How Are They Going to Prevent People under 18 from Accessing Social Media? (YouTube, Instagram, Tiktok etc)

harshbdmmaster718 on 12/12/2024 - 16:50
Last edited 12/12/2024 - 17:21

how do you think they will do it?

doesn't seem like a very easy thing to do. some of the solutions mentioned in previous comments make it sound too easy to get around the block (other apps, VPN etc).

if I had to guess they will use the front facing cameras of devices and with facial recognition they can accurately predict age (among many others thing I learned including gender, race, sexual orientation and political bias). it's not that unbelievable because they have already been using it in airports and shops for awhile now right (bunnings, Woolworths, coles etc). I am thinking this will have to be a inside OS thing so it can be updated and maintained automatically. it will drain your battery slightly quicker? too bad.

so it will be like this: you (grownup) are watching youtube on your ipad. you are recognised as grown up so no issues so far.

then your niece or nephew comes infront of the tablet screen and is instantly recognized as not a grown up. the video auto stops the entire iPad screen goes blurry with a youtube logo in the middle and a message says "please remove unauthorised viewers from your viscinity".

then you tell your niece to go away and as soon as they look away the video auto resumes. works the same way on insta and tiktok and maybe a list of websites you visit in a browser.

curious as to what you think and if you disagree comment how you think it will work.

General Discussion

Comments

- harshbdmmaster718 on 12/12/2024 - 23:37
  
  +1
  
  Kids in China can still evade the video games restriction.
  
  actually I remembered this reading another comment above but forgot earlier this evening.
  
  wasn’t the Australian age validation meant to include online game platform as well?? please correct me if I am wrong.
  - neoleo on 12/12/2024 - 23:41
    
    "Gaming and messaging platforms are exempt, as are sites that can be accessed without an account, meaning YouTube, for instance, is likely to be spared."
    
    https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c89vjj0lxx9o
    - harshbdmmaster718 on 12/12/2024 - 23:42
      
      hmm ok I thought YouTube was on the definite list. as would be discord. they must be updating the terms.
- Ughhh on 13/12/2024 - 08:28
  
  Only naive people think 100% compliance can be achieved for anything. Murders and injuries still happen despite the laws and HSE regs.
crentist on 13/12/2024 - 01:17

+2

if I had to guess they will use the front facing cameras of devices and with facial recognition they can accurately predict age…
…then your niece or nephew comes infront of the tablet screen and is instantly recognized as not a grown up. the video auto stops the entire iPad screen goes blurry

No. They can't accurately predict age, and that level of constant on-device monitoring would be too difficult to implement and get wayyy too much resistance. And it would make phones nearly impossible to use, angering people constantly. Not all uses of phones require looking directly at them, cameras are often crap, and many devices don't have cameras, including some laptops.

I mean, even watching youtube doesn't require looking directly at the screen. That cuts out everyone who has it on while cooking, or connected to a speaker for music, or even livestreaming themselves doing a kpop dance, tech review, or Corolla brakepad replacement tutorial.
As well as phone calls over instagram or facebook.
As well as those phone calls or that youtube music while in a car, when the last thing you want to encourage is looking at a phone instead of the road.

Trying to address any of these things opens up all kinds of other edge cases that would bog down the entire thing, and create heaps of loopholes to get around it, making any attempt to implement constant monitoring have to fall back to some periodic checks every 30 mins or so, kinda defeating the point of trying something that expensive in the first place.
None of which would address the critical points that age prediction doesn't work in the first place, and you can't constantly monitor for a kid sitting just off to the side of an adult.

At that point you may as well skip it all and just register the owner and anyone who can unlock the device, which is 90% covered by telco registries already.
- trapper on 13/12/2024 - 23:48
  
  and that level of constant on-device monitoring would be too difficult to implement
  
  Not possible to implement. You think Microsoft is going to build this into windows?? lol
morse on 13/12/2024 - 06:31

+1

Of course kids will get around it. However I think we will see as this is implemented, that social media use for children becomes far less normalised. Particularly over time as younger kids won’t have the expectation that this is something ‘everyone’ is doing. The government is sending a clear message to parents and schools that these types of social media are not considered healthy or safe for children and teens. If it reduces useage by 50% it’s a great thing.
jhaley3180 on 13/12/2024 - 07:57

+1

Two things… Firstly, the onus is on the social media company to ensure kids are over 16. These same companies are able to use algorithms to accurately pinpoint that you like green tea ethically manufactured from the extract of freshly pressed northern SriLankan tea leaves, or that you are a 40 year old middle aged male going through a divorce and interested in investing in an investment grade BMW…. My point is they are massive social media companies highly sophisticated at targeting their advertising based on your demographic… It's going to be easier than you think 🤔, and probably VERY concerning how easy.

Second, this law is a social signal. It's designed to de-normalise.
- ESEMCE on 13/12/2024 - 08:11
  
  Hopefully it'll be harder than that and overall social media usage is reduced.
  The law has good intentions, but I can't see it being not easily bypassed and therefore ultimately ineffective for its target market.
  
  But if it can get people out of their self re-inforcing social media bubbles, they might open their eyes to the actual world a little more and recognise that the real world has more grey zone than black and while zones. One can dream at least!
- JimmyF on 13/12/2024 - 09:40
  
  -1
  
  It's going to be easier than you think 🤔, and probably VERY concerning how easy.
  
  They need time to work this out from your usage, it doesn't happen from day 1.
  
  So little jimmy who is 10 can sign up and get social media access, which is a no no.
  
  Second, this law is a social signal. It's designed to de-normalise.
  
  1000000% this, nothing to do with the kids.
  - Protractor on 13/12/2024 - 10:19
    
    It's because (non) parenting has been outsourced to govt through stupid previous decisions (give little jimmy a smart phone and as much time on it as he wants and unfettered/monitored internet time) and toxic online behaviour by adults.
    This has been creating the predators and scammers a happy hunting ground. Everyone wants a fix, nobody wants to sacrifice. And kudos for the govt doing something. God knows they have more than enough evidence to justify acting.
    When the "wild west"never grows up it becomes?
    Guess.
    - JimmyF on 13/12/2024 - 10:40
      
      +1
      
      It's because (non) parenting has been outsourced to govt through stupid previous decisions (give little jimmy a smart phone and as much time on it as he wants and unfettered/monitored internet time) and toxic online behaviour by adults.
      
      Agreed, parents fault for not parenting. No one outsourced this to the govt. I have kids, I didn't ask for this.
      
      This has been creating the predators and scammers a happy hunting ground. Everyone wants a fix, nobody wants to sacrifice. And kudos for the govt doing something. God knows they have more than enough evidence to justify acting.
      
      LOL gov has done nothing to stop those things. None of those issues magically disappear once a kid becomes 16.
      
      Infact it is going to be far worse, as they're 16 and had zero guidance on how to navigate the internet as the parents have been hands off. So the predators and scammers are going to have a field day with all these fresh 16yo kids who have no idea hit the internet.
      
      When the "wild west"never grows up it becomes?
      
      Correct, the wind west never grows up, many adults fall for these predators and scammers, so the answer isn't banning kids 13-15 (remember you had to be 13 or older to get social media in the first place), the answer is educating these kids, but that doesn't play into the gov real outcome of knowing who is posting on the internet.
      - Protractor on 13/12/2024 - 10:54
        
        @JimmyF: Congrats on being in the 1% club (of parents who parented properly and yet will still eat the consequences of the other 99%)
        Education was once an option. Radicalisation (and a million other neg outcomes) says we missed the boat.
        That Benjamin Button wild west is called America.
        
        JimmyF on 13/12/2024 - 11:33
        
        @Protractor:
        
        Education was once an option
        
        Education IS STILL an option.
        
        You failed to address my points above, that none of the issues you claim will go away once the kid turns the magic age of 16.
        
        Protractor on 13/12/2024 - 12:00
        
        @JimmyF: Who said they would? It's about risk reduction.Doing SFA about the risk does exactly that, if not exacerbate the problem.
        Accountability has arrived for all the reasons previously mentioned. Also anonymity has failed to deliver all the gains it could have , and instead went the other way. Social media has changed an entire paradigm of humanity and sucked them all in and spat them out, further right that is good for us. That's not just down to Russia,China,USA and all manner of Nefarious players, it's down to the entire collective user base of the web.
        There's no vaccine for apathy,stupidity,gullibility, selfishness or cookerism.
        
        JimmyF on 13/12/2024 - 15:15
        
        +1
        
        @Protractor:
        
        Who said they would?
        
        Well it is all about 'protecting the kids' isn't it? So why are they not protected when they turn 16yo? They are still minors!
        
        Oh right, its not about protecting the kids at all., its about removing anonymity and gov control over the content!
        
        Protractor on 13/12/2024 - 16:12
        
        +1
        
        @JimmyF: It's partially about protection (on multiple fronts) and also about cutting off the supply to the scum who have ruined it for the rest.
        
        We've been around the block so many times on this chat, I'm out.
        Can you seriously see either side having the work ethic or appetite to 'control' anything? They can't even stop the migrant floodgates.
        https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/a…
        
        We've been around the block so many times on this chat, I'm out.
        You need to start another petition.
        (You know the ones ppl never sign for privacy reasons or do and give total strangers access to their ID when they sign)
        
        JimmyF on 13/12/2024 - 16:30
        
        -1
        
        @Protractor:
        
        We've been around the block so many times on this chat, I'm out.
        
        Yeah, still waiting for you to show how it protects the kids.
        
        Today, you have to be 13+ to use social media, don't see how blocking a few sites for an extra 3 years to these kids will make any change. Oh but everyone else will have to provide ID.
        
        Kids can still go porn hub and watch the gangbang videos! As that has a little banner you click yes to say you are over 18. LOL!
        
        and also about cutting off the supply to the scum
        
        So why don't you post with your real name?
        
        Protractor on 13/12/2024 - 16:40
        
        @JimmyF: On a kinder version of the web (one not poxified as it is) I would consider it. But I'd need a time machine for that. If they brought in a registration process for all users, that's exactly what we;d be doing ,with a thin anonymous firewall, until we (profanity) up.
        The world itself including the web is a bit different to 20, even 10 years ago. I'm sorry you missed that fact.
        I mean there was even once a time when if you were someone who did what Trump has done you'd be doing time.Nobody would go near you. You'd be a Pariah.So keep educating them kids. They're gunna need all the synapses they have to navigate the storm clouds ahead.
        
        JimmyF on 13/12/2024 - 16:42
        
        +2
        
        @Protractor: None of that shows how kids are being protected…..
        
        So glad my 10yo can go watch gangbang videos on pornhub, but talking to grandma on Facebook is a big NO NO!!!
        
        Protractor on 13/12/2024 - 16:46
        
        -2
        
        @JimmyF: You're getting shriller and shriller .Those scenarios are laughable.
        If you can't see the benefits, the design, the process, the intention, the perceived outcomes, fine. Start that petition.
        If your kids access Pornhub mate, stop lecturing me about your education. They probs only learned Pornhub exists by just reading through Ozbargain.They do know you post here?
        
        JimmyF on 13/12/2024 - 17:09
        
        +3
        
        @Protractor:
        
        Those scenarios are laughable
        
        What scenario? That a under 18yo can access pornhub. LOL tell me you don't have kids without telling me. Tell me you had been a teenager without internet access, without telling me.
        
        If your kids access Pornhub mate, stop lecturing me about your education
        
        Search for any body part, and you'll be at a pornhub link in about 10 seconds after that. So yes it is about education. If it was about protecting the kids, then pornhub would have been added to the list. Fark, can't watch Minecraft videos on youtube, but a women getting railed by 100 guys, totally ok to watch on porn hub!
        
        If you can't see the benefits, the design, the process, the intention, the perceived outcomes, fine
        
        What are the benefits? I'm waiting for you to list them. As I'm yet to see any. A handful of sites are going to be blocked by a bill that was pushed through and lead by Murdochs failing news company. Look it up, they had been behind it. Media watch has a nice bit on it.
        
        The kids are smarter than this, as I said, they are already planning to move to telegram or iMessage groups once messenger/Snapchat is banned.
        
        So all this has done, is push kids to darker parts of the web, stopped grandma from having contact with the grandkids via messenger and oh forced every adult to verify themselves.
        
        Protractor on 13/12/2024 - 17:13
        
        +1
        
        @JimmyF: *Search for any body part, and you'll be at a pornhub link in about 10 seconds after that. *
        You seem to know more about Pornhub than education. Tweak your kids browser.
        Monitor search history etc.
        Stop grandma communicating with kids,LOL. Hyperhyperbole
        Over and out.
        
        JimmyF on 13/12/2024 - 17:20
        
        +1
        
        @Protractor:
        
        Tweak your kids browser.
        
        So do parenting? They can still get there even if tweaked, takes a bit longer but boys 10+ are pretty persistent.
        
        Monitor search history etc.
        
        So education after the fact? LOL did you not just say education wasn't the answer?
        
        Stop grandma communicating with kids,LOL. Hyperhyperbole
        
        You think its extreme exaggeration that families communicate via messenger and now that kids under 16yo will be blocked from direct communication won't have an impact. You must have a sad family group. Poor grandma/aunts/uncles. Oh that's right, no kids! Got it.
        
        Yet again, you haven't provided anything positive from this bill, infact you pretty much have agreed that good parenting is what is needed for kids, not a nanny gov saying no Facebook, no YouTube.
FezMonkey on 13/12/2024 - 10:00

if I had to guess they will use the front facing cameras of devices and with facial recognition they can accurately predict age (among many others thing I learned including gender, race, sexual orientation and political bias)

How would these ones work exactly?
This guy's eyebrows are on point, he must be a homosexual?
warkolm on 13/12/2024 - 12:27

1 - this applies only if you want an account on a service, you can browse without one and they and you don't need to do anything

2- this applies to anyone that wants an account on a service, I think a lot of people don't realise this. you still.ne3d to prove you're 16+ even if you're 60+
TiredKitty78 on 13/12/2024 - 14:48

+1

Requiring everyone sooner rather then later to have a unique identifier to so if you hurt someone's fee fee's, you can be punished. (Inb4 IP addresses and there is no privacy anyway lolz).

We screwed ourselves by letting the gov be who tells us what is true and what is not.
duluxe2000 on 13/12/2024 - 16:28

They create more regulations/red tapes. Businesses try "creative" ways to comply or get fine. Cost is passed to users. Current gov gets more votes from ignorant voters. That's how it works :)
Camelface on 13/12/2024 - 16:53

OP, are you under 18?
- harshbdmmaster718 on 13/12/2024 - 16:54
  
  no.
  - Camelface on 13/12/2024 - 16:56
    
    -2
    
    Then there's nothing to worry.
    
    I think there'll be an age verification required (like in YouTube), either using some form of identity like a credit card.
    - harshbdmmaster718 on 13/12/2024 - 16:56
      
      +1
      
      and thanks for not asking my specific age or trying to milk it.
      
      it's probably just my own mind doing things but I often have this feeling people are trying to bait me into revealing personal information. and I often can't reply because that's all I can think about responding with.
      - Protractor on 13/12/2024 - 17:15
        
        +1
        
        @harshbdmmaster718: as long as your own mind is doing things,and not the voice of the crap on the web you'll be fine.
      - trapper on 13/12/2024 - 23:56
        
        @harshbdmmaster718:
        
        but I often have this feeling people are trying to bait me into revealing personal information
        
        That's a good instinct to have.
DiscoJango on 13/12/2024 - 17:35

What if your asian and 35 years old but look 17, what will the facial recognition bot do then
- BartholemewH on 13/12/2024 - 21:49
  
  What if you're a 70 year old that identifies as a 15 year old? What a dilemma.
leiiv on 13/12/2024 - 23:44

How does this work with tourist coming to Australia? Will they not be able to use the social media while they're here? And what about new migrants moving to Australia? This is a very idiot law..
I think all the social media should come together and just refuse to legally operate in Australia. The premise of internet is that you can access anything globally anyway.
trapper on 13/12/2024 - 23:47

if I had to guess they will use the front facing cameras of devices and with facial recognition they can accurately predict age

Man that is the wackiest guess I could even imagine. lol

Terrible law though, government is delusional.
trapper on 14/12/2024 - 00:04

How are they going to stop people under 16* from accessing social media?

Well, beyond an "Are you over 16?" checkbox, they’re probably not going to. Instead, these companies will likely be forced to shut down their local operations in Australia and just continue offering their services from overseas.

It will then be up to our government to decide whether they’re actually going to try and block platforms like Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook in Australia.
Eeples on 14/12/2024 - 07:15

Parents will inform their children that they are not allowed on social media until they are 16. They will tell them that’s the law.
smartazz104 on 14/12/2024 - 10:09

Easy, get their parents to post enough content until they feel it’s all too “cringe” for them, then they’ll leave voluntarily.
Purp on 14/12/2024 - 10:42

You can't block people from doing anything unless there's verification using POI documents and that will cost companies millions of dollars and open up all new privacy risks to their business.
Kiro on 14/12/2024 - 10:52

+1

Parents have to be on the ball with this. Also simply take tech away from them that they don't need.

Creat child accounts for their children to monitor and have control also helps.

If schools are smart the will automatically block social media sites on school networks etc.
- Purp on 14/12/2024 - 12:02
  
  Not as easy as just saying block the sites, there are ways around everything.

How Are They Going to Prevent People under 18 from Accessing Social Media? (YouTube, Instagram, Tiktok etc)

Comments

New Forum Topics