23 ms·

Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws

282 points by llui85 2y ago

sekai 2y ago
If this is not enforced properly, it's meaningless. Just like the fight against piracy.
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  The main point here is probably to force ID control and have a constant flux of fully identified users on the networks ? The gov gets at least full legal check of any SNS account.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    From the article: > Social media companies also won't be able to force users to provide government identification, including the Digital ID, to assess their age.
    - stephen_g 2y ago
      The actual law doesn't fully rule it out (there was an amendment to kind-of add that but it's fuzzy so ID could still be part of it). But it's basically unenforcable without doing ID, it's going to fall in a heap eventually. The Australian Governement talks big game in tech regulation but almost every single thing they do (like the 'eSafety Comissioner' with their truly extradorinary powers) fails because they are very, very incompetent when it comes to technology. I think former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull accidentally summed it up (talking about encryption) when he literally claimed that "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia".
Aeolun 2y ago
What they're really saying is that all websites will add a 'are you really over 16' checkbox?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- makeitdouble 2y ago
  Apparently the gov has been setting up their own system for that: https://www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/media-releases/statement-announcement-of-age-assurance-trial https://www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/media-releases/statement...
  - nineteen999 2y ago
    Which will probably work as well as most apps implemented by the Australian Govt; myNDIS, myGov, myMedicare etc etc etc. They are all trash. We do not have a good track record in this area.
llui85 2y ago
Some notes: * It is illegal for a platform to provide children with a social media account, not for the child to create an account. Circumvention of this by the child is not illegal. * No grandfathering - all accounts under 16 once this takes effect (which won't be until this time next year at earliest) must be deactivated. * Maximum fine (per instance?) is 50 million AUD (about 32 million USD) * The legislation is vague on the technical details, although it does specifically mandate that platforms cannot use government-issued ID of any kind (including digital ID).
- guidedlight 2y ago
  Leisure Suit Larry was ahead of its time with its age verification system.
  - elros 2y ago
    For those of us who weren’t around at the time, could you d on what made it good? Thanks!
    - rlv-dan 2y ago
      They asked questions grown ups would know but likely not kids. I remember one questions about The Beatles for example. https://allowe.com/games/larry/tips-manuals/lsl1-age-quiz.html https://allowe.com/games/larry/tips-manuals/lsl1-age-quiz.ht... Edit: Added link
    - dagw 2y ago
      what made it good? Less good, more fun. To 'prove' that you were over 18 you had answer a series of multiple choice questions [1] about pop culture that most kids almost certainly wouldn't know. Pre internet, finding the answer was surprisingly hard without asking an adult. The main result was that 10 year old me knew a surprisingly large number of obscure facts of about US culture, like who Spiro Agnew was and that Ronald Reagan once starred in a movie with a monkey. Eventually we found out that you could press some magic key combination to skip the question all together. [1] https://allowe.com/games/larry/tips-manuals/lsl1-age-quiz.html https://allowe.com/games/larry/tips-manuals/lsl1-age-quiz.ht...
nileshtrivedi 2y ago
What happens if the account belongs to the parent but all the content is by the child?
- stephen_g 2y ago
  Careful there, you've potentially just thought about this more deeply than any of the politicians in our Parliament has...
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    Yes, because kids love when parents are all up in their social media accounts watching their interactions. What about parents who just buy their kids booze?
makeitdouble 2y ago
Is the actual discussed measure available somewhere ? Looking around none of the articles discussing this had references to official documents. Judging from the info in the article: - kids will have one year to see which platforms are not categorized as SNS, yet can be used as such. - kids stuck with brainwashing parents, especially in remote rural areas, will have it a bit more tougher I guess.
- llui85 2y ago
  https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r7284_first-reps/toc_pdf/24150b01.PDF https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi... (explanatory memorandum here: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r7284_ems_b9c134ac-a19a-47b2-9879-b03dda6e3c1a/upload_pdf/JC014726.pdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/em...) And the amendment to the first reading which was agreed to today which has the bits about ID verification being disallowed: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r7284_amend_e0f7a6b7-bb30-4830-a787-6301b89f03b0/upload_pdf/B24SY115.pdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/am... (supplementary explanatory memorandum here: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r7284_ems_ca8c5dba-cc80-4846-92f5-bea56885dcdf/upload_pdf/Supplementary%20EM_Online%20Safety%20Amdt%20(Social%20Media%20Minimum%20Age)%20Bill%202024.pdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/em...)
  - mavhc 2y ago
    Not disallowed, just they also have to offer an alternative. Question is why hasn't Australia created a Digital ID system that can prove you're >= 16 years old without giving away other info?
    - dhx 2y ago
      In the spirit of "Falsehoods programmers believe in"[1] for human ages: * Not all people know their age.[2] * Even if people do know their age they may not have any means to prove their age.[2] * Even if people know their age, they may know their age only in a calendar system which is ambiguous or with a margin of error.[3] * Even if people have documentation proving their age, the documentation may provide an approximate age or use a calendar system which is ambiguous or with a margin of error.[3] * Even if people have documentation proving their age, they may know it to be incorrect. * People may have multiple documents each nominating a different age. * People may be reissued with new documents changing their recognised age. * Even if the government tries to guess someone's unknown age, it's an inexact science and could be revised later. [1] https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood [2] https://www.racgp.org.au/getattachment/fe71891a-aafe-453f-a388-2d33b7ddcdb3/Proof-of-age-required-estimating-age-in-adults-wit.aspx https://www.racgp.org.au/getattachment/fe71891a-aafe-453f-a3... [3] Example calendar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igbo_calendar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igbo_calendar
lmpdev 2y ago
My friend is a media lawyer in Australia He can’t even advise if some video game developers he represents’ multiplayer games are exempt from the ban He says the legislation is just an under defined word salad Note this was several days ago and it may have been amended in the mean time
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  "He can’t even advise if some video game developers he represents’ multiplayer games are exempt from the ban" There are a lot of issues with this legislation, but I'm not sure this is one of them. Games like Roblox are so exploitative, they're probably worse for children than most social media. See, for example: https://www.eurogamer.net/roblox-exploiting-young-game-developers-new-investigation-reports https://www.eurogamer.net/roblox-exploiting-young-game-devel...
  - liminvorous 2y ago
    The point is not about whether video games should be exempt, it's about being able to tell whether they are covered by this law or not
    - ndriscoll 2y ago
      The OP article didn't link to the law text and the above poster didn't hint at what's ambiguous, so it's not clear that that's bad. It's also possible that the game companies are doing something wrong and engaging in wishful thinking/trying to find a technicality through which they can argue the law doesn't apply to them. c.f. premium loot boxes i.e. gambling.
  - fwsgonzo 2y ago
    I have to strongly agree here. Video games are not free from the social media problems that we are trying to free ourselves from. We also have parents and close family that have been caught in outrage nets, and who knows when, if they will ever be free? We know the pipeline for right-wing grifters. Who doesn't have any taters in the family these days? A literal human trafficker and pimp who has been in prison is giving advice to our youth in droves. More than you will ever know. My family members stopped talking about it, and started complaining about how we can't talk about things anymore once they discovered that outside of their bubble people know what these monsters/grifters actually do.
jeremycarter 2y ago
What if the platform is not registered as a business in Australia? You can't fine it if it's not a legal entity there. Simply setup a php Facebook clone and host it in another country.
- jmyeet 2y ago
  Facebook does business in Australia. They sell ads.
- ChrisRR 2y ago
  "Simply" If you're making money from aussie customers, you need to comply to aussie rules
  - rmah 2y ago
    How will the Australian government compel such companies to comply?
    - xp84 2y ago
      Just by blocking the network traffic. Plenty of countries do this with sites they don’t like for various reasons. Yes VPNs blah blah. But it will be pretty hard to operate some rogue social site when you can’t sell any respectable ads besides maybe porn sites and malware, and are only accessible via VPN. Pretty high barrier to adoption for a brand new site.
    - ndriscoll 2y ago
      By freezing bank transfers/disallowing any Australian companies (read: advertisers) from doing business with them? Depending on treaties, possibly by seizing assets in the company's home country?
goalieca 2y ago
I can’t get behind a ban because we’re fighting an unstoppable force: the connected future. This is the world we live in and kids will have to “evolve” to their new environment. I think parents and schools need to change the role they play.
- dyauspitr 2y ago
  Nothing unstoppable about it. It’s about as straightforward and controlling access to tobacco or alcohol.
  - sneak 2y ago
    Or marijuana or cocaine. It’s super easy for the government to deny access to things people want by fiat, as evidenced by the fact that nobody does cocaine anymore.
    - voidUpdate 2y ago
      Sadly I can confirm that people still do cocaine
      - dyauspitr 2y ago
        But not 96% of people and not 99.5% regularly.
- ysavir 2y ago
  What changes are you recommending?
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2y ago
    Kids are looking for community. Connections with other people who they share experiences with (and can make more experiences together). They're looking for others who see the world the way they do. The solution is more face to face time with other families on a regular basis. Replace Facebook with actual faces.
gonzo41 2y ago
Don't worry, this is performative law making. There's going ot be an election in March, probably called in January. So the government will probably return, then fix and alter this when they work out just how impossible it will be to enforce. OR, everyone in Australia is going to have to prove their age to use social media, and TBH, social media ain't that great. It just may be the cold shower we all need.
creakingstairs 2y ago
I was wondering how "social media" was defined. Anyone got a link to the actual bill? From the article: > "Messaging apps," "online gaming services" and "services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users" will not fall under the ban, as well as sites like YouTube that do not require users to log in to access the platform. Almost every "social" apps are basically messaging apps these days. What's the differentiating factor between banned and not banned? Having an algorithmic feed? So YouTube is not banned because its doesn't require users to log in to access the plaform? Can Instagram enable browsing without logging in (and disable some features except DM) to avoid the ban then? Also, now kids can create YouTube accounts to use shorts as Instagram reels, community posts as Instagram Posts and subscribe to each other. But hey, that's not a "Social media" right?
- llui85 2y ago
  (i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users; (ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users; (iii) the service allows end-users to post material on the service; Linked to the legislation in another comment.
  - tekla 2y ago
    This is so generic, you might as well ban the internet.
    - morkalork 2y ago
      This is hilarious. Want to use google maps? Sorry, ID please! Users can post comments and reviews all over the world and see ones from everyone else.
    - 71bw 2y ago
      And that is the entire point. You will only use the X state-mandated websites. You will only express positive opinions on there. You will not criticize the government under any circumstances. Glory to Arstozka.
mupuff1234 2y ago
[flagged]
vidarh 2y ago
Guess Australia will get a lot of kids well-versed in VPN use.
- gregoryl 2y ago
  I've recently been teaching kids to code (in Aus) - 7 year olds already know about VPNs, and use them to circumvent various roadblocks to playing roblox!
  - AlchemistCamp 2y ago
    Few things in this world can stop kids from finding a way to play their favorite video games.
- Hizonner 2y ago
  Until they ban VPNs. Moral panics acknowledge no bounds of sanity.
  - cherryteastain 2y ago
    Even China does not have a blanket VPN ban
    - hn_acker 2y ago
      The extent to which China "does not have a blanket VPN ban" is of no help to people who want to bypass the Great Firewall.
  - vidarh 2y ago
    Banning VPNs requires significant investment in filtering traffic, because the VPNs these kids will be using won't be hosted in Australia.
- ocschwar 2y ago
  What we'll learn first is how schools use the new law as a tool for limiting device access in general and kids spend 8 hours a day reliving Gen-X.
academic_84572 2y ago
Yes, this is flawed legislation, and yes kids will find ways to bypass these protections. But I think this is a step in the right direction. There is clear evidence of the harms caused by social media, especially for adolescents. We have to start trying things - albeit imperfectly - to get to a better place. We can learn a lot from the outcomes of this experiment.
- stephen_g 2y ago
  The key feedback that was unaniamous from all the experts that managed to reply to the Government's 24-hour consultation period was that they all agreed a blanket ban is the worst way to approach the platform (they were all ignored by all but a few Senators). An interesting part of the ban is that kids will be banned from Instagram, but sites like 4chan (and ovbiously anything on the dark web, which teens might now be more motivated to access) will be out of the reach of it...
- Hizonner 2y ago
  Nice of you to volunteer others as experimental subjects.
  - maxglute 2y ago
    World is divided by people who grew up with social media and people who didn't. I'd imagine there's already ample longitudinal metrics to extrapolate differences and draw conclusions between the two groups. The experiment's not really whether social media is bad for adolescents, but whether one can successfully legislate to reduce social media use among them. Not holding my breath.
- johnisgood 2y ago
  We have taken such steps in many areas now, and it simply does not work. We can keep trying this old, tired method, but it does not work. I do not want ID verification for the Internet either, to be honest.
- from-nibly 2y ago
  The fact that kids are going to circumvent the rules means that it's going to be a wild back and forth between companies and the courts when they do.
soulofmischief 2y ago
Make absolutely no mistake. The real reason why politicians push through these anti-social media laws is to prevent children from networking and discussing and sharing revolutionary ideas. These laws are designed to prevent generations from establishing a baseline sociopolitical coherency and unity. I was subject to a home firewall and computer use surveillance as a child for the exact same reason, because my cult guardians did not want me encountering unapproved ideas or networking with like-minded individuals who might weaken their ability to control and brainwash me. I was treated as a criminal, and so my response was to educate myself deeply in how to succeed as a criminal. I learned to hack my imposed surveillance systems, and then hack websites on the web. I learned how to lie and manipulate authority in order to survive without compromising my internal compass. I collectivized with other hackers. Is that the path we want every child subject to these bans to take? I fortunately have a moral and ethical foundation which led to me using my skills for good, but I am certainly capable of quite a lot of things that wouldn't be a net good for society, and I know how to get away with it. Perhaps we shouldn't teach a generation of repressed children these skills, and institutionalize them from a young age in opposition to society. This is the exact same mechanism used to criminalize cannabis smokers. Smoking cannabis in my late teens and early twenties in a state where it was illegal led me to learning quite a lot about how to navigate the criminal underbelly of the world. The "gateway drug" rhetoric becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, enacted by the very people who lie through their teeth about their intentions. Oppose these laws. Violently, if necessary. If you are a child, learn how to protect yourself online, familiarize yourself with security culture, and continue to safely and covertly network with other children online. Form strong bonds. Collectivize. Create art, study politics and science. Make lasting, useful connections. Broadcast and distribute your opinions and demands of your governing bodies. This is what being a child growing up on the internet is about. I owe everything in my life to my formative years on the internet. It was an escape hatch from my abusive home. I learned a lot, and formed precious memories joining and starting forums and chat rooms in my youth. I would probably be dead today without the web. Attack the real problem. The techniques which certain social media sites use to manipulate and hook children and others are well-documented. Ban them. Make an example of their practitioners. The web that I grew up on did not have these problems. Fuck Australia, and fuck every other person who dares to suggest that children should not be allowed to congregate safely online and be allowed to navigate society and culture according to their own compass.
alexhawdon 2y ago
Questions about how this is going to be implemented and enforced from a technical and legal perspective are missing the point/benefit: this is about empowering parents and collectively changing behaviours. "It's against the law so no you can't" isn't going to work with EVERY 14 year old. But it will work for many and hopefully that's enough.
- stephen_g 2y ago
  I actually see this as potentially damaging to society. "It's against the law for you to use any website that lets you look at cat pictures and make any contact with anybody else" is so silly that kids are going to see right through that, and rightly not care about following it. So they're going to have less respect for the rule of law generally... I'm very big on compentent laws, but also on just not having silly laws. It devalues the whole system... (I would also wonder how many 14-year olds you know if you think this would work for many, but also I suppose that could be a cultural difference)
TomK32 2y ago
Here in Austria in fourth grade kids take a little test for their bicycling skill. Not that it matters much in a car-centric country, but people forget that cycling, even in company with a parent, give kids the chance to learn the necessary traffic rules. Why not have something similar for social media or as the problem seems to be general conduct in social media, educate the kids and give them better ways to raise the alarm when things to bad. Just banning kids won't help them much.
- tilolebo 2y ago
  Right. Let's do the same for drugs. Irony aside, these platforms are addictive and polarizing by design. I doubt a little test will change anything.
  - lukan 2y ago
    You realize HN here is social media, too?
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      And HN even recognizes it can be addictive to some. See the "noprocrast" setting on your user settings page.
      - lukan 2y ago
        Yes? So ban it all, just like drugs?
    - probably_wrong 2y ago
      I would argue that "social media" requires the social aspect, namely, contacts and direct messaging.
      - lukan 2y ago
        Everyone has a profil and everyone who wants to, leaves contact inside the profil.
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42251758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42251758
asgerhb 2y ago
My thoughts immediately go to all the queer kids in rural areas who stand to be cut off from the only support networks they have.
- blacksoil 2y ago
  [flagged]
- adventured 2y ago
  Any and all kids in rural areas. Experience deprivation is a very real thing. I grew up in a desolate rural area, circa the 1980s and 1990s. The Internet - WebChatBroadcasting, ICQ, IRC, etc - was like a gift from the gods in the early 1990s. Cutting off young teens from access to the world via 'social media,' is a human rights violation.
  - dngray 2y ago
    That very reason was raised in parliament, during question time by one senator, but neither side (LNP/Labor) gives a shit.
  - BSDobelix 2y ago
    The internet today is a very different place from the 90's. I really hope your children don't have access to the sickest, shallowest, most addictive and most dangerous place on the net.
  - owisd 2y ago
    The idea that social media is like a Meta commercial, all making new friends and video calls to smiling Grandparents, etc. is a fabrication, presumably one that a lot of HN folks have a vested interest in maintaining. Kids are lonelier now than they have ever been.
    - brookst 2y ago
      Not everyone who disagrees with you is lying.
    - 2y ago
Funes- 2y ago
Reminder that, often, that which is intended to be passed as a measure to enforce moral rules or increase security is actually a way to deprive you of your privacy.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
shadowgovt 2y ago
Heh. Good luck with that.
- puppycodes 2y ago
  jinx
cies 2y ago
What is social media? Is HN social media? Is a news paper site with a comment section social media? And FB-messenger, is that part of it?
- bloak 2y ago
  The Online Safety Act 2021 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2021A00076/latest/text https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2021A00076/latest/text) says: (1) For the purposes of this Act, social media service means: (a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions: (i) the sole or primary purpose of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end‑users; (ii) the service allows end‑users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end‑users; (iii) the service allows end‑users to post material on the service; (iv) such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules; or (b) an electronic service specified in the legislative rules; but does not include an exempt service (as defined by subsection (4)). Note: Online social interaction does not include (for example) online business interaction. Since "business interaction" is mentioned as an example of something that is not "social interaction" one might plausibly claim that "social interaction" should be interpreted quite narrowly, and then one could claim both that the primary purpose of HN is not interaction at all (it's a new aggregator) and that any interaction that does happen to take place in the comments is not "social" interaction but some other kind of interaction. (It really does say "2 or more" rather than "two or more".)
xp84 2y ago
If you’re tempted to think “this isn’t worth it, too hard to enforce without affecting something else”… read “The Anxious Generation” by Jonathan Haidt. There is very real, irreparable harm being done to young people, and it merits trying to make it right, not just surrendering to it. Surely the problem of verifying a property of someone (the Boolean of “is over X age”) without sharing further details, is a surmountable problem given all the cryptographic technologies at our disposal. If a government wants to make this possible, given they know everyone’s birthdate, they could.
- brookst 2y ago
  The information theory problem is how to do so without creating a government ledger of every platform that every person uses, and a government kill switch to disable any platform the government doesn’t like.
- BadHumans 2y ago
  > Surely the problem of verifying a property of someone (the Boolean of “is over X age”) without sharing further details, is a surmountable problem given all the cryptographic technologies at our disposal. Only if preserving privacy is the goal and I'm sure we both know it isn't.
  - owisd 2y ago
    I guess it will become self-fulfilling if everyone denies that there are privacy friendly options. Legislatures globally are starting to take this seriously so chances are it's happening one way or another.
    - BadHumans 2y ago
      "Everyone" isn't denying there are privacy friendly options. The government does not want to implement privacy friendly options.
- isodev 2y ago
  Indeed, the challenge is already resolved in Europe by eID/EIDAS in a privacy respecting way, so the technology exists and it's already proven on a large scale.
tootie 2y ago
I know this is targeting social media but just pointing out that there is no evidence screen time is affecting kids development and pretty solid evidence that it doesn't have much effect at all. https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/news-events/no-evidence-screen-time-is-negative-for-childrens-cognitive-development-and-well-being-oxford-study/ https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/news-events/no-evidence-screen-time...
- averysmallbird 2y ago
  There’s a difference between screen time and social media usage.
  - tootie 2y ago
    FTA "One also suggested we take a look at social media on its own because it’s a source of worry for many and we did not find anything special about this form of online engagement.” It's a subset of what they studied. Surely a lot of screen time is spent on social media. They did not observe anything special about time spent on social media. A more in-depth study may yield more insight but there is no thread to pull on from this study. Only parents' misgivings.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
With every passing year I can’t help but think Jonathan Haidt was right all along. I think this will be a very successful law in terms of positive societal impact. But I do worry about the negative repercussions of being able to ban means of practicing free speech. Australia already has a bad track record for that.
aquir 2y ago
[flagged]
bigbacaloa 2y ago
[dead]
BadHumans 2y ago
I'm torn here because I think there is very real harm being done with social media not just to kids but to adults as well but you should look at anything being "to protect the children" with extreme prejudice as it is likely just a power grab and way to reduce privacy. The saying "never let a good tragedy go to waste" comes to mind here.
- vanrysss 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - orangecat 2y ago
    "Nothing" is often preferable to enabling abuses of power.
  - hbn 2y ago
    When it comes to my privacy I want the government to accomplish nothing because otherwise they only take.
afavour 2y ago
Like the spirit, dislike the execution. Passing legislation to “protect the kids” is politically easy. Bans are simple. Much more effective, IMO, would be to legislate the way social networks behave. Stop their most addictive patterns. Adults are just as susceptible as kids in my experience. If there needs to be anything kid specific, perhaps a block on using the service during school hours, or only for X hours a day.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  Well when then fuck are social media companies going to take their responsibility seriously?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    When it becomes an obligation.
  - to1y 2y ago
    What is their responsibility and what are they doing that is so insidiously addictive exactly? Endless shitposts by your friends for you to scroll-through is that the fentanyl of the internet? To me this just seems like they're trying to get some control over what people are exposed to and to find out who's doing what.
- slibhb 2y ago
  Governments should not be in the business of telling tech companies how to design software. Honest observers will look back on the anti-social-media movement as a moral panic. It isn't so much that social media is good, it's that the proper attitude toward new, scary things is to integrate them into your life in a healthy way rather than banning them. And if we should ban anything it's drugs and gambling, not tiktok
  - lm28469 2y ago
    > it's that the proper attitude toward new, scary things is to integrate them into your life in a healthy way rather than banning them Exactly, just like we did with DDT, leaded paint, leaded gas, freon in fridges, uranium in lipsticks, PFAS, food additives, &c. > Governments should not be in the business of telling tech companies how to design software. And tech companies should't be in the business of influencing who will govern you
roody15 2y ago
I wonder if we should even call this social media at this point. More like interactive TV 3.0. All the feeds are heavily ad infested and “promoted” content appears from “infliences” .. some people shadow banned while others artificially boosted up your feed. All designed to maximize your attention but also sway your opinion. The social part of social media seems to have gone mostly by the wayside. “Did you see the new dance this one kid did in Texas” like like, hashtag, loved it , repost, etc … not really building much of a social relationship, or perhaps it is and just seems a bit off to us older folks,
egorfine 2y ago
As a father of 4 ranging from 10 to 30+, I certainly hope the law will not practically work and that kids will find a way to use social media.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2y ago
  Interesting. My kids aren't allowed on social media, and they're happier and less moody than their friends who are addicted to it. They see it, and don't even want social media anymore because their friends spend so much time on their phones rather than being present and having real experiences. I don't think I would wish social media on any child, though I believe it's a problem that can be solved not by more laws, but by better parenting.
  - egorfine 2y ago
    > better parenting. And that's the key point. The crucial one.
nomilk 2y ago
Every single Australian's ID will have to be verified (in order to confirm their age). Depending on the degree of cooperation (/coercion) the Australian government has with social media companies, the Aus Govt will be able to access citizen social media data with relative ease. So no more pseudo anonymous accounts (or, at least, they'll be made more difficult, especially for non-technical folk). Reminds of the 'chilling effect' of measures of bygone decades. My personal hunch is legacy media is largely driving this, due to them seeing the writing on the wall and knowing 'social media' is their biggest threat. If young people get their information from sites like bluesky, twitter, podcasts and reddit, they may never watch a mainstream news program or read an online newspaper. Bad for business. This measure is a great way of eradicating some competition.
- pmarreck 2y ago
  I would like to see some evidence before I buy this conspiracy theory. If anything, I feel like legacy media is too lazy and entrenched to even consider this
  - nomilk 2y ago
    Legacy media are indeed lazy and stupid, but all that's stopping them is the Australian parliament, who are lazier and stupider.
  - teitoklien 2y ago
    So lazy that they successfully lobbied governments to ruin their relation with big tech companies like facebook, google etc To give newspapers 100s of millions of free money just for the “privilege” of linking to their article, a “link tax”. They are lazy about reporting news without a bias, but they are perfectly active when it comes to lobbying.
    - pmarreck 2y ago
      I would be happy to see any links to evidence of this
INTPenis 2y ago
This is going to be an interesting experiment to watch. Because if I know kids, they will find any creative way they can to circumvent the ban. And even worse is if some actor out there starts catering to kids by publishing "proxy services". My opinion on this is that it's the same as banning drugs. People want to use them, and will find any way to use them.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  Some will but at population scale any barrier will decrease usage.
  - INTPenis 2y ago
    We'll see. If I think back to my own time in school I foresee kids teaching each other the latest circumvention technique. It might be as simple as using VPN vouchers. Or sharing VPN accounts, or using someone's public VPN server. This is why it'll be so fun to see what they come up with, the kids that is. They're the true innovators, the hackers. ;) It might be as simple as use of a certain service exploding, a service that has flown under the government radar. Discord for example might not be considered social media but you can turn it into social media using bots.
- BeFlatXIII 2y ago
  > And even worse is if some actor out there starts catering to kids by publishing "proxy services". How long until this happens and there's a big paedophilia scare so I can point and laugh at everyone involved?
- ruthmarx 2y ago
  This is where kids might flock to decentralized options like Mastadon or something.
  - INTPenis 2y ago
    I suspect it'll be even simpler. That some major service like Discord for example will fly under the AU government radar simply because it's chat.
cynicalsecurity 2y ago
This is pure insanity. This ban is something the Soviet Union or China would do, not the free world.
- krapp 2y ago
  It wasn't that long ago that Americans were calling TikTok a "Chinese weapon of war and mass indoctrination" and wanting it banned. To say nothing of everyone wanting Section 230 repealed and the government to regulate social media, requiring a court order for moderation, banning "algorithms" or making social media entirely illegal. The attitude behind this is absolutely endemic across the "free world." Australia is simply a bit further ahead of the curve as far as turning the moral panic over pedos and groomers and Chinese mind control into authoritarian action. As soon as the new regime gets settled in the US I'm sure we'll see something similar. Musk has already made vague threats along those lines.
rdm_blackhole 2y ago
Another privacy killing feature coming from a government who can't help themselves from knowing every little detail about everyone's private life.
bArray 2y ago
I generally think that children's access to the internet needs to be more closely monitored. You wouldn't allow your child to walk up to random strangers in the street without you there, why do we allow it online? I have on a few occasions had to protect a child from an adult in an online group. What concerns me here is how this will be enforced. The only way to implement this is with IDs to check birth dates, and some method to confirm you are the person on the ID. You could imagine this being consolidated into a government ID system to 'protect your data', and to mean you only have to validate once. These accounts will be permanently attached to real people, and I think it will have a chilling effect on free speech. It's all fun and games until the government of the day considers your speech as a threat. One can see this being expanded too, so that you would need to provide ID to use the internet more generally. ISPs could be told to selectively deliver web pages from DNS based on your ID, which would be most effective on mobile devices and less so on wired networks. My ISP already blocks websites. I think a more fundamental question is whether the nanny state should be telling you how to raise your children, what content they can consume and who they can interact with. Suddenly you find your children consuming content only from a Z-wing bias because the government of the day hates Y-wing politics.
- cynicalsecurity 2y ago
  This is the most horrifying thing in all of this. People with a prison guard mentality are already thinking how to enforce the rules in an even stricter way. Rules that are violating freedom of information, one of the most basics Western freedoms. Yes, there are no repreciations for the violating them at first, the frog is getting boiled slowly, but give it a few years and people who let their child use social media will be treated as criminals and put in prisons. Everything "for the sake of children."
  - blackoil 2y ago
    > freedom of information, one of the most basics Western freedoms. Children's access to info is limited in all societies.
    - 2y ago
AzzyHN 2y ago
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
- BSDobelix 2y ago
  But talking about "social media": When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you.
hshshshshsh 2y ago
What about Legacy idea? Can they still watch TV and read news papers? Isn't this a form of giving control to legacy media and traditionally powerful especially when in US their influence is decreasing?
wkat4242 2y ago
I'm definitely not going to ID myself to go on social media. Then I'll just quit (in fact I've quit most social media already anyway due to the enshittification). Even a parameter linked to my real ID is not acceptable to me. And also, after social media, I'm sure other sites will start demanding more checks as well. It's a slippery slope. Luckily I don't live in Australia but I find this a troubling development. Anonymity on the internet is necessary. Because it is much more permanent than the real world. Every little misstep can be dissected decades later.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
devonsolomon 2y ago
My question is: What behaviors will come sideways out of this prohibition? My guess: You can’t outwit a digital native generation. Websites with less concern for the rules in general will become digital hangouts.
- bloppe 2y ago
  I'm excited to see the outcomes. Hats off to Australia for engaging in this experiment. One unique aspect of social media, as opposed to, say, porn, is it's reliance on network effects. Sure, maybe 25% of kids will use a VPN and log on, but if most of your friends don't care enough to spend their allowance on a VPN, then what's the point?
  - devonsolomon 2y ago
    Ya that’s true. I guess I’m imagining the “25%” being pushed towards 4chan type environments, and perhaps then a subset of that towards more dangerous environments.
ensignavenger 2y ago
'"Messaging apps," "online gaming services" and "services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users" will not fall under the ban, as well as sites like YouTube that do not require users to log in to access the platform.' So they tell us which social media is excluded, but not the definition of "social media" for what is included? Does anyone know how "social media" is being defined in this law? 'Under the laws, which won't come into force for another 12 months, social media companies could be fined up to $50 million for failing to take "reasonable steps" to keep under 16s off their platforms.' So how is "reasonable steps" defined? The article claims 'Social media companies also won't be able to force users to provide government identification, including the Digital ID, to assess their age.' So is a checkbox that asks "are you over 16?" 'reasonable'?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  This is a genuinely relevant question given that HN could be easily argued to be social media. For the record, I too am concerned about social media impact and so on ( for good and valid reasons ), but this law does not seem that great at first glance.
  - ensignavenger 2y ago
    Hacker News doesn't require a login to view content, so I guess it is exempt, from this specific law.
bostonwalker 2y ago
Predictably, I see a lot of concern being expressed here about how this will be implemented and enforced. There is an underlying assumption, which seems fairly reasonable, that the government is going to use this opportunity (à la Louisiana) to overreach and require people to provide their identity to access these services. One question I have for other HN commenters though, does it necessarily need to happen this way? Political realities aside, is there a way for the government to set up an age verification service in a way that preserves privacy? If so, the time is ripe for this community to put forward such a solution and advocate for it loudly. If current sentiment is any indication, social media age restrictions are going to go global and Australia is going to set the precedent for the rest of the world.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  It is not possible aside from getting everyone an internet ID, which most will probably reject for good reason. Governments should not get this power. This is the basic tenet that separation of powers is based on. The only measure that helps is to just take away the means. I am uncertain it will go global at all or go very far even in Australia as there are at least some companies that try to benefit their customers. And there still is the private web anyway that isn't affected. Australia should be made fun off for their attempts, it isn't their first rodeo.
anal_reactor 2y ago
"Social media is bad for kids" is the fresh iteration of "video games are bad for kids". Remember the craze?
whiplash451 2y ago
I would rather title it as: Social media companies to be banned from destroying the lives of minors. Let's not swap the violators and the victims.
xkbarkar 2y ago
“services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users" will be excempt. Sigh. Good luck with that. Not at all vague.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
idunnoman1222 2y ago
funnelling all the kids to 4chan is maybe not the best idea …
prng2021 2y ago
This sounds so useless that it could be an Onion article. What am I missing? “There are no penalties for young people or parents who flout the rules. Social media companies also won't be able to force users to provide government identification, including the Digital ID, to assess their age.”
Figs 2y ago
Does anyone have a link to the actual text of the legislation?
oloila 2y ago
Lol, guys. Even in Russia, which is said to have a low level of freedom, the government has not yet decided to introduce identification in social networks by passport. By the way, some restrictive laws in Russia, for example, blocking websites law, began with the need to protect children from "illegal content". Australians, don't give up
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
fldskfjdslkfj 2y ago
Why did this disappear from the HN front page so quickly?
smsm42 2y ago
What do they mean by social media? Is HN social media? Is Yelp? Is any site that has comments and discussions?
anacrolix 2y ago
Putting a positive word like "social" in the app genre name was a great mindfuck. Social breathing could be used to describe smoking. What a crock
t0bia_s 2y ago
What is a definition of social media? If there will be another platform, that is not listed on banned platforms, will they add it to regulation later... And later again, another...?
puppycodes 2y ago
lol good luck with that
puppycodes 2y ago
guarenteed to be enforced on the poor and ignored by the rich
knowitnone 2y ago
kids under 16 learn that they can break the law easily and not have any consequences

282 points by llui85 2y ago

sekai 2y ago

If this is not enforced properly, it's meaningless. Just like the fight against piracy.

makeitdouble 2y ago
The main point here is probably to force ID control and have a constant flux of fully identified users on the networks ? The gov gets at least full legal check of any SNS account.
- vidarh 2y ago
  From the article: > Social media companies also won't be able to force users to provide government identification, including the Digital ID, to assess their age.
  - stephen_g 2y ago
    The actual law doesn't fully rule it out (there was an amendment to kind-of add that but it's fuzzy so ID could still be part of it). But it's basically unenforcable without doing ID, it's going to fall in a heap eventually. The Australian Governement talks big game in tech regulation but almost every single thing they do (like the 'eSafety Comissioner' with their truly extradorinary powers) fails because they are very, very incompetent when it comes to technology. I think former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull accidentally summed it up (talking about encryption) when he literally claimed that "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia".

Aeolun 2y ago

What they're really saying is that all websites will add a 'are you really over 16' checkbox?

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
makeitdouble 2y ago
Apparently the gov has been setting up their own system for that: https://www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/media-releases/statement-announcement-of-age-assurance-trial https://www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/media-releases/statement...
- nineteen999 2y ago
  Which will probably work as well as most apps implemented by the Australian Govt; myNDIS, myGov, myMedicare etc etc etc. They are all trash. We do not have a good track record in this area.

llui85 2y ago

Some notes: * It is illegal for a platform to provide children with a social media account, not for the child to create an account. Circumvention of this by the child is not illegal. * No grandfathering - all accounts under 16 once this takes effect (which won't be until this time next year at earliest) must be deactivated. * Maximum fine (per instance?) is 50 million AUD (about 32 million USD) * The legislation is vague on the technical details, although it does specifically mandate that platforms cannot use government-issued ID of any kind (including digital ID).

guidedlight 2y ago
Leisure Suit Larry was ahead of its time with its age verification system.
- elros 2y ago
  For those of us who weren’t around at the time, could you d on what made it good? Thanks!
  - rlv-dan 2y ago
    They asked questions grown ups would know but likely not kids. I remember one questions about The Beatles for example. https://allowe.com/games/larry/tips-manuals/lsl1-age-quiz.html https://allowe.com/games/larry/tips-manuals/lsl1-age-quiz.ht... Edit: Added link
  - dagw 2y ago
    what made it good? Less good, more fun. To 'prove' that you were over 18 you had answer a series of multiple choice questions [1] about pop culture that most kids almost certainly wouldn't know. Pre internet, finding the answer was surprisingly hard without asking an adult. The main result was that 10 year old me knew a surprisingly large number of obscure facts of about US culture, like who Spiro Agnew was and that Ronald Reagan once starred in a movie with a monkey. Eventually we found out that you could press some magic key combination to skip the question all together. [1] https://allowe.com/games/larry/tips-manuals/lsl1-age-quiz.html https://allowe.com/games/larry/tips-manuals/lsl1-age-quiz.ht...

nileshtrivedi 2y ago

What happens if the account belongs to the parent but all the content is by the child?

stephen_g 2y ago
Careful there, you've potentially just thought about this more deeply than any of the politicians in our Parliament has...
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  Yes, because kids love when parents are all up in their social media accounts watching their interactions. What about parents who just buy their kids booze?

makeitdouble 2y ago

Is the actual discussed measure available somewhere ? Looking around none of the articles discussing this had references to official documents. Judging from the info in the article: - kids will have one year to see which platforms are not categorized as SNS, yet can be used as such. - kids stuck with brainwashing parents, especially in remote rural areas, will have it a bit more tougher I guess.

llui85 2y ago
https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r7284_first-reps/toc_pdf/24150b01.PDF https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi... (explanatory memorandum here: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r7284_ems_b9c134ac-a19a-47b2-9879-b03dda6e3c1a/upload_pdf/JC014726.pdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/em...) And the amendment to the first reading which was agreed to today which has the bits about ID verification being disallowed: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r7284_amend_e0f7a6b7-bb30-4830-a787-6301b89f03b0/upload_pdf/B24SY115.pdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/am... (supplementary explanatory memorandum here: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/ems/r7284_ems_ca8c5dba-cc80-4846-92f5-bea56885dcdf/upload_pdf/Supplementary%20EM_Online%20Safety%20Amdt%20(Social%20Media%20Minimum%20Age)%20Bill%202024.pdf https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/em...)
- mavhc 2y ago
  Not disallowed, just they also have to offer an alternative. Question is why hasn't Australia created a Digital ID system that can prove you're >= 16 years old without giving away other info?
  - dhx 2y ago
    In the spirit of "Falsehoods programmers believe in"[1] for human ages: * Not all people know their age.[2] * Even if people do know their age they may not have any means to prove their age.[2] * Even if people know their age, they may know their age only in a calendar system which is ambiguous or with a margin of error.[3] * Even if people have documentation proving their age, the documentation may provide an approximate age or use a calendar system which is ambiguous or with a margin of error.[3] * Even if people have documentation proving their age, they may know it to be incorrect. * People may have multiple documents each nominating a different age. * People may be reissued with new documents changing their recognised age. * Even if the government tries to guess someone's unknown age, it's an inexact science and could be revised later. [1] https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood https://github.com/kdeldycke/awesome-falsehood [2] https://www.racgp.org.au/getattachment/fe71891a-aafe-453f-a388-2d33b7ddcdb3/Proof-of-age-required-estimating-age-in-adults-wit.aspx https://www.racgp.org.au/getattachment/fe71891a-aafe-453f-a3... [3] Example calendar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igbo_calendar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igbo_calendar

lmpdev 2y ago

My friend is a media lawyer in Australia He can’t even advise if some video game developers he represents’ multiplayer games are exempt from the ban He says the legislation is just an under defined word salad Note this was several days ago and it may have been amended in the mean time

InsideOutSanta 2y ago
"He can’t even advise if some video game developers he represents’ multiplayer games are exempt from the ban" There are a lot of issues with this legislation, but I'm not sure this is one of them. Games like Roblox are so exploitative, they're probably worse for children than most social media. See, for example: https://www.eurogamer.net/roblox-exploiting-young-game-developers-new-investigation-reports https://www.eurogamer.net/roblox-exploiting-young-game-devel...
- liminvorous 2y ago
  The point is not about whether video games should be exempt, it's about being able to tell whether they are covered by this law or not
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    The OP article didn't link to the law text and the above poster didn't hint at what's ambiguous, so it's not clear that that's bad. It's also possible that the game companies are doing something wrong and engaging in wishful thinking/trying to find a technicality through which they can argue the law doesn't apply to them. c.f. premium loot boxes i.e. gambling.
- fwsgonzo 2y ago
  I have to strongly agree here. Video games are not free from the social media problems that we are trying to free ourselves from. We also have parents and close family that have been caught in outrage nets, and who knows when, if they will ever be free? We know the pipeline for right-wing grifters. Who doesn't have any taters in the family these days? A literal human trafficker and pimp who has been in prison is giving advice to our youth in droves. More than you will ever know. My family members stopped talking about it, and started complaining about how we can't talk about things anymore once they discovered that outside of their bubble people know what these monsters/grifters actually do.

jeremycarter 2y ago

What if the platform is not registered as a business in Australia? You can't fine it if it's not a legal entity there. Simply setup a php Facebook clone and host it in another country.

jmyeet 2y ago
Facebook does business in Australia. They sell ads.
ChrisRR 2y ago
"Simply" If you're making money from aussie customers, you need to comply to aussie rules
- rmah 2y ago
  How will the Australian government compel such companies to comply?
  - xp84 2y ago
    Just by blocking the network traffic. Plenty of countries do this with sites they don’t like for various reasons. Yes VPNs blah blah. But it will be pretty hard to operate some rogue social site when you can’t sell any respectable ads besides maybe porn sites and malware, and are only accessible via VPN. Pretty high barrier to adoption for a brand new site.
  - ndriscoll 2y ago
    By freezing bank transfers/disallowing any Australian companies (read: advertisers) from doing business with them? Depending on treaties, possibly by seizing assets in the company's home country?

goalieca 2y ago

I can’t get behind a ban because we’re fighting an unstoppable force: the connected future. This is the world we live in and kids will have to “evolve” to their new environment. I think parents and schools need to change the role they play.

dyauspitr 2y ago
Nothing unstoppable about it. It’s about as straightforward and controlling access to tobacco or alcohol.
- sneak 2y ago
  Or marijuana or cocaine. It’s super easy for the government to deny access to things people want by fiat, as evidenced by the fact that nobody does cocaine anymore.
  - voidUpdate 2y ago
    Sadly I can confirm that people still do cocaine
    - dyauspitr 2y ago
      But not 96% of people and not 99.5% regularly.
ysavir 2y ago
What changes are you recommending?
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2y ago
  Kids are looking for community. Connections with other people who they share experiences with (and can make more experiences together). They're looking for others who see the world the way they do. The solution is more face to face time with other families on a regular basis. Replace Facebook with actual faces.

gonzo41 2y ago

Don't worry, this is performative law making. There's going ot be an election in March, probably called in January. So the government will probably return, then fix and alter this when they work out just how impossible it will be to enforce. OR, everyone in Australia is going to have to prove their age to use social media, and TBH, social media ain't that great. It just may be the cold shower we all need.

creakingstairs 2y ago

I was wondering how "social media" was defined. Anyone got a link to the actual bill? From the article: > "Messaging apps," "online gaming services" and "services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users" will not fall under the ban, as well as sites like YouTube that do not require users to log in to access the platform. Almost every "social" apps are basically messaging apps these days. What's the differentiating factor between banned and not banned? Having an algorithmic feed? So YouTube is not banned because its doesn't require users to log in to access the plaform? Can Instagram enable browsing without logging in (and disable some features except DM) to avoid the ban then? Also, now kids can create YouTube accounts to use shorts as Instagram reels, community posts as Instagram Posts and subscribe to each other. But hey, that's not a "Social media" right?

llui85 2y ago
(i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users; (ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users; (iii) the service allows end-users to post material on the service; Linked to the legislation in another comment.
- tekla 2y ago
  This is so generic, you might as well ban the internet.
  - morkalork 2y ago
    This is hilarious. Want to use google maps? Sorry, ID please! Users can post comments and reviews all over the world and see ones from everyone else.
  - 71bw 2y ago
    And that is the entire point. You will only use the X state-mandated websites. You will only express positive opinions on there. You will not criticize the government under any circumstances. Glory to Arstozka.

mupuff1234 2y ago

[flagged]

vidarh 2y ago

Guess Australia will get a lot of kids well-versed in VPN use.

gregoryl 2y ago
I've recently been teaching kids to code (in Aus) - 7 year olds already know about VPNs, and use them to circumvent various roadblocks to playing roblox!
- AlchemistCamp 2y ago
  Few things in this world can stop kids from finding a way to play their favorite video games.
Hizonner 2y ago
Until they ban VPNs. Moral panics acknowledge no bounds of sanity.
- cherryteastain 2y ago
  Even China does not have a blanket VPN ban
  - hn_acker 2y ago
    The extent to which China "does not have a blanket VPN ban" is of no help to people who want to bypass the Great Firewall.
- vidarh 2y ago
  Banning VPNs requires significant investment in filtering traffic, because the VPNs these kids will be using won't be hosted in Australia.
ocschwar 2y ago
What we'll learn first is how schools use the new law as a tool for limiting device access in general and kids spend 8 hours a day reliving Gen-X.

academic_84572 2y ago

Yes, this is flawed legislation, and yes kids will find ways to bypass these protections. But I think this is a step in the right direction. There is clear evidence of the harms caused by social media, especially for adolescents. We have to start trying things - albeit imperfectly - to get to a better place. We can learn a lot from the outcomes of this experiment.

stephen_g 2y ago
The key feedback that was unaniamous from all the experts that managed to reply to the Government's 24-hour consultation period was that they all agreed a blanket ban is the worst way to approach the platform (they were all ignored by all but a few Senators). An interesting part of the ban is that kids will be banned from Instagram, but sites like 4chan (and ovbiously anything on the dark web, which teens might now be more motivated to access) will be out of the reach of it...
Hizonner 2y ago
Nice of you to volunteer others as experimental subjects.
- maxglute 2y ago
  World is divided by people who grew up with social media and people who didn't. I'd imagine there's already ample longitudinal metrics to extrapolate differences and draw conclusions between the two groups. The experiment's not really whether social media is bad for adolescents, but whether one can successfully legislate to reduce social media use among them. Not holding my breath.
johnisgood 2y ago
We have taken such steps in many areas now, and it simply does not work. We can keep trying this old, tired method, but it does not work. I do not want ID verification for the Internet either, to be honest.
from-nibly 2y ago
The fact that kids are going to circumvent the rules means that it's going to be a wild back and forth between companies and the courts when they do.

soulofmischief 2y ago

Make absolutely no mistake. The real reason why politicians push through these anti-social media laws is to prevent children from networking and discussing and sharing revolutionary ideas. These laws are designed to prevent generations from establishing a baseline sociopolitical coherency and unity. I was subject to a home firewall and computer use surveillance as a child for the exact same reason, because my cult guardians did not want me encountering unapproved ideas or networking with like-minded individuals who might weaken their ability to control and brainwash me. I was treated as a criminal, and so my response was to educate myself deeply in how to succeed as a criminal. I learned to hack my imposed surveillance systems, and then hack websites on the web. I learned how to lie and manipulate authority in order to survive without compromising my internal compass. I collectivized with other hackers. Is that the path we want every child subject to these bans to take? I fortunately have a moral and ethical foundation which led to me using my skills for good, but I am certainly capable of quite a lot of things that wouldn't be a net good for society, and I know how to get away with it. Perhaps we shouldn't teach a generation of repressed children these skills, and institutionalize them from a young age in opposition to society. This is the exact same mechanism used to criminalize cannabis smokers. Smoking cannabis in my late teens and early twenties in a state where it was illegal led me to learning quite a lot about how to navigate the criminal underbelly of the world. The "gateway drug" rhetoric becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, enacted by the very people who lie through their teeth about their intentions. Oppose these laws. Violently, if necessary. If you are a child, learn how to protect yourself online, familiarize yourself with security culture, and continue to safely and covertly network with other children online. Form strong bonds. Collectivize. Create art, study politics and science. Make lasting, useful connections. Broadcast and distribute your opinions and demands of your governing bodies. This is what being a child growing up on the internet is about. I owe everything in my life to my formative years on the internet. It was an escape hatch from my abusive home. I learned a lot, and formed precious memories joining and starting forums and chat rooms in my youth. I would probably be dead today without the web. Attack the real problem. The techniques which certain social media sites use to manipulate and hook children and others are well-documented. Ban them. Make an example of their practitioners. The web that I grew up on did not have these problems. Fuck Australia, and fuck every other person who dares to suggest that children should not be allowed to congregate safely online and be allowed to navigate society and culture according to their own compass.

alexhawdon 2y ago

Questions about how this is going to be implemented and enforced from a technical and legal perspective are missing the point/benefit: this is about empowering parents and collectively changing behaviours. "It's against the law so no you can't" isn't going to work with EVERY 14 year old. But it will work for many and hopefully that's enough.

stephen_g 2y ago
I actually see this as potentially damaging to society. "It's against the law for you to use any website that lets you look at cat pictures and make any contact with anybody else" is so silly that kids are going to see right through that, and rightly not care about following it. So they're going to have less respect for the rule of law generally... I'm very big on compentent laws, but also on just not having silly laws. It devalues the whole system... (I would also wonder how many 14-year olds you know if you think this would work for many, but also I suppose that could be a cultural difference)

TomK32 2y ago

Here in Austria in fourth grade kids take a little test for their bicycling skill. Not that it matters much in a car-centric country, but people forget that cycling, even in company with a parent, give kids the chance to learn the necessary traffic rules. Why not have something similar for social media or as the problem seems to be general conduct in social media, educate the kids and give them better ways to raise the alarm when things to bad. Just banning kids won't help them much.

tilolebo 2y ago
Right. Let's do the same for drugs. Irony aside, these platforms are addictive and polarizing by design. I doubt a little test will change anything.
- lukan 2y ago
  You realize HN here is social media, too?
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    And HN even recognizes it can be addictive to some. See the "noprocrast" setting on your user settings page.
    - lukan 2y ago
      Yes? So ban it all, just like drugs?
  - probably_wrong 2y ago
    I would argue that "social media" requires the social aspect, namely, contacts and direct messaging.
    - lukan 2y ago
      Everyone has a profil and everyone who wants to, leaves contact inside the profil.

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42251758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42251758

asgerhb 2y ago

My thoughts immediately go to all the queer kids in rural areas who stand to be cut off from the only support networks they have.

blacksoil 2y ago
[flagged]
adventured 2y ago
Any and all kids in rural areas. Experience deprivation is a very real thing. I grew up in a desolate rural area, circa the 1980s and 1990s. The Internet - WebChatBroadcasting, ICQ, IRC, etc - was like a gift from the gods in the early 1990s. Cutting off young teens from access to the world via 'social media,' is a human rights violation.
- dngray 2y ago
  That very reason was raised in parliament, during question time by one senator, but neither side (LNP/Labor) gives a shit.
- BSDobelix 2y ago
  The internet today is a very different place from the 90's. I really hope your children don't have access to the sickest, shallowest, most addictive and most dangerous place on the net.
- owisd 2y ago
  The idea that social media is like a Meta commercial, all making new friends and video calls to smiling Grandparents, etc. is a fabrication, presumably one that a lot of HN folks have a vested interest in maintaining. Kids are lonelier now than they have ever been.
  - brookst 2y ago
    Not everyone who disagrees with you is lying.
  - 2y ago

Funes- 2y ago

Reminder that, often, that which is intended to be passed as a measure to enforce moral rules or increase security is actually a way to deprive you of your privacy.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

shadowgovt 2y ago

Heh. Good luck with that.

puppycodes 2y ago
jinx

cies 2y ago

What is social media? Is HN social media? Is a news paper site with a comment section social media? And FB-messenger, is that part of it?

bloak 2y ago
The Online Safety Act 2021 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2021A00076/latest/text https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2021A00076/latest/text) says: (1) For the purposes of this Act, social media service means: (a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions: (i) the sole or primary purpose of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end‑users; (ii) the service allows end‑users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end‑users; (iii) the service allows end‑users to post material on the service; (iv) such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules; or (b) an electronic service specified in the legislative rules; but does not include an exempt service (as defined by subsection (4)). Note: Online social interaction does not include (for example) online business interaction. Since "business interaction" is mentioned as an example of something that is not "social interaction" one might plausibly claim that "social interaction" should be interpreted quite narrowly, and then one could claim both that the primary purpose of HN is not interaction at all (it's a new aggregator) and that any interaction that does happen to take place in the comments is not "social" interaction but some other kind of interaction. (It really does say "2 or more" rather than "two or more".)

xp84 2y ago

If you’re tempted to think “this isn’t worth it, too hard to enforce without affecting something else”… read “The Anxious Generation” by Jonathan Haidt. There is very real, irreparable harm being done to young people, and it merits trying to make it right, not just surrendering to it. Surely the problem of verifying a property of someone (the Boolean of “is over X age”) without sharing further details, is a surmountable problem given all the cryptographic technologies at our disposal. If a government wants to make this possible, given they know everyone’s birthdate, they could.

brookst 2y ago
The information theory problem is how to do so without creating a government ledger of every platform that every person uses, and a government kill switch to disable any platform the government doesn’t like.
BadHumans 2y ago
> Surely the problem of verifying a property of someone (the Boolean of “is over X age”) without sharing further details, is a surmountable problem given all the cryptographic technologies at our disposal. Only if preserving privacy is the goal and I'm sure we both know it isn't.
- owisd 2y ago
  I guess it will become self-fulfilling if everyone denies that there are privacy friendly options. Legislatures globally are starting to take this seriously so chances are it's happening one way or another.
  - BadHumans 2y ago
    "Everyone" isn't denying there are privacy friendly options. The government does not want to implement privacy friendly options.
isodev 2y ago
Indeed, the challenge is already resolved in Europe by eID/EIDAS in a privacy respecting way, so the technology exists and it's already proven on a large scale.

tootie 2y ago

I know this is targeting social media but just pointing out that there is no evidence screen time is affecting kids development and pretty solid evidence that it doesn't have much effect at all. https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/news-events/no-evidence-screen-time-is-negative-for-childrens-cognitive-development-and-well-being-oxford-study/ https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/news-events/no-evidence-screen-time...

averysmallbird 2y ago
There’s a difference between screen time and social media usage.
- tootie 2y ago
  FTA "One also suggested we take a look at social media on its own because it’s a source of worry for many and we did not find anything special about this form of online engagement.” It's a subset of what they studied. Surely a lot of screen time is spent on social media. They did not observe anything special about time spent on social media. A more in-depth study may yield more insight but there is no thread to pull on from this study. Only parents' misgivings.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago

With every passing year I can’t help but think Jonathan Haidt was right all along. I think this will be a very successful law in terms of positive societal impact. But I do worry about the negative repercussions of being able to ban means of practicing free speech. Australia already has a bad track record for that.

aquir 2y ago

[flagged]

bigbacaloa 2y ago

[dead]

BadHumans 2y ago

I'm torn here because I think there is very real harm being done with social media not just to kids but to adults as well but you should look at anything being "to protect the children" with extreme prejudice as it is likely just a power grab and way to reduce privacy. The saying "never let a good tragedy go to waste" comes to mind here.

vanrysss 2y ago
[flagged]
- orangecat 2y ago
  "Nothing" is often preferable to enabling abuses of power.
- hbn 2y ago
  When it comes to my privacy I want the government to accomplish nothing because otherwise they only take.

afavour 2y ago

Like the spirit, dislike the execution. Passing legislation to “protect the kids” is politically easy. Bans are simple. Much more effective, IMO, would be to legislate the way social networks behave. Stop their most addictive patterns. Adults are just as susceptible as kids in my experience. If there needs to be anything kid specific, perhaps a block on using the service during school hours, or only for X hours a day.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
Well when then fuck are social media companies going to take their responsibility seriously?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  When it becomes an obligation.
- to1y 2y ago
  What is their responsibility and what are they doing that is so insidiously addictive exactly? Endless shitposts by your friends for you to scroll-through is that the fentanyl of the internet? To me this just seems like they're trying to get some control over what people are exposed to and to find out who's doing what.
slibhb 2y ago
Governments should not be in the business of telling tech companies how to design software. Honest observers will look back on the anti-social-media movement as a moral panic. It isn't so much that social media is good, it's that the proper attitude toward new, scary things is to integrate them into your life in a healthy way rather than banning them. And if we should ban anything it's drugs and gambling, not tiktok
- lm28469 2y ago
  > it's that the proper attitude toward new, scary things is to integrate them into your life in a healthy way rather than banning them Exactly, just like we did with DDT, leaded paint, leaded gas, freon in fridges, uranium in lipsticks, PFAS, food additives, &c. > Governments should not be in the business of telling tech companies how to design software. And tech companies should't be in the business of influencing who will govern you

roody15 2y ago

I wonder if we should even call this social media at this point. More like interactive TV 3.0. All the feeds are heavily ad infested and “promoted” content appears from “infliences” .. some people shadow banned while others artificially boosted up your feed. All designed to maximize your attention but also sway your opinion. The social part of social media seems to have gone mostly by the wayside. “Did you see the new dance this one kid did in Texas” like like, hashtag, loved it , repost, etc … not really building much of a social relationship, or perhaps it is and just seems a bit off to us older folks,

egorfine 2y ago

As a father of 4 ranging from 10 to 30+, I certainly hope the law will not practically work and that kids will find a way to use social media.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 2y ago
Interesting. My kids aren't allowed on social media, and they're happier and less moody than their friends who are addicted to it. They see it, and don't even want social media anymore because their friends spend so much time on their phones rather than being present and having real experiences. I don't think I would wish social media on any child, though I believe it's a problem that can be solved not by more laws, but by better parenting.
- egorfine 2y ago
  > better parenting. And that's the key point. The crucial one.

nomilk 2y ago

Every single Australian's ID will have to be verified (in order to confirm their age). Depending on the degree of cooperation (/coercion) the Australian government has with social media companies, the Aus Govt will be able to access citizen social media data with relative ease. So no more pseudo anonymous accounts (or, at least, they'll be made more difficult, especially for non-technical folk). Reminds of the 'chilling effect' of measures of bygone decades. My personal hunch is legacy media is largely driving this, due to them seeing the writing on the wall and knowing 'social media' is their biggest threat. If young people get their information from sites like bluesky, twitter, podcasts and reddit, they may never watch a mainstream news program or read an online newspaper. Bad for business. This measure is a great way of eradicating some competition.

pmarreck 2y ago
I would like to see some evidence before I buy this conspiracy theory. If anything, I feel like legacy media is too lazy and entrenched to even consider this
- nomilk 2y ago
  Legacy media are indeed lazy and stupid, but all that's stopping them is the Australian parliament, who are lazier and stupider.
- teitoklien 2y ago
  So lazy that they successfully lobbied governments to ruin their relation with big tech companies like facebook, google etc To give newspapers 100s of millions of free money just for the “privilege” of linking to their article, a “link tax”. They are lazy about reporting news without a bias, but they are perfectly active when it comes to lobbying.
  - pmarreck 2y ago
    I would be happy to see any links to evidence of this

INTPenis 2y ago

This is going to be an interesting experiment to watch. Because if I know kids, they will find any creative way they can to circumvent the ban. And even worse is if some actor out there starts catering to kids by publishing "proxy services". My opinion on this is that it's the same as banning drugs. People want to use them, and will find any way to use them.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
Some will but at population scale any barrier will decrease usage.
- INTPenis 2y ago
  We'll see. If I think back to my own time in school I foresee kids teaching each other the latest circumvention technique. It might be as simple as using VPN vouchers. Or sharing VPN accounts, or using someone's public VPN server. This is why it'll be so fun to see what they come up with, the kids that is. They're the true innovators, the hackers. ;) It might be as simple as use of a certain service exploding, a service that has flown under the government radar. Discord for example might not be considered social media but you can turn it into social media using bots.
BeFlatXIII 2y ago
> And even worse is if some actor out there starts catering to kids by publishing "proxy services". How long until this happens and there's a big paedophilia scare so I can point and laugh at everyone involved?
ruthmarx 2y ago
This is where kids might flock to decentralized options like Mastadon or something.
- INTPenis 2y ago
  I suspect it'll be even simpler. That some major service like Discord for example will fly under the AU government radar simply because it's chat.

cynicalsecurity 2y ago

This is pure insanity. This ban is something the Soviet Union or China would do, not the free world.

krapp 2y ago
It wasn't that long ago that Americans were calling TikTok a "Chinese weapon of war and mass indoctrination" and wanting it banned. To say nothing of everyone wanting Section 230 repealed and the government to regulate social media, requiring a court order for moderation, banning "algorithms" or making social media entirely illegal. The attitude behind this is absolutely endemic across the "free world." Australia is simply a bit further ahead of the curve as far as turning the moral panic over pedos and groomers and Chinese mind control into authoritarian action. As soon as the new regime gets settled in the US I'm sure we'll see something similar. Musk has already made vague threats along those lines.

rdm_blackhole 2y ago

Another privacy killing feature coming from a government who can't help themselves from knowing every little detail about everyone's private life.

bArray 2y ago

I generally think that children's access to the internet needs to be more closely monitored. You wouldn't allow your child to walk up to random strangers in the street without you there, why do we allow it online? I have on a few occasions had to protect a child from an adult in an online group. What concerns me here is how this will be enforced. The only way to implement this is with IDs to check birth dates, and some method to confirm you are the person on the ID. You could imagine this being consolidated into a government ID system to 'protect your data', and to mean you only have to validate once. These accounts will be permanently attached to real people, and I think it will have a chilling effect on free speech. It's all fun and games until the government of the day considers your speech as a threat. One can see this being expanded too, so that you would need to provide ID to use the internet more generally. ISPs could be told to selectively deliver web pages from DNS based on your ID, which would be most effective on mobile devices and less so on wired networks. My ISP already blocks websites. I think a more fundamental question is whether the nanny state should be telling you how to raise your children, what content they can consume and who they can interact with. Suddenly you find your children consuming content only from a Z-wing bias because the government of the day hates Y-wing politics.

cynicalsecurity 2y ago
This is the most horrifying thing in all of this. People with a prison guard mentality are already thinking how to enforce the rules in an even stricter way. Rules that are violating freedom of information, one of the most basics Western freedoms. Yes, there are no repreciations for the violating them at first, the frog is getting boiled slowly, but give it a few years and people who let their child use social media will be treated as criminals and put in prisons. Everything "for the sake of children."
- blackoil 2y ago
  > freedom of information, one of the most basics Western freedoms. Children's access to info is limited in all societies.
  - 2y ago

AzzyHN 2y ago

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

BSDobelix 2y ago
But talking about "social media": When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you.

hshshshshsh 2y ago

What about Legacy idea? Can they still watch TV and read news papers? Isn't this a form of giving control to legacy media and traditionally powerful especially when in US their influence is decreasing?

wkat4242 2y ago

I'm definitely not going to ID myself to go on social media. Then I'll just quit (in fact I've quit most social media already anyway due to the enshittification). Even a parameter linked to my real ID is not acceptable to me. And also, after social media, I'm sure other sites will start demanding more checks as well. It's a slippery slope. Luckily I don't live in Australia but I find this a troubling development. Anonymity on the internet is necessary. Because it is much more permanent than the real world. Every little misstep can be dissected decades later.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

devonsolomon 2y ago

My question is: What behaviors will come sideways out of this prohibition? My guess: You can’t outwit a digital native generation. Websites with less concern for the rules in general will become digital hangouts.

bloppe 2y ago
I'm excited to see the outcomes. Hats off to Australia for engaging in this experiment. One unique aspect of social media, as opposed to, say, porn, is it's reliance on network effects. Sure, maybe 25% of kids will use a VPN and log on, but if most of your friends don't care enough to spend their allowance on a VPN, then what's the point?
- devonsolomon 2y ago
  Ya that’s true. I guess I’m imagining the “25%” being pushed towards 4chan type environments, and perhaps then a subset of that towards more dangerous environments.

ensignavenger 2y ago

'"Messaging apps," "online gaming services" and "services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users" will not fall under the ban, as well as sites like YouTube that do not require users to log in to access the platform.' So they tell us which social media is excluded, but not the definition of "social media" for what is included? Does anyone know how "social media" is being defined in this law? 'Under the laws, which won't come into force for another 12 months, social media companies could be fined up to $50 million for failing to take "reasonable steps" to keep under 16s off their platforms.' So how is "reasonable steps" defined? The article claims 'Social media companies also won't be able to force users to provide government identification, including the Digital ID, to assess their age.' So is a checkbox that asks "are you over 16?" 'reasonable'?

A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
This is a genuinely relevant question given that HN could be easily argued to be social media. For the record, I too am concerned about social media impact and so on ( for good and valid reasons ), but this law does not seem that great at first glance.
- ensignavenger 2y ago
  Hacker News doesn't require a login to view content, so I guess it is exempt, from this specific law.

bostonwalker 2y ago

Predictably, I see a lot of concern being expressed here about how this will be implemented and enforced. There is an underlying assumption, which seems fairly reasonable, that the government is going to use this opportunity (à la Louisiana) to overreach and require people to provide their identity to access these services. One question I have for other HN commenters though, does it necessarily need to happen this way? Political realities aside, is there a way for the government to set up an age verification service in a way that preserves privacy? If so, the time is ripe for this community to put forward such a solution and advocate for it loudly. If current sentiment is any indication, social media age restrictions are going to go global and Australia is going to set the precedent for the rest of the world.

raxxorraxor 2y ago
It is not possible aside from getting everyone an internet ID, which most will probably reject for good reason. Governments should not get this power. This is the basic tenet that separation of powers is based on. The only measure that helps is to just take away the means. I am uncertain it will go global at all or go very far even in Australia as there are at least some companies that try to benefit their customers. And there still is the private web anyway that isn't affected. Australia should be made fun off for their attempts, it isn't their first rodeo.

anal_reactor 2y ago

"Social media is bad for kids" is the fresh iteration of "video games are bad for kids". Remember the craze?

whiplash451 2y ago

I would rather title it as: Social media companies to be banned from destroying the lives of minors. Let's not swap the violators and the victims.

xkbarkar 2y ago

“services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users" will be excempt. Sigh. Good luck with that. Not at all vague.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

idunnoman1222 2y ago

funnelling all the kids to 4chan is maybe not the best idea …

prng2021 2y ago

This sounds so useless that it could be an Onion article. What am I missing? “There are no penalties for young people or parents who flout the rules. Social media companies also won't be able to force users to provide government identification, including the Digital ID, to assess their age.”

Figs 2y ago

Does anyone have a link to the actual text of the legislation?

oloila 2y ago

Lol, guys. Even in Russia, which is said to have a low level of freedom, the government has not yet decided to introduce identification in social networks by passport. By the way, some restrictive laws in Russia, for example, blocking websites law, began with the need to protect children from "illegal content". Australians, don't give up

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]

fldskfjdslkfj 2y ago

Why did this disappear from the HN front page so quickly?

smsm42 2y ago

What do they mean by social media? Is HN social media? Is Yelp? Is any site that has comments and discussions?

anacrolix 2y ago

Putting a positive word like "social" in the app genre name was a great mindfuck. Social breathing could be used to describe smoking. What a crock

t0bia_s 2y ago

What is a definition of social media? If there will be another platform, that is not listed on banned platforms, will they add it to regulation later... And later again, another...?

puppycodes 2y ago

lol good luck with that

puppycodes 2y ago

guarenteed to be enforced on the poor and ignored by the rich

knowitnone 2y ago

kids under 16 learn that they can break the law easily and not have any consequences