6 ms·

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 t

by 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.
- lawn 2y ago
  I'd guess that some games should be banned too but not everything. Something like Street Fighter is widely different from Roblox for example. The problem with a badly written law is how can you decide which is which?
  - canadianfella 2y ago
    > I'd guess that some games should be banned too but not everything. Something like Street Fighter is widely different from Roblox for example. Which one do you want banned?
    - adventured 2y ago
      The rapidly creeping authoritarianism is extraordinary.
      - Der_Einzige 2y ago
        This website has long ago lost whatever “techno libretarianism” it ever had. It’s so full of bootlickers. I have no idea why HNs userbase is mostly excited about this.
        tiahura 2y ago
        I think it grew up and had kids. The angsty-teen “I won’t do what you tell me” mentality starts to seem pretty counterproductive after a certain level of maturity is reached.
    - lawn 2y ago
      I picked street fighter because you don't interact with your opponent other than fight him (I haven't played the last game though, maybe that's changed).
- johnisgood 2y ago
  Roblox already filters out a lot of words, including links (to social media and whatnot especially). They filter so many words they may just shut down the chats entirely.
stephen_g 2y ago
This is a trend in lawmaking in Australia, and it's seriously damaging. It's basically written so the Government's Minister of Communications gets to decide who to directly target (or not target) with the law. Basically allows them to arbitarily apply the law to some parties and not others, with no right of appeal. That does lead to potential constitutionality concerns, but it would take years for it to be struck down if so, if a service is affected and eventually gets it before the High Court.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Isn’t that what the electorate desires? By electing personable but mediocore, sometimes even incompetent, MPs over the intelligent but aloof candidates. Someone or some committee, somewhere, still has to actually work out all the details, and if it’s not done in Parliament, because the average MP literally can’t grasp even half the agenda items, it has to be done elsewhere. Edit: And even that is probably being too optimistic, I’ve heard of MPs who can’t even remember the key facts and figures from the last 100 executive summaries they’ve read. Let alone any detail within the reports whatsoever.
  - akudha 2y ago
    I started losing faith in democracy since Brexit. It is still better than other forms of governance, that seems like a low bar. People making “protest” votes without bothering to understand the consequences, single issue voters, young people who don’t even bother to vote, dumb/racist/misogynist voters… Democracy only works if voters take it seriously, only if media is at least reasonably honest/competent etc. Across the world, this is not the case today. Britain, U.S, India, Australia …
    - randysalami 2y ago
      It’s by design and being exploited
    - BurningFrog 2y ago
      Maybe we've gone full circle here, since internet discourse drives much of that angry shallow populism.
cies 2y ago
> He says the legislation is just an under defined word salad This might be on purpose. I've heard many say online that this law is sold as "save the children" but is designed to be used to get everyone to provide ID when they go/public/message online. > He can’t even advise if some video game developers he represents’ multiplayer games are exempt from the ban Bad for video game dev's business, and great for lawyers! The interpretation of the law will get clarified by many lawsuits (costing businesses a lot).
- 71bw 2y ago
  >I've heard many say online that this law is sold as "save the children" but is designed to be used to get everyone to provide ID when they go/public/message online. Because this was attempted already, for example with the UK "porn ban" law. And Australia is one of the few countries that are even more batshit insane when it comes to policing and controlling its own population, and possibly the only country where such a law could pass now.
high_na_euv 2y ago
What about spirit of the law vs letter of the law?
- _hyn3 2y ago
  Runs smack into the Rule of Lenity.
tiahura 2y ago
I’m not sure how I’m going to be able to sleep tonight knowing the child exploitation industry is experiencing an existential crisis.
rstuart4133 2y ago
I haven't read it, but if it follows their previous efforts it will say what they want to happen (which is: get kids off social media), without saying how it will be done. Until the discussion this bill generated the "get kids off social media" meme had fairly broad support. In the currency of the pollies, this translates to "vote winner". Australia has already banned mobile phones at schools, and that looks to be a achieved roughly what everyone though it would. Maybe they expected this to go the same way. It hasn't. Now the idea has been floated (and the bill passed!) discussion has inevitably turned to "how do we do this". It was the mental heath professionals (of all people) that first voiced objections. Apparently, social media is the main way kids connect with them. Which is kinda obvious if you think about it, because either the family or school seeks help on their behalf, or it's the family / school that's the problem in which case they need to seek help without them knowing. Next, when it became obvious they were going ahead, where the discussions on how it would be implemented. To give you an idea of how that's panning out, the minister has said kids won't be prosecuted for using social media and just recently said the federal government ID schemes won't be used. Instead the minister said "the platforms will use their existing mechanisms". If that happens it could end up being a nothing burger. The big platforms already have checkboxes asking "are you over 16" or whatever. Regardless, they have passed the legalisation now, and the election is coming up soon. It's effects, if any, won't become evident for a year or two. That means they will be able proudly point to it during the election and say "look what we have done for the kids". As one prime minister explained show particularly bad decisions he made at the time "it was just retail politics".

by lmpdev 2y ago

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.
lawn 2y ago
I'd guess that some games should be banned too but not everything. Something like Street Fighter is widely different from Roblox for example. The problem with a badly written law is how can you decide which is which?
- canadianfella 2y ago
  > I'd guess that some games should be banned too but not everything. Something like Street Fighter is widely different from Roblox for example. Which one do you want banned?
  - adventured 2y ago
    The rapidly creeping authoritarianism is extraordinary.
    - Der_Einzige 2y ago
      This website has long ago lost whatever “techno libretarianism” it ever had. It’s so full of bootlickers. I have no idea why HNs userbase is mostly excited about this.
      - tiahura 2y ago
        I think it grew up and had kids. The angsty-teen “I won’t do what you tell me” mentality starts to seem pretty counterproductive after a certain level of maturity is reached.
  - lawn 2y ago
    I picked street fighter because you don't interact with your opponent other than fight him (I haven't played the last game though, maybe that's changed).
johnisgood 2y ago
Roblox already filters out a lot of words, including links (to social media and whatnot especially). They filter so many words they may just shut down the chats entirely.

stephen_g 2y ago

This is a trend in lawmaking in Australia, and it's seriously damaging. It's basically written so the Government's Minister of Communications gets to decide who to directly target (or not target) with the law. Basically allows them to arbitarily apply the law to some parties and not others, with no right of appeal. That does lead to potential constitutionality concerns, but it would take years for it to be struck down if so, if a service is affected and eventually gets it before the High Court.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
Isn’t that what the electorate desires? By electing personable but mediocore, sometimes even incompetent, MPs over the intelligent but aloof candidates. Someone or some committee, somewhere, still has to actually work out all the details, and if it’s not done in Parliament, because the average MP literally can’t grasp even half the agenda items, it has to be done elsewhere. Edit: And even that is probably being too optimistic, I’ve heard of MPs who can’t even remember the key facts and figures from the last 100 executive summaries they’ve read. Let alone any detail within the reports whatsoever.
- akudha 2y ago
  I started losing faith in democracy since Brexit. It is still better than other forms of governance, that seems like a low bar. People making “protest” votes without bothering to understand the consequences, single issue voters, young people who don’t even bother to vote, dumb/racist/misogynist voters… Democracy only works if voters take it seriously, only if media is at least reasonably honest/competent etc. Across the world, this is not the case today. Britain, U.S, India, Australia …
  - randysalami 2y ago
    It’s by design and being exploited
  - BurningFrog 2y ago
    Maybe we've gone full circle here, since internet discourse drives much of that angry shallow populism.

cies 2y ago

> He says the legislation is just an under defined word salad This might be on purpose. I've heard many say online that this law is sold as "save the children" but is designed to be used to get everyone to provide ID when they go/public/message online. > He can’t even advise if some video game developers he represents’ multiplayer games are exempt from the ban Bad for video game dev's business, and great for lawyers! The interpretation of the law will get clarified by many lawsuits (costing businesses a lot).

71bw 2y ago
>I've heard many say online that this law is sold as "save the children" but is designed to be used to get everyone to provide ID when they go/public/message online. Because this was attempted already, for example with the UK "porn ban" law. And Australia is one of the few countries that are even more batshit insane when it comes to policing and controlling its own population, and possibly the only country where such a law could pass now.

high_na_euv 2y ago

What about spirit of the law vs letter of the law?

_hyn3 2y ago
Runs smack into the Rule of Lenity.

tiahura 2y ago

I’m not sure how I’m going to be able to sleep tonight knowing the child exploitation industry is experiencing an existential crisis.

rstuart4133 2y ago

I haven't read it, but if it follows their previous efforts it will say what they want to happen (which is: get kids off social media), without saying how it will be done. Until the discussion this bill generated the "get kids off social media" meme had fairly broad support. In the currency of the pollies, this translates to "vote winner". Australia has already banned mobile phones at schools, and that looks to be a achieved roughly what everyone though it would. Maybe they expected this to go the same way. It hasn't. Now the idea has been floated (and the bill passed!) discussion has inevitably turned to "how do we do this". It was the mental heath professionals (of all people) that first voiced objections. Apparently, social media is the main way kids connect with them. Which is kinda obvious if you think about it, because either the family or school seeks help on their behalf, or it's the family / school that's the problem in which case they need to seek help without them knowing. Next, when it became obvious they were going ahead, where the discussions on how it would be implemented. To give you an idea of how that's panning out, the minister has said kids won't be prosecuted for using social media and just recently said the federal government ID schemes won't be used. Instead the minister said "the platforms will use their existing mechanisms". If that happens it could end up being a nothing burger. The big platforms already have checkboxes asking "are you over 16" or whatever. Regardless, they have passed the legalisation now, and the election is coming up soon. It's effects, if any, won't become evident for a year or two. That means they will be able proudly point to it during the election and say "look what we have done for the kids". As one prime minister explained show particularly bad decisions he made at the time "it was just retail politics".