in schools talk through game chat anyways. Are they banning games in Australia?
☞ “Exemptions will apply for health and education services including YouTube, Messenger Kids, WhatsApp, Kids Helpline and Google Classroom.”
this ban is not directed at kids, it’s targeting “big tech”.
So instead of demanding big tech companies monitor their broadcasts, they are banning kids from accessing them, how is that not directed at kids? It is explicitly directed at kids.
it’s illegal to sell alcohol to kids, right? Would you consider that too as “banning kids from accessing them”?
By virtue of you actually knowing what a firewall is, and participating in the conversation, on this platform, you are ahead of 99 out of 100 people.
True, but I was that one kid who showed all of my friends how to use a VPN to bypass all the restrictions as well, and then they taught their friends.
So… they banned social media for a whole 15 seconds?
Some mastodon instance has it covered already. https://eigenmagic.net/@daedalus/113519360107067092
“being angry about inaction on climate change” hahaha
That is both hilarious and a brilliant solution.
Okay, that is fucking awesome. LOL.
Papers, please!
For a second I thought the headline said Australia banned social media for 16 seconds 🤣
The ban and age verification requirements apply to pretty much all services which allow communication of information between people, unless an exemption is granted by the minister.
There is no legislated exemption for instant messaging, SMS, email, email lists, chat rooms, forums, blogs, voice calls, etc.
It’s a wildly broadly applicable piece of legislation that seems ripe to be abused in the future, just like we’ve seen with anti-terror and anti-hate-symbol legislation.
From 63C (1) of the legislation:
For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted social media platform means:
- a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:
- i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users;
- ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users;
- iii) the service allows end-users to post material on the service;
- iv) such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules; or
- b) an electronic service specified in the legislative rules; but does not include a service mentioned in subsection (6).
Here’s all the detail of what the bill is and the concerns raised in parliament.
It’s a good thing we wiped out covid and will never need students to use Zoom again!
Oh, wait
- a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:
