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 expired

  • 800
    Yes, I support it
  • 382
    No, I do not support it
  • 36
    Maybe, I think we should wait for more info
Internet

Comments

  • McMaferMur on 07/11/2024 - 19:26

    totally agree

    • RiseAndRuin on 08/11/2024 - 09:56

      I assume you're happy to share your personal id documents and details with all those app providers, just to prove you're allowed to access them. What could go wrong with that…

      • ricadam on 11/11/2024 - 16:19

        I'd be more than happy to provide my identification to a government run service like MyGov, Digital ID or similar. Then to link my ID to a social media service with them only sharing de-identified security keys between each other to validate my identity to use a social media service.

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

    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.

    • ozb1ozb2ozb3 on 08/11/2024 - 16:56
      -1

      A likely pattern they might use already exists. For example, signing on to a third party website using your Facebook/Google credentials. Here the identity provider (Facebook/Google) will provide relevant info to the third party to inform them who you are, but will not share authentication details with them.
      Its likely Government will create a similar identity service. On login to Insta, identity service will inform it of user's age. Add on top MFA, this should be reasonably secure.

      Or possibly AI based facial pattern match to guess someone's age. It could become very accurate in a short period of time.

      Or a combination of both or something else, then you have got a reasonably accurate mechanism to monitor it.

      All of it sounds like an Orwellian nightmare but that is a conversation we should probably have in 20 years from now :-)

  • fantombloo on 07/11/2024 - 19:30
    +9

    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
      +2

      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
        +1

        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.

        • McMaferMur 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
            +4

            @McMaferMur:

            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.

      • n3ck3ntry8bort0rgasm on 07/11/2024 - 20:10
        -1

        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.

    • darkmoss on 09/11/2024 - 17:53

      it's only been used for 30 years ;S

      • fantombloo on 10/11/2024 - 02:24
        +1

        That's still a short time. And even so, lots of negative health and performance outcomes have already been identified.

        • darkmoss on 10/11/2024 - 02:26
          -1

          only just over twice an average lifespan

  • rw on 07/11/2024 - 19:32
    +9

    VPN sales to go up

    • Mike444 on 07/11/2024 - 20:38
      +13

      Sexual stuff? You mean like sex education?

    • 7ekn00 on 07/11/2024 - 22:08
      +2

      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
      +12

      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
        -3

        I agree, Young kids need sexual education that’s relevant to them and helps in keeping them safe.

        They don’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 children’s sexuality with that crap and frankly, messed up.

        • smartazz104 on 08/11/2024 - 08:56
          -1

          They probably pick that up from social media…

          • El cheepo on 08/11/2024 - 09:03
            -1

            @smartazz104: And thats why its up to a parent to decide whats appropriate and right for their child, not the Government.

            If they choose to let their children use social media, thats on them.

            What happens inside a school is not.

      • bobbified on 08/11/2024 - 14:21
        -1

        Biology and Science…the birds and the bees…. is fine.

        What I was referring to was the stuff where they're told that girls can be boys and boys can be girls .. .or how they can do the switcheroo whenever they feel like. This doesn't apply to 99% of the people in the world and shoving it down kids' throats at such a young age just serves to confuse the shit out of them. And it puts lots of parents in a shitty situation when the kids come home and ask questions.

    • Jazkool on 08/11/2024 - 09:43

      Would you rather your child learn from unfiltered sexual jargon online or in a safe controlled environment? It's impossible to prevent kids from interacting with that sort of content online; it's everywhere, I'm all for that sort of education early in school.

      • El cheepo on 08/11/2024 - 12:57
        +2

        Would you rather your child learn from unfiltered sexual jargon online or in a safe controlled environment?

        As a Parent, it’s your job to teach your children about this important topic.
        It might not be comfortable to do but its what being a good parent is about.

        Thats said,
        Im not against schools teaching sex ed, I'm against schools pushing stupid agendas and floating unnecessary ideas into easily impressionable minds.

      • mlakmlak on 12/11/2024 - 18:00

        It's impossible to prevent kids from interacting with that sort of content online

        Only if you're lazy & using the internet as a form of child care.

        It's really not that hard.

    • MessyG on 09/11/2024 - 07:54
      +1

      I have primary school aged kids. That just…isn't happening.

      • ctg on 09/11/2024 - 11:59
        -1

        …That you know about. I for one have seen it in the classroom on the regular.

    • Allwentmarching on 09/11/2024 - 22:56

      Being transgender isnt 'sexual stuff' its about gender identity.

      • bobbified on 10/11/2024 - 04:53
        -1

        Injecting people with lots of hormones in an attempt to make them look like the opposite sex and mutilating their sex organs isn't sexual? The whole trans thing is kerfuffle of sexual/gender stuff that even adults have a hard time trying to understand. How are the kids meant to understand it?

        • Allwentmarching on 18/11/2024 - 17:51

          There are a couple of trans kids at my childs high school. None of the kids have issues 'understanding' it.
          Sex is different to sexuality, which is also different to gender. Its easy enough to look up the definitions.

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

    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
    +12

    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
      +4

      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
    +41

    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
      +10

      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

        Can’t remember the last time I heard someone discussing our societal inadequacies as a whole but instead it’s another instance of big government getting even bigger.

    • Ughhh on 08/11/2024 - 08:41

      Might as well get rid of the CPS.

    • H3R34TH4C0MM3NTS on 10/11/2024 - 01:03

      Fair enough, but what other decisions should lie with parents , we recognise children are not fully developed human beings so we attempt to put some regulatory framework around what they can or can't do or what can or can be done to them. We have this magical line which we have decided that 18 you are no longer a child and you are afforded somewhat higher levels of agency, but we all have seen the variances of human maturity. some 18 year olds act like 8 year olds and some 8 year olds have the intellect and insight of an 18 year old. But we draw the line for a lot of things. Having this age restriction puts some accountability on the community and the platforms to do thier best to ensure compliance.

  • brendanm on 07/11/2024 - 19:42
    +27

    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.

    • ThithLord on 08/11/2024 - 10:23
      +2

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

      That's the issue - parents who don't actively encourage safe Social media use. You're in a very small percentage of parents who actually make an effort. Therein lies the problem; parents not parenting.

      • brendanm on 08/11/2024 - 11:49
        +1

        Correct, which is the problem in many cases. More government overreach isn't going to solve the issue though.

        • ThithLord on 08/11/2024 - 14:06

          I think Social media brain-rot is far too dangerous to just ignore, shrug your shoulders and say too hard

    • Zondor on 08/11/2024 - 19:08

      People say this but it can be done without it based on your marketing data. So much is predictable based on what you search, follow, friends etc.

      Even supermarkets know your age/gender based on what you purchase tied to your rewards card.

    • Ughhh on 09/11/2024 - 20:55
      -1

      They also want video proof as well, interview style. It's outrageous they want to go this far, what are they doing to do with the video? Probably make compromising AI videos to blackmail/force you to do whatever they want. Or add the video to their system, so it can track you on the streets or where ever. We need to stop the bill from allowing them to make AI videos on us!

      • brendanm on 09/11/2024 - 22:53

        Lol, yes it's just hilarious isn't it. Take this gold fellow redditor, and have this updoot.

  • n3ck3ntry8bort0rgasm on 07/11/2024 - 19:46
    +5

    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.

      • n3ck3ntry8bort0rgasm 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
    +8

    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
      +3

      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.

    • cjhero on 08/11/2024 - 09:48
      +2

      People said this about other media before the advent of online social media.

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

    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
      +4

      Wouldn’t be surprised if this is another one of those Trojan Horse regulations

    • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 19:58
      +7

      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.

      • JimmyF on 08/11/2024 - 08:05

        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.

        That is what it will 100% be!!

  • AustriaBargain on 07/11/2024 - 20:05
    +3

    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.

    • Minimum chips on 08/11/2024 - 09:18
      +2

      This is the Ozbargain forums. By using it you are automatically conferred a PhD in public policy, a degree in digital law and the position of grand arbiter of right and wrong.

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

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

    • seabombs on 08/11/2024 - 10:51
      +2

      I don't know how much you could attribute it to the government, but torrent file-sharing is way, way less common than it used to be.

      • ihfree on 08/11/2024 - 18:59
        +1

        I think that's streaming services actually providing a decent service for a time and the ability to share services. I think things may be going back the other way now.

  • Some Human on 07/11/2024 - 20:27
    +7

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

    • bargaino on 07/11/2024 - 20:32
      +3

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

  • Naiht on 07/11/2024 - 20:29
    +4

    Is OzBargain gonna ban under 16s?

    • JimmyF on 07/11/2024 - 21:33
      +6

      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.

      • JIMB0 on 08/11/2024 - 09:10
        +1

        How about I just upload a photo of me holding today's newspaper. That'll prove I'm over 16.

        • Roman Sandstorm on 08/11/2024 - 12:18
          +4

          Well, yes, because only people over 55 actually buy newspapers now.

  • Tiredman on 07/11/2024 - 20:38
    -3

    Yep. Full support.

  • Dollar General on 07/11/2024 - 20:51
    +8

    Won't somebody think of the children

  • JaymeRyan on 07/11/2024 - 21:11
    +6

    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
      +4

      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
    -1

    Pretty supportive of regulation and maybe a ban. However I’m not entirely sure what is defined as ‘social media’. Are we talking youtube? At the moment mine is little so we watch it together, but later I’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.

    • some123 on 08/11/2024 - 09:42
      -1

      Yes youtube is included in the ban.

      Even if you watch it together it will be illegal. From my understanding it doesn't matter if they put controls out it will still be banned. Probably the end of YouTube kids in Australia.

      Yes after this passes legally he will be able to use it later for education (once he reaches his 16th birthday)

  • JimmyF on 07/11/2024 - 21:29
    +15

    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
      +13

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

      • JimmyF on 07/11/2024 - 21:32
        +12

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

        • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 21:36
          +6

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

          • JimmyF on 08/11/2024 - 08:04
            +4

            @just-human: Yep, rushing it though parliament is another worrying sign. They need to get it approved as quick as possible before the people realise what it really means to them and kick back!

            All these 'adults' think it doesn't apply to them and will only impact under 16yo, when its the other way around.

            Wait till they find out they have to prove they are over 16yo to post on Facebook but by then it is all too late.

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

          We passed 1984 long before 1984. Eyes wide open.

      • brendanm on 08/11/2024 - 08:28

        They all love power and control.

    • JIMB0 on 08/11/2024 - 09:17
      +3

      Why does it need to be enforced with ID. Just make it illegal and if caught the child and/or parents have some sort of penalty. The same as how cars aren't required to prevent you from speeding.

      • JimmyF on 08/11/2024 - 09:50
        +4

        Why does it need to be enforced with ID

        As that is the only way you can 'block' someone under 16yo, by validating everyone's age.

        Today we have a checkbox for most social media asking if you're over 13yo or entering a DOB, how is that working out? Its not. Kids tick it or change their birth year.

        Just make it illegal and if caught the child and/or parents have some sort of penalty

        LOL that'll work, not. The penalty will be on the companies, hence the age check. Think mygov id linkage.

        Anyhow, so you want me to get a fine if the kid secretly signs up to YouTube and watches video without me knowing?

        Before you say I should be parenting them, you are correct. Parents should be parenting them. Teaching them how to use social media correctly, not letting the gov block them. Which is what I do.

        • JIMB0 on 08/11/2024 - 17:37
          +2

          As that is the only way you can 'block' someone under 16yo, by validating everyone's age.

          Seems like a pretty heavy handed way of enforcing it. There must be alternatives.

          • JimmyF on 08/11/2024 - 17:42

            @JIMB0:

            Seems like a pretty heavy handed way of enforcing it. There must be alternatives.

            I'm open to ideas……

            As I said earlier, what most people don't realise who support this stupid ban, is that it is a prove you are 16 years or older to use the service, regardless of your age.

            There is zero way for them to know you're under 16yo without ID, so you have to prove your age, if its under 16, you are blocked.

            See the issue with this now?

            See this explaining to more websites like adult sites? no more sneaky porn watching, you'll have to link your ID and have an account to watch it now.

  • tempco on 07/11/2024 - 21:56
    -6

    Asking parents to just get better at parenting is a cop out - parents don’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 what’s good for society.

    • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 21:58
      +6

      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
      -7

      "what’s good for society."

      bUt FreeDoM of sPeEcH

      • just-human on 07/11/2024 - 22:53
        +6

        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
            +1

            @Protractor: I’m not saying social media isn’t toxic but at the end of the day that’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. It’s a lot better to have open speech where some people say hateful things than no free speech at all.

            • Protractor on 08/11/2024 - 09:24
              -2

              @just-human: We have already lost our privacy.Game over. The world planet has way bigger problems. Unless we act now to fix them, we are doing more harm to kids than any social media ban. It's bizarre we invest so much on investing so much energy on something that gives zero toss about us, while the planet heads towards a brick wall of climate catastrophes and overpopulation.
              Which do you think your grandkids will thank you for? Dying on this hill, or finally being a part of the correct side of history on existential threats?

              "It’s a lot better to have open speech where some people say hateful things than no free speech at all."
              So that's the only 2 options eh?

              • just-human on 08/11/2024 - 10:44

                @Protractor:

                Dying on this hill, or finally being a part of the correct side of history on existential threats?

                You can object to this and also support climate action?

                So that's the only 2 options eh?

                Well we can’t control what people say and to be honest we really shouldn’t be able to. Yes, with freedom people will do stupid things. That’s human nature. But it doesn’t mean governments should be restricting EVERYONE.

                • AfterDeals on 08/11/2024 - 17:28
                  +2

                  @just-human: There's no point debating with these people who don't understand the importance of privacy.

                  These same people will shut the toilet door behind them in public, despite the fact that toilet cubicles are used for crimes like drug consumption, dealing, etc. Mental gymnastics.

                  We have had the biggest data breaches in Australian history - Optus & Medibank. People still think uploading an ID to another service will solve the issue.

                  Enacting this law will not stop kids from using social media. It will however:
                  - increase identity fraud as genuine criminals will ensure their identity is not linked with social media (they will actively procure stolen identity documents)
                  - increase personalized advertising (proof of age)
                  - encourage companies and projects to build decentralized social media platforms, which will have less content moderation and be profoundly worse for youth to access (think of 4chan, messaging boards, etc.)

                  Parents seem to want everything except actually parenting. They want the Federal Government to start meddling with kids activity in an even more pervasive way than even before!

                • Protractor on 09/11/2024 - 22:34

                  @just-human: Bring it on.

                  AH's need to be held accountable. Because parents don't parent any more, the protection is outsourced. I'm fully supportive.This free speech at all costs argument shite coming from cookers is just an excuse to keep megaphoning racist,conspiratorial or other fabricated reality propaganda, and that is a toxic cancer on social cohesion.

                  Using human & nature in the same phrase is totally redundant, especially when dragging anything social media into the fray.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join