6 ms·

Australian House passes bill to ban children under 16 from social media

51 points by anigbrowl 2y ago

bb01100100 2y ago
Sounds useful from a mental health perspective .. am I right in thinking detractors are concerned about the loss of privacy needed to enforce the bill, or is it something else?
- kittikitti 2y ago
  [flagged]
gnabgib 2y ago
Related Australia proposes ban on social media for those under 16 (525 points, 20 days ago, 567 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42071310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42071310
ggm 2y ago
I can hold complex, antagonistic ideas in my head at the same time. So I am reconciled to thinking both they were right to try (noting all the reasons why they might be wrong) and that it won't work (noting that it may work in an 80/20 sense)
- cmrdporcupine 2y ago
  Same, though mostly I'm mad we had to get here in the first place by Zuckerberg and Co being so awful that this is where we ended up.
proxynoproxy 2y ago
The dumbest decision that stupid government can make. And it’s not a partisan issue, as when this causes the current party to fail, the “malignant tuber” will ratchet it further. Cooked either way. Australia has always been run by technologically iterate petty tyrants. They have wanted to deanonymize Internet users, and now they will try to force the internet to give them their wish. Resist. Ultimately, Australia will be further isolated. Internet properties will decide to block Australian IPs rather than complying with eKaren and co. Elon cancels starlink in Australia.
mandeepj 2y ago
Facebook requires users to be at least 13 (or 14) years old while signing up. So, Australia is just extending that ceiling by a couple years. No big deal!
- bogantech 2y ago
  It'll just mean every Australian will have to provide ID and lose the ability to remain anonymous online - no biggie!
  - HdS84 2y ago
    I think it's necessary. Bots and trolls are already ruining online conversations. I envision a state run identity provider which provides a limited number of non-resolvable identires to you. E.g. you log in with your personal identification card, then the website knows you as <some guid>. Your identity can only be resolved on court, e.g. if you commit online fraud.
    - esperent 2y ago
      > Bots and trolls are already ruining online conversations. Requiring everyone to give up their rights to online privacy is an incredibly drastic solution to this problem, and it's not clear that it would even work very well.
      - meiraleal 2y ago
        Nobody is giving up any right. There is no right to be anonymous in a social network for billions of people
      - HdS84 2y ago
        You don't give up any right for privacy - your identity is opaque to all except the state agency running the identity service.
    - sertraline 2y ago
      You must be mistaken, these bots and trolls are largely run by the very states that you trust to protect your communications.
rasz 2y ago
Half measure because Australia is afraid to outright ban Tiktok?
OuterVale 2y ago
The gripe many have against this legislation is that it is being rushed for no good reason. It hasn't been clear how they intend to enforce this. Will it just be an "By using this service, I confirm I am 16 or older" clause like the current system? Will we be required to submit ID to social media companies (it's claimed not)? Will the government be making verification through the updated 'MyGov' portal or the newly renamed 'myID' 'digital passport'? Nobody is sure, and nobody is sure who is sure. There is tons of conflicting information out there. NewsCorp have been pushing for it as well, which, as a rule, isn't a good thing, and the rest of our media seem just as confused as the populace.
- gklitz 2y ago
  Why does that matter? That’s a question about the implementation of the law. You can’t go “I support the law if it’s implemented poorly so I can circumvent it, but I don’t support it if it’s implemented effectively and I can’t circumvent it” The question of if it should be the law should assume that it’s implemented effectively, if people will only support an ineffective easily circumventable implementation then they don’t actually support the law and should vote against it.
  - c45y 2y ago
    It mostly matters because like all good laws it will likely be used to erode privacy in an effort to enforce it. In context with the assistance and access act 2018 this is just another step towards the encryption with government backdoors future ASIO have been calling for in order to "protect us"
  - speleding 2y ago
    But what is "effective" in this case? My kids use huge Whatsapp groups as a form of social media, will Whatsapp be banned? Using a VPN to access TikTok from outside Australia is not beyond the skills of a determined kid, will VPNs be banned? Those details matter to say whether or not this is a good idea, why not wait until you have the answer to those questions before enacting the law? (I think there are no good answers too this, and it's probably better to say this is a job for the parent, not for the government)
greatgib 2y ago
What kind of moron is elected in the parlement of Australia? On one side social media can have huge fines if they don't prevent "teenagers" to use social networks, but on the other side the platforms will be banned to require documents to check identity of users...
- high_na_euv 2y ago
  There are other ways to verify this without uploading id E.g sign in with bank/gov
  - greatgib 2y ago
    It's basically the same, your social account will now be identified/linked to your legal identity and I'm not sure if it not covered by the same amendment.
    - gklitz 2y ago
      Verifying someone’s age doesn’t require tying their account to their government identity.
      - rightbyte 2y ago
        It pretty much does. Or are they aupposed to look at dental x-rays? How else would you know.
        gklitz 2y ago
        The question isn’t how you determine someone’s age it’s how you verify it. You can verify information without any need to tie the identity in client services to the identity in the verifying authority.
    - high_na_euv 2y ago
      It doesnt have to Social media can just query gov service with question: is this user above 16 - yes no
southernplaces7 2y ago
The implicit privacy intrusions, claims of harm and other very dubious moral and legal arguments favoring this law reek through and through. The most obvious among the problems is the obviously indicated move towards making ID verification a default part of whether people access content or not. Even if it's only used "for children" at first, it's normalization will spread, leading to widespread overt de-anonymization. Yes, some of you here might argue (not unreasonably) that most of what most of us do online is in any case thoroughly de-anonymized by all sorts of commercially motivated surveillance and tracking mechanisms that governments can latch on to, but at least the process is not a legal requirement, and you're not breaking laws by willfully circumventing it. Malicious bills like this will normalize identifying yourself legally as a regulatory requirement and will make it much easier to criminalize tools and efforts for keeping one's privacy. What an excellent disguised entry point for doing just! Now being implemented by western governments claiming to respect personal freedom while slavering ever more at the contrary examples already set by overtly authoritarian states. Grotesque, dangerous and another authority grab under the tediously stupid old guise of protecting the children from old boogeymen like pornography and newer but equally bloated, loaded boogeymen like "misinformation" and mental health. Also, I call absolute bullshit on this claim: Opposition lawmaker Dan Tehan told Parliament the government had agreed to accept amendments in the Senate that would 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.
- camillomiller 2y ago
  I absolutely see the point, but I also see how politically negligent the world has been in regulating social media. The companies that run the platforms are well aware of the risks and psychological harm their product causes, but will never ever do anything that is driven by those worries instead of profit. Hence, we need regulations. Unfortunately it is quite hard to impose anything within the legal framework that would help with the main issue. ID requests are a wrong answer to a real problem. I am a longtime proposer of a big tobacco style set of policies. The banning and sanctioning of a harmful digital product is unfortunately exponentially harder than regulating a physical one like cigarettes. Nonetheless, the imposition of health advice, labels, and mandatory limits on usage to be built in the apps should be viable, just like imposing pictures of cancer patients and “smoking kills” on cigarette packages.
ranguna 2y ago
Most people are concerned about privacy on a social networks that farm your data, they already know who you are the moment you upload a photo, write something mildly descriptive, or do just about anything else on social media. If you want to remain anonymous, use forums like reddit, HN amongst others. I see this as a brilliant step in the right direction of curbing teen depression and suicides. It's sad to see so much hate on something with so much potential, people are just bashing this proposal instead of offering alternatives, like having a centralised governamental services that informs social media platforms whether a person is eligible to create an account on social media without giving away any more personal information; instead, it's all just hate and bad mouthing, it saddens me.
- sertraline 2y ago
  >teen depression and suicides How many children are bullied in school, completely socially isolated, with their only outlet online? Who is going to help them? Why do people think they can solve deep, complex social issues - with a single piece of paper that dictates the law?
- morkalork 2y ago
  You'll need to use a throwaway email to remain anonymous with reddit. They're a public company now it would be a bold assumption to think they don't resell user profile info and or buy data about the user's profile.
mxxx 2y ago
Good articulation of some of the potential issues with an approach like this from an independent who originally supported the bill but voted against it https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/27/why-ive-changed-my-mind-about-the-social-media-bill-and-why-other-parents-should-too https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/27/why-iv...
wellthisisgreat 2y ago
Old men shout at the sky. Except this time they wield power
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
dhx 2y ago
For those not familiar with Australian parliamentary processes, the original bill was introduced on the 21st of November 2024 and today the 27th of November 2024 was endorsed by the House of Representatives with no amendments agreed to. The final time the Senate is in session is tomorrow the 28th of November 2024, then returning in February 2025 if the Senate cannot agree on the bill tomorrow. For consideration tomorrow by the senate are 13 proposed amendments to this bill. One amendment comes from the government proposing the bill (34% of Senate vote) and other amendments mostly come from a political coalition with ~40-45% of the vote who passed the bill today through the House of Representatives, and minor parties and independents with ~15-20% of the vote and whom opposed the bill today from being ready for Senate consideration. The government wanting to pass the bill has only 34% of the vote in the Senate so they will likely have to agree with some amendments tomorrow if they want to get the bill enacted. The following amendments with significant changes and significant Senate support are due for consideration: (A) Social media services can not "collect" government-issued identity documents and can not use an "accredited service" (Digital ID system that the Australian government is trying to roll out some time after 2026).[1] The minister can also regulate at any time additional information and verification methods that social media services are not allowed to collect. (amendment of the government proposing this bill with >34% of Senate support) (B) Parents can approve for their children to have social media accounts.[2] (>~40-45% of Senate support) (C) Social media services narrowed in definition such that it attempts (still very poorly) to describe Facebook feeds without also banning 15 year olds from Facebook Messenger, comments sections of a news website, chat in online games, etc.[3] It also appears to allow the government to demand ISPs, DNS providers, VPN providers, application store operators, etc hand over unspecified types of information if it may reveal compliance status of a social media service. (>~40-45% of Senate support) (D) Not mandate social media media services use an Australian government online identity system.[4] But a social media service is not prohibited from volunteering to use an Australian government online identity system. And they probably will use it in preference to other age verification schemes because it presents the least risk to them (risk transfers to government providing the identity system). Social media services are still allowed to ask users to email or upload their identity documents or go through any other identity verification hoops the social media service may invent. (>~40-45% of Senate support) (E) Add risk assessment and transparency reporting obligations for "large" social media services.[5] Appears to allow a minister (not parliament) to maintain a standard for the risk assessment which has mandatory mitigation methods specified within that social media services must implement. The risk assessments of social media services are required to be published to the public. (>15-20% of Senate support) [1] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r7284_amend_e0f7a6b7-bb30-4830-a787-6301b89f03b0/upload_pdf/B24SY115.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/am... [2] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r7284_amend_898c4a45-c74b-4569-a99e-cbcfbef5af41/upload_pdf/3216%20CW%20Online%20Safety%20Amendment%20(Social%20Media%20Minimum%20Age)%20Bill%202024_Canavan.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/am... [3] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r7284_amend_b70200b7-1978-4efc-8799-0e5c0c927fa7/upload_pdf/3195%20CW%20Online%20Safety%20Amendment%20(Social%20Media%20Minimum%20Age)%20Bill%202024_Canavan.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/am... [4] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r7284_amend_9a5c94e2-4efb-4fed-8ac3-0d6ca588c763/upload_pdf/3180%20CW%20Online%20Safety%20Amendment%20(Social%20Media%20Minimum%20Age)%20Bill%202024_Canavan.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/am... [5] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r7284_amend_a11c8ef8-ef75-4121-8b44-ebb849e6cb43/upload_pdf/3201%20CW%20Online%20Safety%20Amendment%20(Social%20Media%20Minimum%20Age)%20Bill%202024_Hanson-Young.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/am...
ycic 2y ago
Probably safer for democracy if they ban adults of voting age from social media.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Argonaut998 2y ago
Knowing Australia this is just a ploy to enforce people having to link their personal ID with their social media accounts later down the line.
- beretguy 2y ago
  Or give them an option to delete their account.
blodkorv 2y ago
we will see a rise of bootleg socialmedia plattforms hosted under the radar.
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
Related later: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42264733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42264733
goler 2y ago
If compliance requires that every user provide some form of ID, this policy will be a catastrophe for privacy and a major downgrade in terms of usability. Much more annoying than the pop-ups asking me to acknowledge cookies.

51 points by anigbrowl 2y ago

Sounds useful from a mental health perspective .. am I right in thinking detractors are concerned about the loss of privacy needed to enforce the bill, or is it something else?

kittikitti 2y ago
[flagged]

gnabgib 2y ago

Related Australia proposes ban on social media for those under 16 (525 points, 20 days ago, 567 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42071310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42071310

ggm 2y ago

I can hold complex, antagonistic ideas in my head at the same time. So I am reconciled to thinking both they were right to try (noting all the reasons why they might be wrong) and that it won't work (noting that it may work in an 80/20 sense)

cmrdporcupine 2y ago
Same, though mostly I'm mad we had to get here in the first place by Zuckerberg and Co being so awful that this is where we ended up.

proxynoproxy 2y ago

The dumbest decision that stupid government can make. And it’s not a partisan issue, as when this causes the current party to fail, the “malignant tuber” will ratchet it further. Cooked either way. Australia has always been run by technologically iterate petty tyrants. They have wanted to deanonymize Internet users, and now they will try to force the internet to give them their wish. Resist. Ultimately, Australia will be further isolated. Internet properties will decide to block Australian IPs rather than complying with eKaren and co. Elon cancels starlink in Australia.

mandeepj 2y ago

Facebook requires users to be at least 13 (or 14) years old while signing up. So, Australia is just extending that ceiling by a couple years. No big deal!

bogantech 2y ago
It'll just mean every Australian will have to provide ID and lose the ability to remain anonymous online - no biggie!
- HdS84 2y ago
  I think it's necessary. Bots and trolls are already ruining online conversations. I envision a state run identity provider which provides a limited number of non-resolvable identires to you. E.g. you log in with your personal identification card, then the website knows you as <some guid>. Your identity can only be resolved on court, e.g. if you commit online fraud.
  - esperent 2y ago
    > Bots and trolls are already ruining online conversations. Requiring everyone to give up their rights to online privacy is an incredibly drastic solution to this problem, and it's not clear that it would even work very well.
    - meiraleal 2y ago
      Nobody is giving up any right. There is no right to be anonymous in a social network for billions of people
    - HdS84 2y ago
      You don't give up any right for privacy - your identity is opaque to all except the state agency running the identity service.
  - sertraline 2y ago
    You must be mistaken, these bots and trolls are largely run by the very states that you trust to protect your communications.

rasz 2y ago

Half measure because Australia is afraid to outright ban Tiktok?

OuterVale 2y ago

The gripe many have against this legislation is that it is being rushed for no good reason. It hasn't been clear how they intend to enforce this. Will it just be an "By using this service, I confirm I am 16 or older" clause like the current system? Will we be required to submit ID to social media companies (it's claimed not)? Will the government be making verification through the updated 'MyGov' portal or the newly renamed 'myID' 'digital passport'? Nobody is sure, and nobody is sure who is sure. There is tons of conflicting information out there. NewsCorp have been pushing for it as well, which, as a rule, isn't a good thing, and the rest of our media seem just as confused as the populace.

gklitz 2y ago
Why does that matter? That’s a question about the implementation of the law. You can’t go “I support the law if it’s implemented poorly so I can circumvent it, but I don’t support it if it’s implemented effectively and I can’t circumvent it” The question of if it should be the law should assume that it’s implemented effectively, if people will only support an ineffective easily circumventable implementation then they don’t actually support the law and should vote against it.
- c45y 2y ago
  It mostly matters because like all good laws it will likely be used to erode privacy in an effort to enforce it. In context with the assistance and access act 2018 this is just another step towards the encryption with government backdoors future ASIO have been calling for in order to "protect us"
- speleding 2y ago
  But what is "effective" in this case? My kids use huge Whatsapp groups as a form of social media, will Whatsapp be banned? Using a VPN to access TikTok from outside Australia is not beyond the skills of a determined kid, will VPNs be banned? Those details matter to say whether or not this is a good idea, why not wait until you have the answer to those questions before enacting the law? (I think there are no good answers too this, and it's probably better to say this is a job for the parent, not for the government)

greatgib 2y ago

What kind of moron is elected in the parlement of Australia? On one side social media can have huge fines if they don't prevent "teenagers" to use social networks, but on the other side the platforms will be banned to require documents to check identity of users...

high_na_euv 2y ago
There are other ways to verify this without uploading id E.g sign in with bank/gov
- greatgib 2y ago
  It's basically the same, your social account will now be identified/linked to your legal identity and I'm not sure if it not covered by the same amendment.
  - gklitz 2y ago
    Verifying someone’s age doesn’t require tying their account to their government identity.
    - rightbyte 2y ago
      It pretty much does. Or are they aupposed to look at dental x-rays? How else would you know.
      - gklitz 2y ago
        The question isn’t how you determine someone’s age it’s how you verify it. You can verify information without any need to tie the identity in client services to the identity in the verifying authority.
  - high_na_euv 2y ago
    It doesnt have to Social media can just query gov service with question: is this user above 16 - yes no

southernplaces7 2y ago

The implicit privacy intrusions, claims of harm and other very dubious moral and legal arguments favoring this law reek through and through. The most obvious among the problems is the obviously indicated move towards making ID verification a default part of whether people access content or not. Even if it's only used "for children" at first, it's normalization will spread, leading to widespread overt de-anonymization. Yes, some of you here might argue (not unreasonably) that most of what most of us do online is in any case thoroughly de-anonymized by all sorts of commercially motivated surveillance and tracking mechanisms that governments can latch on to, but at least the process is not a legal requirement, and you're not breaking laws by willfully circumventing it. Malicious bills like this will normalize identifying yourself legally as a regulatory requirement and will make it much easier to criminalize tools and efforts for keeping one's privacy. What an excellent disguised entry point for doing just! Now being implemented by western governments claiming to respect personal freedom while slavering ever more at the contrary examples already set by overtly authoritarian states. Grotesque, dangerous and another authority grab under the tediously stupid old guise of protecting the children from old boogeymen like pornography and newer but equally bloated, loaded boogeymen like "misinformation" and mental health. Also, I call absolute bullshit on this claim: Opposition lawmaker Dan Tehan told Parliament the government had agreed to accept amendments in the Senate that would 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.

camillomiller 2y ago
I absolutely see the point, but I also see how politically negligent the world has been in regulating social media. The companies that run the platforms are well aware of the risks and psychological harm their product causes, but will never ever do anything that is driven by those worries instead of profit. Hence, we need regulations. Unfortunately it is quite hard to impose anything within the legal framework that would help with the main issue. ID requests are a wrong answer to a real problem. I am a longtime proposer of a big tobacco style set of policies. The banning and sanctioning of a harmful digital product is unfortunately exponentially harder than regulating a physical one like cigarettes. Nonetheless, the imposition of health advice, labels, and mandatory limits on usage to be built in the apps should be viable, just like imposing pictures of cancer patients and “smoking kills” on cigarette packages.

ranguna 2y ago

Most people are concerned about privacy on a social networks that farm your data, they already know who you are the moment you upload a photo, write something mildly descriptive, or do just about anything else on social media. If you want to remain anonymous, use forums like reddit, HN amongst others. I see this as a brilliant step in the right direction of curbing teen depression and suicides. It's sad to see so much hate on something with so much potential, people are just bashing this proposal instead of offering alternatives, like having a centralised governamental services that informs social media platforms whether a person is eligible to create an account on social media without giving away any more personal information; instead, it's all just hate and bad mouthing, it saddens me.

sertraline 2y ago
>teen depression and suicides How many children are bullied in school, completely socially isolated, with their only outlet online? Who is going to help them? Why do people think they can solve deep, complex social issues - with a single piece of paper that dictates the law?
morkalork 2y ago
You'll need to use a throwaway email to remain anonymous with reddit. They're a public company now it would be a bold assumption to think they don't resell user profile info and or buy data about the user's profile.

mxxx 2y ago

Good articulation of some of the potential issues with an approach like this from an independent who originally supported the bill but voted against it https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/27/why-ive-changed-my-mind-about-the-social-media-bill-and-why-other-parents-should-too https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/27/why-iv...

wellthisisgreat 2y ago

Old men shout at the sky. Except this time they wield power

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]

dhx 2y ago

For those not familiar with Australian parliamentary processes, the original bill was introduced on the 21st of November 2024 and today the 27th of November 2024 was endorsed by the House of Representatives with no amendments agreed to. The final time the Senate is in session is tomorrow the 28th of November 2024, then returning in February 2025 if the Senate cannot agree on the bill tomorrow. For consideration tomorrow by the senate are 13 proposed amendments to this bill. One amendment comes from the government proposing the bill (34% of Senate vote) and other amendments mostly come from a political coalition with ~40-45% of the vote who passed the bill today through the House of Representatives, and minor parties and independents with ~15-20% of the vote and whom opposed the bill today from being ready for Senate consideration. The government wanting to pass the bill has only 34% of the vote in the Senate so they will likely have to agree with some amendments tomorrow if they want to get the bill enacted. The following amendments with significant changes and significant Senate support are due for consideration: (A) Social media services can not "collect" government-issued identity documents and can not use an "accredited service" (Digital ID system that the Australian government is trying to roll out some time after 2026).[1] The minister can also regulate at any time additional information and verification methods that social media services are not allowed to collect. (amendment of the government proposing this bill with >34% of Senate support) (B) Parents can approve for their children to have social media accounts.[2] (>~40-45% of Senate support) (C) Social media services narrowed in definition such that it attempts (still very poorly) to describe Facebook feeds without also banning 15 year olds from Facebook Messenger, comments sections of a news website, chat in online games, etc.[3] It also appears to allow the government to demand ISPs, DNS providers, VPN providers, application store operators, etc hand over unspecified types of information if it may reveal compliance status of a social media service. (>~40-45% of Senate support) (D) Not mandate social media media services use an Australian government online identity system.[4] But a social media service is not prohibited from volunteering to use an Australian government online identity system. And they probably will use it in preference to other age verification schemes because it presents the least risk to them (risk transfers to government providing the identity system). Social media services are still allowed to ask users to email or upload their identity documents or go through any other identity verification hoops the social media service may invent. (>~40-45% of Senate support) (E) Add risk assessment and transparency reporting obligations for "large" social media services.[5] Appears to allow a minister (not parliament) to maintain a standard for the risk assessment which has mandatory mitigation methods specified within that social media services must implement. The risk assessments of social media services are required to be published to the public. (>15-20% of Senate support) [1] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r7284_amend_e0f7a6b7-bb30-4830-a787-6301b89f03b0/upload_pdf/B24SY115.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/am... [2] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r7284_amend_898c4a45-c74b-4569-a99e-cbcfbef5af41/upload_pdf/3216%20CW%20Online%20Safety%20Amendment%20(Social%20Media%20Minimum%20Age)%20Bill%202024_Canavan.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/am... [3] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r7284_amend_b70200b7-1978-4efc-8799-0e5c0c927fa7/upload_pdf/3195%20CW%20Online%20Safety%20Amendment%20(Social%20Media%20Minimum%20Age)%20Bill%202024_Canavan.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/am... [4] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r7284_amend_9a5c94e2-4efb-4fed-8ac3-0d6ca588c763/upload_pdf/3180%20CW%20Online%20Safety%20Amendment%20(Social%20Media%20Minimum%20Age)%20Bill%202024_Canavan.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/am... [5] https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r7284_amend_a11c8ef8-ef75-4121-8b44-ebb849e6cb43/upload_pdf/3201%20CW%20Online%20Safety%20Amendment%20(Social%20Media%20Minimum%20Age)%20Bill%202024_Hanson-Young.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/am...

ycic 2y ago

Probably safer for democracy if they ban adults of voting age from social media.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

Argonaut998 2y ago

Knowing Australia this is just a ploy to enforce people having to link their personal ID with their social media accounts later down the line.

beretguy 2y ago
Or give them an option to delete their account.

blodkorv 2y ago

we will see a rise of bootleg socialmedia plattforms hosted under the radar.

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

Related later: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42264733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42264733

goler 2y ago

If compliance requires that every user provide some form of ID, this policy will be a catastrophe for privacy and a major downgrade in terms of usability. Much more annoying than the pop-ups asking me to acknowledge cookies.