Social Media Ban for under 16s

just-human on 07/11/2024 - 19:10
Last edited 07/11/2024 - 19:45

The Australian Government is considering implementing a blanket social media ban for under 16s. This would involve using un-tested age verification technology and could expose users of social media platforms to privacy and data breaches.

Link to ABC article.

I think that it should be up to parents to decide when using social media suits their child. It seems ridiculous that we are trying to rush through legislation when we haven't tested the technology to support it. It also seems pretty extreme that we might have to verify our ID to sign up for social media platforms, especially when age verification technology has not been successfully implemented anywhere.

Edit: Here is the list of social media platforms I found on the Guardian article: BeReal, Facebook Messenger, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat, Steam, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Discord, Signal, Pinterest, WhatsApp and Telegram.

The list could be more but, interestingly, Signal, Whatsapp, and Telegram are on there. These are platforms that use end-to-end encryption that the government will now have linked to your ID if these laws go through.

Do you support the social media ban?

Poll Options Fri, 15/11/2024 - 00:00

  • 112
    Yes, I support it
  • 55
    No, I do not support it
  • 5
    Maybe, I think we should wait for more info
Internet

Comments

  • pegaxs on 07/11/2024 - 19:21
    +22

    I've seen the quality of comments over on the "tRuMp WoN!1!!! cRy hArDeR LeFtiEz!1!!" thread and seriously think the "social media ban" age limit should be lifted to about 80.

    • Gervais fanboy on 07/11/2024 - 19:39
      +2

      cRy hArDeR LeFtiEz!1!!" thread

      Two immature comments = the whole thread??
      Got it šŸ‘šŸ»

    • nobro25 on 07/11/2024 - 21:43
      -7

      Lefties: The election was stolen from Kamala Harris.
      Trump: I missed the part where that's my problem… Gonna cry?!?

    • Murkymerv on 07/11/2024 - 21:49
      +6

      while the US election was on , your Australian government was/is trying to put a ban "misinformation laws" on social media through parliament . Oh' , did you mention that the government bodies are exempt from from this legislation .
      Enjoy your censorship Australia āœ…

      • Charity on 08/11/2024 - 00:23
        +1

        Australians, in general, sadly donā€™t rate freedom highly on their needs. ā€œFreedumbā€ probably can be found in these posts. With this mentality, itā€™s hard to not think about moving in the long term. Nothing can possibly get better when most people mock freedom. šŸ˜¢

        • Gervais fanboy on 08/11/2024 - 00:32
          +1

          Itā€™s much easier for people to attack you or what the op is saying than question the nanny state.
          Modern day people like the feeling of a big government casting a supposed safety net around them.

          • Charity on 08/11/2024 - 00:39
            +1

            @Gervais fanboy: Weirder yet, these are the sorts of people that believe Trump bad, Putin bad, China bad, Libs or Labor bad - and simultaneously think government always good and it's wrong for anyone to question them!

            • Gervais fanboy on 08/11/2024 - 00:42

              @Charity: Yeah I agree but we donā€™t have to get into those unrelated topics right now.
              Thereā€™s nothing you and I can say that will change peopleā€™s minds.

              Seeing the overwhelming support for such a draconian policy, itā€™s best to just give up.
              Btw I am very impressed by the op and how he has presented his arguments.

  • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 19:24
    +13

    I feel like this is just a way for the government to introduce Digital ID. It feels very weird that Australians are okay with submitting their Passport or Driver's License to use Facebook or Twitter (or X). People can disagree, but no matter how strong the security, data leaks will happen and even if they don't, we're giving the government the ability to link any social media account with a person.

    On top of that saying "that's illegal" hasn't and won't stop kids from using social media. All it will teach them is how to use a VPN.

    • bargaino on 07/11/2024 - 20:00
      +4

      I was around in the early days of the Internet, when it was normal to have your real name, work email and phone number on every post.
      It was a hell of a lot more civilised, like real life.

      Anonymity has its uses, but turns people into arseholes.

      All it will teach them is how to use a VPN.

      That applies to some internet censorship, including attempts to block file-sharing and porn. But big social media is different. Look at how the government was able to collect GST on online shopping. The big guys like Aliexpress and Ebay can be regulated. Same with social media - they only need to regulate the major platforms. It can be done.

      • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 20:03
        +2

        Regulating GST is a bit easier than this. You are realistically sending your items to an Australian address so that can easily be checked. Even if ID verification can be done effectively (which I doubt), the question is should it be done?

        Do we really want an Australia where we are linking our ID to Signal or Telegram or Instagram?

        • bargaino on 07/11/2024 - 20:11
          +2

          It is certainly a challenge. But I don't think it is impossible. As a parent, I have had to face these issues, and it is scary. Social media can be toxic even to an old fart. Regulation does not have to be perfect. And there are plenty of examples where "linking" preserves privacy. Brilliant people have been working on this for a long time. Look at how MyGov partitions information, in a way that can be inconvenient.
          I know people who work in government healthcare IT, and they take privacy very seriously.

          • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 20:14

            @bargaino: That's true but there's always the potential to create a backdoor and this will just make it easier for them to do so. It is just weird they would include things like Whatsapp or Telegram.

            • bargaino on 07/11/2024 - 20:27

              @just-human: I think you are reading too much into that list from The Guardian. Obviously it is not practical to regulate messaging apps like whatsapp and Signal. Try to focus on what can be done.
              Places like Reddit, Youtube comments and Twitter can clearly be toxic, and justify regulation in the same way as tobacco or alcohol. We can't control everything, and any restrictions are very difficult. But that doesn't mean we do nothing - the stakes are too high.

              • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 20:48
                +3

                @bargaino: As a young person, I see things differently. It depends on what the cost of the control is. Regulating alcohol just means training people to check IDs on the spot. No real, central record of anything important. Social media on the other hand is a different story.

                We live our lives on the internet from simple things like keeping in touch with friends to sharing our secrets on the internet. I believe the solution isn't to take away the privacy that we very much take for granted, but to empower and educate parents. At the end of the day they will be exposed to the internet, wouldn't it be better if we taught them how to use it properly rather than banning it and putting people's privacy at risk?

                • Ughhh on 07/11/2024 - 21:10

                  @just-human:

                  We live our lives on the internet from simple things like keeping in touch with friends to sharing our secrets on the internet.

                  You've pretty much confirmed why social media should be banned for <16yos. You can't live a day without your phone. Don't know how to communicate in person.

                  Many adults before you did well without social media. You'll live.

                  I believe the solution isn't to take away the privacy that we very much take for granted

                  Lol so worried about privacy, but fine with social media.

                  • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 21:19
                    +3

                    @Ughhh: I am over 18+ but I was a child at one point and I did fine with social media being there.

                    Lol so worried about privacy, but fine with social media.

                    Privacy from the government is very different. Would you genuinely be comfortable with the government being able to instantly link any post, text, or status to an identity? Even worse, if that information was leaked, would you want a hacker to be able to make that link?

                  • donga100 on 07/11/2024 - 23:25
                    +1

                    @Ughhh:

                    You've pretty much confirmed why social media should be banned for <16yos. You can't live a day without your phone. Don't know how to communicate in person. Many adults before you did well without social media. You'll live.

                    I know, right?! Why doesn't the government just ban the entire internet and mobile phones? Save some money on upgrading NBN to speeds that nobody needs anyway. /s

                • blitz on 07/11/2024 - 21:14

                  @just-human:

                  training people to check IDs on the spot. No real, central record of anything important.

                  Where do these IDs come from? They are stored somewhere, you know. My drivers licence is stored somewhere. My other ID cards, too.

                  • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 21:20
                    +3

                    @blitz: The ID being there and being linked to what you do online is very different.

                • DashCam AKA Rolts on 07/11/2024 - 21:15

                  @just-human:

                  Regulating alcohol just means training people to check IDs on the spot. No real, central record of anything important.

                  You may be surprised that some venues will scan your ID and store them; no scan, no entry.

                  • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 21:20

                    @DashCam AKA Rolts: Personally haven't seen that myself but that is interesting. That's more of a private business's choice rather than a government mandate.

                    • Protractor on 07/11/2024 - 21:55
                      -1

                      @just-human: Who do you think made it legal , or more to the point allow it to be done?

                      • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 21:56
                        +2

                        @Protractor: Making it legal ā‰  mandating it. If the government allowed social media companies to check ID that would be one thing. Mandating it is another.

                • Hardlyworkin on 07/11/2024 - 21:34
                  +2

                  @just-human: The kids that need it the most may not have parents capable of wanting to be educated. Have you met people?!

                  • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 21:45
                    +4

                    @Hardlyworkin: Maybe, but at the end of the day, our digital privacy is very valuable. I don't see this ban as an argument of whether children under 16 should be on social media or not (I personally don't see a need for them to be). I see this as an issue of implementation. Again, EVERY social media user will need to verify their ID and link our accounts which would allow the government to effectively see every social media you have and link whatever you say to you.

                    I think this legislation is surveillance disguised as protecting children. Even the government admits the ban will have limited effectiveness.

                • Protractor on 07/11/2024 - 21:53

                  @just-human: "empower and educate parents."

                  You'd need to do some serious 'un-cooking' first, but I respect your optimism.

                  • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 21:55
                    +2

                    @Protractor: That's just one potential solution that doesn't infringe on our privacy. At the end of the day what the government is proposing is a solution that infringes on our digital anonymity without solving the actual problem.

    • Protractor on 07/11/2024 - 21:42

      "I feel like this is just a way for the government to introduce Digital ID"

      That sure would clean up the swamp (to paraphrase). Imagine the ripple effect. Maybe the govt can tax online anonymity.
      Pretty sure ppl would cough up to keep their Ninja outfits on.

    • Cobalt_ on 07/11/2024 - 22:03
      +4

      This is 100% the trojan horse to force people into using Digital ID. How else can they possibly enforce the ban without everyone having to register with the government.The simple fact is we do not need the government to regulate internet use for children. Parental control systems already exist in Android, Apple OS's and MS Windows. IF parents want to stop their children from accessing certain apps and sites they can already do so.

  • CyberMurning on 07/11/2024 - 19:26

    totally agree

  • ihfree on 07/11/2024 - 19:29
    +6

    I think it's good keeping kids off social media. Social media is hugely problematic. Every time you use it you basically battle a computer wanting to keep your attention. This often leads to more extreme content.

    However, I'm not sure how age verification would work and I think it could be another law to reduce public participation(by adults) in forums.

    Personally, if sites like Reddit start asking for ID, I'll start using a VPN. The next question is to what degree the government will enforce it.

  • fantombloo on 07/11/2024 - 19:30
    +2

    we are trying to rush through legislation when we haven't tested the technology to support it

    Conversely, waves of social media have been rushed through (mostly profit seeking) and we haven't tested the long term effects.

    • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 19:33
      +1

      True, but one of those things doesn't fundamentally affect our privacy and anonymity online. Despite its many setbacks, social media has allowed us to express our ideas, connect with new people, and be a platform for advocacy and change.

      The only benefit I can see from this law is it will allow people to say "that's illegal" and teach kids how to use VPNs.

      • fantombloo on 07/11/2024 - 19:34

        one of those things doesn't fundamentally affect our privacy and anonymity online

        The drivers know exactly who you are, and more.

        I'm not necessarily in favor of a ban, but it seems we have rushed into something we know very little about but is very consequential. Some sort of regulation would be healthy - not necessarily hard rules but at least some good policy.

        • CyberMurning on 07/11/2024 - 19:53
          +1

          we know very little about.

          What you need to know more? Every sane person know it has zero benefit. Does it make us healthy?

          • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 20:06
            +2

            @CyberMurning:

            Every sane person knows it has zero benefit.

            I feel like that's a big generalisation. A lot of people benefit from the ability to share information freely and at a low cost. Everything has its harms, social media included but we often overlook the good. Without it I wouldn't be able to keep in touch with family overseas, friends in different cities, or access information nearly as quickly.

      • harshbdmmaster718 on 07/11/2024 - 20:10

        and teach kids how to use VPNs.

        I don't think so. they will just download the top free result that isn't Tiktok or the one with the most colourful app icon.

  • rw on 07/11/2024 - 19:32
    +3

    VPN sales to go up

  • bobbified on 07/11/2024 - 19:33
    -1

    Social Media only available from age 16 to protect kids, but they're willing to shove all this transgender/sexual stuff down primary school kids' throats!

    • Mike444 on 07/11/2024 - 20:38
      +2

      Sexual stuff? You mean like sex education?

    • 7ekn00 on 07/11/2024 - 22:08
      -1

      Nah it's far more ironic than that :P

      Social Media only from age 16 BUT Online censorship for everybody just to PROTECT THE KIDS (but I thought the kids were banned!) ;)

    • soan papdi on 07/11/2024 - 22:14
      +2

      Social Media only available from age 16 to protect kids, but they're willing to shove all this transgender/sexual stuff down primary school kids' throats!

      By the time kids reach grade 5, they have already learnt a lot from just their friends. It's better we get ahead and present the same information in a safe environment. Sex education is vital in the later primary school age.

      • El cheepo on 08/11/2024 - 01:19

        I agree, Young kids need sexual education thatā€™s relevant to them and helps in keeping them safe.

        They donā€™t need to be taught/ told they can identify as a non binary Persian cat and encouraged to do so.

        Thats just grooming of a different variety IMO.
        It is plain wrong to try to influence childrenā€™s sexuality with that crap and frankly, messed up.

  • spackbace on 07/11/2024 - 19:35
    +3

    But how far will it extend? Xbox live chat etc?

    Yes, it's problematic, but most people here probably grew up with some form of chat, even ICQ and MSN messenger, unless you're over the age of 45 or so, so we've grown up with it ourselves.

  • freefall101 on 07/11/2024 - 19:36
    +2

    It's such a pass the parcel of responsibility on this. Parents complain about their kids to the government, government pushes the responsibility to social media companies, social media companies will blame the verification processes when they inevitably don't work and we'll all blame the kids for bypassing the protection rules we put in place for them.

    Start making it mandatory for parents to have training in social media, device OS's, VPNs and network management. That'd probably at least give them the tools to raise their children.

    • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 19:40
      +1

      I agree, there's always finger-pointing and not enough accountability. This is what leads to our freedoms being taken away. At the end of the day, a ban has never worked anywhere it has been trialled. If anything I think we will have situations where children are more likely to hide social media behind parents' backs and lead to more cases where they can feel vulnerable.

  • Gervais fanboy on 07/11/2024 - 19:40
    +12

    Not a big fan of kids using social media either but that decision should lie with the parents and not the government.

    • Loot N Plunder on 07/11/2024 - 19:52
      +6

      Its like getting caught riding without a helmet and its the bike manufactures fault
      No responsibility on the child or guardian what a joke

      • Gervais fanboy on 07/11/2024 - 19:55
        +1

        Canā€™t remember the last time I heard someone discussing our societal inadequacies as a whole but instead itā€™s another instance of big government getting even bigger.

  • brendanm on 07/11/2024 - 19:42
    +7

    Government wants your social media accounts linked to an ID, then they can prosecute you for wrongthink using their new esafety laws.

    I also hate kids using social media, so I just don't allow it.

  • harshbdmmaster718 on 07/11/2024 - 19:46
    +3

    have to verify our ID to sign up for social media platforms,

    isn't it just the big ones? FB, Insta, Youtube, etc.

    maybe it's good to have the list in the post.

    when I was younger I wanted to be different and just went to app store and used some random unpopular free ones that all said something like "chat, post photos with people in your area". it was filled with #%@! weirdos. either trying really hard to pretend to be high on meth or were actually doing it.

    so isn't blocking the major ones going to push young people to use all these random free ones with no censorship made by some dodgy companies?

    • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 19:47
      +1

      I actually just was looking for a list and added it to the post as you commented. It isn't comprehensive but I linked the source as well. It's not just Facebook, it's platforms like Signal and Telegram that raise alarm bells.

      • harshbdmmaster718 on 07/11/2024 - 19:48

        okay thanks. I didn't know the complete list either.

        tbh I don't think blocking it will work. it has never worked such as downloading movies before they hit stream. people in countries like russia get the new release movies before the rest of the world and upload it to somewhere. I watched the Kim.com documentary, when they take down one upload site another one pops up. and some people still download movies right now.

        my point is lets say some kind of unpopular unknown chinese app called BAUBAU or something starts getting used by everyone. suddenly that app is going to become big and makes heaps of money, and they will probably design it just like Tiktok. and theres another one specific for videos like YT. then you are back at the start. it's no different to how it is now. users will move to something else that allows it. same thing happened during that big reddit outage. even I did it, I searched "[subreddit category] forum" on google and I signed up saying "hey I came from reddit".

  • plmko on 07/11/2024 - 19:48
    +3

    It's responsible for homogenisation of US culture into all other Western societies, absolutely killing the unique Australian language and ways.

    Any benefits to Society is worth the loss now before further rot sets in.

    • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 19:51
      +1

      While I agree, I feel like that's not just because of social media, but more of a connected and globalised world. Social media has its negatives but it has so many positives too, and a lot of that has been because of the ability to freely speak with little limitation.

      I feel like sometimes we simply trust that our government will never turn against us but that is a dangerous assumption to make. We should make sure that even if the government wants to spy on us, they have few tools to do so.

  • djsweet on 07/11/2024 - 19:55
    +7

    In principle yes, we need to protect kids from social media. It is insidious and awful. The devil will be in the details implementation wise.

    • Gervais fanboy on 07/11/2024 - 19:56
      +3

      Wouldnā€™t be surprised if this is another one of those Trojan Horse regulations

    • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 19:58
      +2

      Yeah, I think kids under 16 not being on social media would be fine. My issue is the way they're planning to implement it. If this goes through one day we will have a pop-up that says "Link your MyGovID to continue using Instagram" and that is not what I want this country to be.

  • AustriaBargain on 07/11/2024 - 20:05

    Trump has proven there's no need to use social media anonymously. He's said and done everything that should get a man cancelled, but he's POTUS again. If this stops kids bullying other kids to suicide and absorbing Andrew Tate like a toxic sponge, then maybe it has some merits. Maybe it doesn't, I dunno, I'm not a policy maker of ethicist or whatever.

  • altomic on 07/11/2024 - 20:07
    +3

    This would totally work. Just like the australian government blocked torrent file-sharing. Totally worked.

  • Some Human on 07/11/2024 - 20:27
    +1

    Age verification technology such as the one used in Leisure Suit Larry?

    • bargaino on 07/11/2024 - 20:32

      You may mock, but LLL is still the Gold Standard.

  • Naiht on 07/11/2024 - 20:29
    +2

    Is OzBargain gonna ban under 16s?

    • JimmyF on 07/11/2024 - 21:33
      +2

      The only way to ban under 16yo, is for every member to provide their ID to prove they OVER 16……. Think about that for a bit.

  • Tiredman on 07/11/2024 - 20:38
    -1

    Yep. Full support.

  • Dollar General on 07/11/2024 - 20:51
    +2

    Won't somebody think of the children

  • JaymeRyan on 07/11/2024 - 21:11
    +2

    Wouldn't Ozbargain fall under the ban? Could it be considered a form of social media? it has private chats, etc?

    • JimmyF on 07/11/2024 - 21:31
      +1

      Yep! So when all the under 16 folk to the latest chat site like this one they have found, the gov will add it to the list, so every ozbargain member will have to pony up ID to prove they are not under 16 to continue using it.

  • morse on 07/11/2024 - 21:14

    Pretty supportive of regulation and maybe a ban. However Iā€™m not entirely sure what is defined as ā€˜social mediaā€™. Are we talking youtube? At the moment mine is little so we watch it together, but later Iā€™d expect he uses it educationally perhaps with some parental controls and tracking. Over time sites and apps are going to change too and many are educationally or appropriately entertaining. Drawing the line is going to be tough.

  • JimmyF on 07/11/2024 - 21:29
    +3

    The Australian Government is considering implementing a blanket social media ban for under 16s. This would involve using un-tested age verification technology and could expose users of social media platforms to privacy and data breaches.

    What most people realise who support this stupid ban, is that it is a prove you are OVER 16 years old to use the service, regardless of your age.

    Every adult is going to have to pony up some gov ID to prove they are not under 16yo to use the service. This isn't like buying booze that if you look under 30, they ask you for ID. This would be like every time you buy booze, you have to show your ID to prove you are not under 18.

    Plus will be expanded to many other sites, so now the gov has a gov id linked to your usage. Think porn sites!!

    It's totally unacceptable! Can't believe I'll say this, but I'll vote libs if Labour make this a policy and libs say they'll remove it.

    • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 21:30
      +2

      The problem is the Liberals are on board with this too :(

      • JimmyF on 07/11/2024 - 21:32
        +3

        Yeah its a backdoor policy to a bigger picture…. 1984 here we come!

        • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 21:36
          +2

          It's very disappointing that they're trying to rush it though parliament as well.

        • Protractor on 07/11/2024 - 21:47
          +1

          We passed 1984 long before 1984. Eyes wide open.

  • tempco on 07/11/2024 - 21:56
    -1

    Asking parents to just get better at parenting is a cop out - parents donā€™t have the backing of hundreds of billions of dollars that social media companies do. Governments are stepping in to provide support and regulation in order to work towards whatā€™s good for society.

    • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 21:58
      +2

      Sure but I think there needs to be some accountability. Regardless, this doesn't solve the actual issue, and the government admits this. It does however infringe on our privacy just so people can now say "that's illegal".

    • Protractor on 07/11/2024 - 22:02
      -2

      "whatā€™s good for society."

      bUt FreeDoM of sPeEcH

      • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 22:53
        +2

        Freedom of speech is good for society?

        I think many of us take for granted the fact we can say what we want for the most part. If China decided to say "Passports will be required to access messaging platforms", we would immediately assume that they want to prevent speech.

        • Protractor on 07/11/2024 - 23:47

          Do you see the first word in the sentence? "but".

          Social medias potential has been been ruined by dressing up hate speech as free speech.

          Just consider for a minute that govts responsibility is to not only protect current cohorts of children, but to signal they give a shit about the future , and that means what the young are exposed defines them as adults. Ergo, look around you. How's it all going? Would you say that there's a glut of kindness in the world around you? Even if the smallest % of social media is toxic, it's dominating the actual world we end up living in.If you can't see that. you're not looking. Should govts just let the vested interests suck the goodwill of the majority dry fiscally and socially?

          The first comment in this thread nailed it.

          • just-human on 08/11/2024 - 01:09

            @Protractor: Iā€™m not saying social media isnā€™t toxic but at the end of the day thatā€™s not what this legislation is REALLY about.

            The government admits, along with experts, that children can and will circumvent this, yet they chose to implement it anyways.

            The question remains, are we willing to give up our privacy and freedoms to let the government pass what will be a highly ineffective policy? The answer should be a flat NO.

            Social medias potential has been been ruined by dressing up hate speech as free speech.

            Again, I think that some hate speech should not be justification to prevent people from using social media. Any medium of communication has a potential for hate speech. By the same logic we should ban protesting because people have said hateful things. Itā€™s a lot better to have open speech where some people say hateful things than no free speech at all.

  • meowbert on 07/11/2024 - 22:12
    +3

    Banning is stupid because it's impossible to enforce.

  • iridiumstem on 07/11/2024 - 22:20
    +4

    Because banning something has always worked in the past.

    Kids will find a way to circumvent it if they want to. If anything, I bet it would make it more difficult for parents to track their children's usage.

    • Protractor on 07/11/2024 - 23:50

      Some kids. The **really* smart ones (with smart = intelligent and thoughtful) are ones who won't. They are the genes we need going fwd.
      People whinged about seat-belts back in the 1960's too.

      Was dioxin ever banned?

      • iridiumstem on 08/11/2024 - 00:29

        I think the problem is, the ones who would likely not engage in social media unsafely would be the ones that I would assume jave better parental supports. Teaching kids how to be safe online needs insight on what's currently going on and more importantly resources (i.e. I think it would be very difficult for parents who are working full time who also has to take care of the household activities, to have enough time and energy to really teach their kids how to be safe online).

        Intelligent and being thoughtful is a by-product of the environment and genes. You can have the best genes in the world, but if your parents beat you up, neglect you or just not give you the environment to spread your wings, you wouldn't be able to grow. How would you be able to develop the space and skills to think things out and through, if you are in survival mode all the time? So in that sense, kids who are vulnerable to negative influences of social media are the ones who would probably engage in the social media in a negative manner.

        Also as with banning social media… I don't think it would work. Kids in general want to be in their social circle. There is a reason why we say humans are social animals, with social interactions almost being considered a need or at the very least, a huge predictor for a lot of health issues. They are not idiots, circumventing bans via VPN, etc etc, those things can easily be done via googling and when there is a will, there is normally a way.

  • PopCounty on 07/11/2024 - 22:21
    +2

    Whether or not this gets implemented, the Social platforms would at least have to think to enforce some security for kids.
    They are just money making powerhouses for now.

  • elgrande on 07/11/2024 - 22:26
    +4

    Not going to lie, I agree with OP that this is just a backwards way to get our identification linked to our online profiles.

    If the headline announcement was that you will need to show your passport to watch youtube, there would be outrage. Because its framed as an under 16 ban, no one cares - but the outcome is the same.

  • iridiumstem on 07/11/2024 - 22:39
    +3

    Just wanted to add, some of the George Orwellian stuff that's been mentioned here has happened back at my home country.

    We have the government frequently blocking pornography websites (Not a tech savvy person, but I heard any websites on their database automatically redirects to http://www.warning.or.kr from ISP side), we have a resident registeration number that has your age attached to it etc (South Korea). South Korea doesn't have a porn industry because the government banned it (only softcore pornography).

    What ended up happening is that people circumvented government's implementation. I think Koreans were one of the biggest consumers of pornography in the world. These type of regulation, only thing it does is, it stops any discussions around it.

    • Charity on 08/11/2024 - 00:55

      it stops any discussions…

      Bingo. That's the real idea.

  • MikeHuntSchmelz on 07/11/2024 - 22:52
    +1

    And how will this help with the high cost of living and housing crisis? Can we get some laws passed to help with that as well?

    • Protractor on 07/11/2024 - 23:52

      And zap!, the right wing Trump campaign has lobbed right on cue.
      Which bridge are you living under and when was the last time you ate?

  • donga100 on 07/11/2024 - 23:50
    +1

    Albo and Dutton are scared about kids being on social media but I'm actually far more scared about old people being on social media.

    • Gervais fanboy on 07/11/2024 - 23:51

      Albo and Dutton are scared about kids being on social media

      They are not

  • rickdwp on 08/11/2024 - 00:02
    +3

    Social media is bad, it has not done anything but make the world a worse and angrier place, amplifying and hateful rhetoric. I'd love for it to be banned, but that's just not a possibility and I do not have any trust any of those in power now or in the future to stop at Social media.

    We already see this in the USA with states that having government digital IDs to access porn. Australia had Tony Abbott and Scott Morrison in power, both religious to varying degrees - It's far too likely we would see any digital ID based access extended to bullshit and will just turn into "But I have nothing to hide" and "The leopards won't eat MY face"

    Also, where exactly does 'Social Media' start and end? Is YouTube social media? Is Reddit? Is OZbargain? Are forums? Online games? Steam?

    This is classic "Sounds good in theory" but is utterly stupid and woeful in practice and EVERY SINGLE time these laws end up being completely misused and applied for things outside the original intent. For example the "Fixated persons unit" stalking a media producer, or "drug search" powers being used for dirty cops to feel up kids or meta-data laws, list goes on. It's always the same thing, you give power, it gets completely misused but you will never reign that power back in. If government is using "But won't someone think of the children!!" as justification you should be as skeptical as all hell.

  • Charity on 08/11/2024 - 01:01

    Plot twist. Someone sinister uses YOUR DIGITAL ID and posts "wrong" ideas and visits "wrong" sites.

    But that couldn't happen, right??

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join