Australia bans social media for under 16s

The second i have to hand over my id to a tech company is the second i leave and never come back.

Also how they gonna manage the fediverse? Can someone get fined for providing social media to themselves if an under 16 sets up their own federated instance?

performative nonsense which does nothing for kids or their mental health and harms queer kids who lose one of the first places they can find community.

This is just abstinence education all over again

I always wear a confom when I log into Facebook, so I should be safe

Now ban it for over 16s

People should be allowed to do as they please. I think, however, people should be presented with all the potential risks in very clear language if they're going to, in the same way a pack of cigarettes has a warning, access to social media should present similar disclaimers.

Not a bad idea all things considered

Another way to look at this is a back channel method of breaking down the big tech oligopoly.

I'm all for this. Kids are smart. They start using the rest of the internet. They'll become tech savvy.

Now ban parents posting pictures of their children under 16.

I DGAF about your kids.

Yeah I agree with you on this. It'll protect them from the being de-clothed using AI as well. I understand wanting to share moments with your family because kids grow up fast but sharing it with these companies as an intermediary is not a good idea. Sadly I don't have a solution for them aside from setting up a decentralized social network like Pixelfed or Frendica but that requires skill and patience.

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

Obviously there are workarounds, but I suppose it provides a good justification for parents to deny their kids access to social media.

Papers, please!

the rules are expected to apply to the likes of Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok, per the Prime Minister.

Sites used for education, including YouTube, would be exempt, as are messaging apps like WhatsApp.

The law does not require users to upload government IDs as part of the verification process.

Sounds like a pretty weak law. It will require a birthday when creating an account and accounts under the age of 16 will be restricted/limited. As a result users (people under 16) will lie about their age.

Companies don't like this because it messes with their data collection. If they collect data that proves an account is under 16 they will be required to make them limited/restricted. However they obviously collect this data already.

I wonder if Facebook and other apps will add/push education elements in order to become exempt.

The law does not require users to upload government IDs as part of the verification process.

No, it merely requires the sites to provide an alternative, such as face scanning using a mobile phone unlock. Using a computer ? Then you'll have hand over your ID.

The law also explicitly gives sites the right to onsell private information if its outlined in the terms of agrrement.
- Re verification per AP,
  
  The amendments passed on Friday bolster privacy protections. Platforms would not be allowed to compel users to provide government-issued identity documents including passports or driver’s licenses, nor could they demand digital identification through a government system.
  
  So it sounds like an ID will not be a requirement.
  
  I suppose a face scan is possible, but I find it unlikely. Obviously if it heads in that direction then the law should be amended to clarify that is also not acceptable.
  
  In terms of selling information I assume that just clarifies the status quo and isn't new. Not that that makes it acceptable, it just means that's something to tackle.
Any stonger, and they wander into China "Great Firewall" territory.

Lets not make every country into an authoritarian shithole.
- Oh I agree. I wouldn't want a stronger law. I'm just not too concerned with this one. I think if there are concerns with social media we should discuss how to solve them for everyone.
  
  We generally say 16-21 you are an adult so fuck it, whatever happens to you is your fault and ignore the predatory nature of organizations.
  
  We should outline the specific concerns and determine what, if any, steps we can take.
  
  As an example, gambling. I think it's fair and reasonable to allow gambling. I think ensuring gambling isn't predatory is a reasonable limitation. I expect for most people it isn't a problem but I think providing help to gambling addicts is also reasonable. Social media should be viewed through a similar lens.
I wonder if Facebook and other apps will add/push education elements in order to become exempt.

I doubt it, and if they do, they'll classify a whole bunch of nonsense as educational content in order to do so, e.g. religious content as science.
- I mean YouTube has educational content, but that is far from its primary purpose. Assuming YouTube is completely unrestricted it wouldn't be hard for Facebook to add enough content to be arguably educational.
  
  Hell plenty of people use TikTok for educational reasons. I'm not saying it's right, but you could argue TikTok is educational in the same way you can argue YouTube is educational.
  
  Now if YouTube is forced to classify it's educational content the same way they classify children's content (aka poorly), maybe that'll work.

China Video Game Ban v2.0: Electric Boogaloo

Parents should be parenting, not delegate their responsibilities to a nanny state.

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.
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.
- Solution is to fund a social safety net, not ban social media.
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.

I work tech in schools (in Australia) there are definitely tech savvy enough kids that will probably spool up their own fediverse instances

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.
- 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.
- It will likely make a big difference. Freedoms being taken away day by day and we shrug it off.

Only for 16 seconds? Why?

teen go to website

please enter your birthdate

1/1/2000

welcome!

Lawyer sues tech company

But we asked for the birthday

Lawyer points to law text

Company fined
- I don't see many options between asking for a birthdate and asking for ID for this problem. I don't see any way that this can be enforced that isn't problematic.

One way to implement this: https://chinwag.au/verification/

Now everyone gets to hand over their ids to the tech companies.

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
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

Some mastodon instance has it covered already. https://eigenmagic.net/@daedalus/113519360107067092

That is both hilarious and a brilliant solution.
Okay, that is fucking awesome. LOL.

Eh, I don't think this is the best solution.

The assumption is as soon as you turn 17 you're smart enough and have the critical thinking skills to navigate social media without it negatively affecting you? Kinda dumb.

There could be an argument that at least try to block it while young peoples brains are still developing, maybe there's benefit in that.

Older people than 16 are still duped by propaganda, and become addicted to social media, and all the negative consequences.

What we need is regulation imo. Good, smart, progressive, altruistic regulation that is for the benefit of all. Ain't gonna happen though, because sOcIaLiSm and "mUh FrEeDoMs".

The older generations always think the younger generations are lazy and lesser. They don't believe they can parent because they know how shit they were at parenting. So they are voting to take away parental rights and give those rights to the government. And then say they are pro small government.
Yeah, there are adults (in both my generation and the previous one) who have fewer critical thinking skills than today's teens and young adults. This feels like a band-aid solution to avoid actually fixing the problems of (1) not teaching critical thinking and logic and (2) the toxic content, misinformation and disinformation on these platforms (I recognise the second one is much harder whilst trying to preserve security and privacy as well).

So what? There will be a "Yes I'm over 16" check box which will be as meaningful as the "Yes I'm over 18" one on porn sites?

Any hope of governments or social media sites enforcing this will come with big ethical and technical compromises and I dont think anyone is actually going to really bother.

We already have limits on what children do with other potentially harmful things like fire, sharp objects, heights and roads and they all come from parents. If this law has any real and positive impact it will be the message that it sends to parents.

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.

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.
- No, they're gonna download "free vpns" and get infected with malware and turn their device into part of a bot net.
  
  Or use Tor and end up finding things worse than just "social media".
  
  Are the government gonna ban those too?
  
  Congrats, you now live in China where the all benevolent government have 24/7 surveillance to keep you safe.
- Well unless they go for free vpns and get data mined to the moon and back... Which is a far worse outcome imo.
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.
- Kids accessing social media shouldn't be treated as a crime.
  
  The future of such restriction is:
  
  Exhibit A: People's Republic of China and the "Great Firewall"
  
  Nope, lets not go there.
- 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.
Us right now are on a service that's totally going to follow this law. /s

Then I read that chat apps and YouTube would not be banned, and scoffed

Literally chat apps are social media. You can post stories and pump memes and news. You can even have bots that scrape and post content. YouTube is just a matter of checking a box whether it's "for kids" and they already do that. Basically the whole thing is stupid

Not a bad choice.

So.... they banned social media for a whole 15 seconds?

Now ban everyone else (except Lemmy of course).

Imagine if this was done around the world. And then imagine how empty the Internet would be.

You don't need to ban kids from the Internet. You need to ban pedophiles from it.

The damage to children’s lives done by social media is catastrophic.
- "Guns don't kill people, social media does!"
  
  -America Under Project 2025
- And "banning children", wait, I mean forcing every adult to verify who they say they are online accomplishes what?
  
  Oh, that's right, a massive tracking database for any bad actor to use.
  
  If your children get into shit, it's your fault for not raising them right. I got into some shit as a kid, and had friends that got into more/less shit.
  
  I watched those fuckups raise their kids, and they learned from their own childhood experience and chose to guide their children how to use the internet properly. To understand how it works, the risks, etc.
  
  You can't bubble wrap the world. The idiots (myself included) will always find a way around such safetyism, and in the process you'll be harming everyone else.
- People used to say the same thing about video games. And movies. And even books.
I strongly disagree.

Social media is terrible for mental health especially for the youth. Phones and tablets help in some areas like motor control development but also hurt other places like attention deficiencies and critical thinking, and very rarely does it lead to a kid learning how technology works (that's usually from the computer nerds, aka kids who want a computer, doesn't happen even close to the same rate as smart phones.

Smart phones make people dumb. That's my opinion. But the above are scientifically backed.
- Then parents need to stop using such things as babysitters.
  
  And parents also need to get up in arms about lazy "educators" using tech to make their job easier (instead of making learning more effective, which is the bullshit argument that's always used).
- 100% agree. These things get talked up as benefits when they are mostly treated as revenue streams by the seller and distractions by the buyer. Kids and adults. We all need to be way more critical of the tech we use.
You need to raise kids better instead of delegating that job to the internet.
We can't rely on the assholes running these site to ban pedophiles. They'd endorse a pedophile president if they thought it would give them less taxes/regulations.

This is a prudent move, we've only seen the very beginnings if the sorts of indoctrination and manipulation our kids might be subjected to.

Never thought I'd sound this way, but i can no longer ignore reality.