11 ms·

Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

• obblekk 2y ago
  The votes are strong majorities of both houses - great to see a functional democratic government act on such an important issue. They specifically don’t prescribe any particular age verification methods. This would be a great time to follow up with legislation that updates their national IDs to be able to provide cryptographically secure proofs of age without leaking identity. Absent that, I’m sure many of the comments to come will worry about the privacy implications. It really would be great to see the government act with expertise to solve the problem in a way compatible with a free and open society.
  • ENGNR 2y ago
    We’re a nanny state, the government is just going to use it to track us
    • Pedro_Ribeiro 2y ago
      Aren't videogames where you consume drugs for gameplay boosts banned there? I always found that weird for a first world country.
      • ponco 2y ago
        For a time, we did not have an “R” rating for video games and this sort of content called for this rating, which legislation said could not be given. Fortunately saner heads prevailed and they created an “R” rating for video games and this oddity went away.
    • threeseed 2y ago
      ASIO has been able to track you for decades since they have real-time metadata feeds from Telstra, Optus, NBN etc. They have access to your location estimate, URLs of sites you've visited, people you talk via email/phone etc. And we know that this dataset is shared to the Five Eyes. So if you are concerned about being tracked I would strongly recommend leaving Australia.
      • ENGNR 2y ago
        And now they’ll be able to see the groups you go to within pages, read comments, see what we write, etc etc. It also goes from being a defence capability to used for all sorts of things and eventually leaked. It’s not bad enough to leave, better to engage with the politics and try to get some rights before it spreads further outwards
        • RichEO 2y ago
          This is conspiracy theory thinking, why on earth would age verification give them access to all of this additional information?
          • 71bw 2y ago
            In what way do you think they'll be able to verify your age reliably without you having to, yourself, "willingly", hand over your PII?
      • null0pointer 2y ago
        It’s more about who has access to the data and how easily. Plus the potential of creating a massive target for hackers.
    • Der_Einzige 2y ago
      Forced voting is proof of it. Australia is by far the least free Anglo nation. I will never step foot on that god forsaken island. They have no culture, and that’s the opinion of Australians: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucky_Country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucky_Country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Australian_Ugliness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Australian_Ugliness
      • threeseed 2y ago
        Australia is one of the freest countries in the world: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freest-countries https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freest-co... Higher than UK and the US.
        • wqaatwt 2y ago
          > Higher than UK Not according to https://rsf.org/en/index https://rsf.org/en/index or https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Press_Freedom_Index I assume that other indices that show “data” that fits whatever narrative one wants are easy to find… Which makes things like this meaningless in isolation.
        • throwawaythekey 2y ago
          In day to day life we are fairly free but for example we have much weaker freedom of speech/opinion than the USA. For example if you raise your arm at a particular angle you can now be sent to jail [1]. We also had some of the longest/harshet COVID lockdowns in the world in my state. [1] - https://www.dw.com/en/australia-man-convicted-for-performing-outlawed-nazi-salute/a-70437601 https://www.dw.com/en/australia-man-convicted-for-performing...
          • threeseed 2y ago
            > if you raise your arm at a particular angle you can now be sent to jail Also known as doing a Nazi salute.
      • 2y ago
    • pimeys 2y ago
      Nanny state is a term coined by tobacco industry in their lobbying against tobacco laws. Is it really a term you want to use here? https://www.tobaccotactics.org/article/countering-industry-arguments-against-plain-packaging-the-nanny-state-is-going-too-far/ https://www.tobaccotactics.org/article/countering-industry-a...
      • ruthmarx 2y ago
        > Nanny state is a term coined by tobacco industry in their lobbying against tobacco laws. Is it really a term you want to use here? Sure, because most people h ave no idea where the term originates from and it now has a life of its own. It's the standard term for this sort of thing.
      • tirant 2y ago
        Why not? It is about treating people as adults or children.
      • bigstrat2003 2y ago
        Who cares? Whether or not it applies in this particular case, it's a useful term. Rejecting ideas because of who they come from is the very antithesis of intellectual maturity.
      • refurb 2y ago
        Just because an "evil" group used, or even coined, a term doesn't mean it's not a useful term.
  • llm_trw 2y ago
    [flagged]
    • infradig 2y ago
      Australia was founded in 1901 as a federation of free states.
      • llm_trw 2y ago
        More than half of which were penal colonies.
  • isaacremuant 2y ago
    Or, you know, don't keep going into this path of authoritarianism. Your comment is absolutely disingenuous pretending that this Draconian move can be implemented with open society or transparency. This is the same nation that went absolutely bonkers with their COVID policies and their inhumane treatment of anyone who desired freedom or bodily autonomy.
  • kaladin-jasnah 2y ago
    It's going to be interesting to see how one can use cryptography to do this privately. I wonder if the cost and complexity of such a thing would result in big companies simply requiring some kind of "take a picture of your ID" style verification. Estonia's ID card https://www.id.ee/en/ https://www.id.ee/en/ could certainly be a model; still not sure how to do age verification. My best guess would be some sort of cryptographic signing that refuses to sign if you are below a certain age.
  • russelg 2y ago
    People are far more worried about the government knowing that you're using a social media site, than they are about the social media site knowing who you are. I don't see a way this could be implemented where the govt doesn't know what site is requesting the verification. I'm assuming it'll be an openid type flow where the social media sites will have to register client IDs with the govt myID, in which case the govt will directly be able to tie a person to what social media they use. It won't tell them what account it links to on the social media side, but depending on what data is returned, they can easily just ask the social media company for this info later on.
    • greggsy 2y ago
      The proposed digital ID solution is designed to protect the individual from this type of information disclosure.
    • tzs 2y ago
      > I don't see a way this could be implemented where the govt doesn't know what site is requesting the verification Blind signatures. Briefly, a blind signature is a way for a party to sign a document without seeing the contents of the document. The cryptographic forms of this, at a high level, work like this: 1. You do a keyed reversible transformation on document D that produces a transformed document D'. This is called "blinding" the document. 2. They sign D' with signature S'. 3. You apply the reverse transformation to S', which gives you a signature S from them for D. This is "unblinding". Use a random key each time you need to get something blind signed and throw away the key afterwards. Even if they later see D and S they can't match them up with any D' and S' because they don't know the key. For age verification D would be some kind of token you obtain from the social media company during age verification. You'd then have the government blind sign that with a signature that is only used when the government has verified you are at least 16. You'd unblind the signature and give that back to the social media company. There are also protocols to do this using zero knowledge proofs.
    • hcfman 2y ago
      I suspect that it is technically possible to make an anonymous identification service because the result to the social media site just had to be yes or no. In the Netherlands you have a government identification service that identifies people to other government sites. And a bank service that uses the banks identification service also roll to identify to other sites. Technically it would be possible to delete any trace afterwards. However. I have never ever in my life seen any government choose not to take advantage of an opportunity to exert more control over their citizens if the possibility exists. Plus rather than force it on everyone it should be a choice of the parents. Clearly not doing this is better but in the absence of that parents deciding is better for the others.
  • matt_trentini 2y ago
    You're far more optimistic than I about our government being able to implement a secure, reasonable solution for age verification. COVIDSafe was the last technical undertaking and it was expensive and a completely inept implementation. The MyGov website is another failed attempt at keeping personal data secure. Further, it seems likely that social media companies are likely to come out of this with even more information about us. Government and tech do not mix well (at least in Australia).
  • Terr_ 2y ago
    > national IDs to be able to provide cryptographically secure proofs of age Nah, this is an antipattern we've seen before. A veritable Pandora's Box whispering to be opened. There is a much simpler and safer solution: 1. A disclosure law, which requires sites to somehow (e.g. HTTP headers) show their nature as a social media site, porn site, etc. 2. Parents can choose to purchase devices/software for their children with a parental-lock, set those filters and permissions to match their own locality or personal preferences, and whitelist any necessary exceptions. This way the implementation costs of the shifting, complex, never-ending demands will fall onto the groups that actually want to use it, instead of all sites in the world being potential legal jeopardy for failing to implement all the censorship rules of every possible visitor. It also means that most enforcement (and exceptions) move out into a physical realm which parents are at least able to see and control. > without leaking identity Leaking identity to the site is only half the problem, the other is leaking activity to the government. I'd ratehr not have a Government Internet Decency Office with an easy list of every single site I ever tried to view or register-for, without any kind of warrant or other due-process.
    • kumarvvr 2y ago
      The problem with this approach is that you will have two groups of children, the ones who have access and the ones who don't have access. This is a worse problem than allowing it for all. Its another vector of temptation, distraction, in-equality, etc.
      • hcfman 2y ago
        But not a worse problem than blocking it for everyone
      • oblio 2y ago
        I'd say the next steps is that you also force institutions for kids to ban it, regardless of parent choice. Parents must present proof of disabling said websites for their children. Or their kids can just not have those devices with them. Do this for schools, activity clubs, restaurants, fast for food places, etc, and you've basically hit 80% of places where kids are all the time.
  • lmm 2y ago
    This is the opposite of democracy - a group imposing rules "for their own good" on people it doesn't represent who have no recourse. If they had any integrity they'd be banning it for adults not children.
    • gonzo41 2y ago
      We do have recourse. What you'll see is more independent candidates get voted in to overturn the law. Once the government of the day starts badly implementing it the conservatives who voted with the center left party will split off and start attacking for it's repeal. It's a nothing burger law designed to look tough and do nothing.
      • larrysalibra 2y ago
        under 16 year olds cannot vote, are not represented and have no recourse. when one group votes to make rules for another group that cannot vote, it can be called many things, but "democracy" is not one of them.
        • bluefirebrand 2y ago
          When adults make decisions for children it's called "parenting" Acting like we should be seriously treating children and teens as an equal political group is a joke
          • amatecha 2y ago
            Hey, didn't you get the memo that teenagers know everything, have the simple & straightforward solutions to all of life's problems, and are never wrong?? ;)
          • pizza 2y ago
            I'm not sure what's worse: giving parental responsibility to politicians or equating craven paternalism to benevolent parenting.
          • 2y ago
  • est 2y ago
    you must be joking, that's exactly how communist government works. Given strict laws but "don’t prescribe any particular ... methods" so one day law enforcements can extort a large sum of fine from companies as needed. The only difference is Commie leaders invent bullshit "laws" by themselves and no voting.
  • mianos 2y ago
    I highly doubt they have the expertise to implement anything remotely 'cryptographic.' Their level of competence seems stuck in the 1950s, stamping paper forms, while anything more complex is handed off to consultants in Australia. These consultants appear far more interested in lining their pockets than in understanding technology or math. The far more likely scenario is they piss a couple of hundred billion away on the first company that shows up with a slick-sounding, half-baked platform, claiming it can magically solve all their problems with just a few "minor" tweaks. I'm an interested party, I have a 13 year old daughter who would benefit from a little less time on social media. But that's my problem, and my belief that these idiots in our government could help me with that is zero percent. I am probably in the .1% of households where dads know more than kids. (If photometric id comes in, I want to be in the fake moustache business).
    • turbojet1321 2y ago
      There is myID (formerly myGovID) which would be the logical vehicle for a government provided age verification service. I've heard (but can't find a source) that it's build on OIDC/OAuth, so extending it to be an IdP exposing only specific claims (ie, age) shouldn't be a huge leap.
      • linuxandrew 2y ago
        myID as it stands is a bit of a farce. It uses OIDC under the hood, but it only supports end users that download the myID app on their smartphone via the Google Play Store or Apple App Store. Security is effectively outsourced to Google and Apple as the user's identity is "pinned" to their smartphone. Take myGov in contrast which is web-capable and supports users to use a Yubikey or Passkey/Webauthn-capable device to authenticate. Under the Australian Digital ID scheme myGov will likely be usurped by myID, which is, in my view, an inferior scheme which blatantly ignores basic standards.
    • mianos 2y ago
      I was too right, they already selected a slick sounding half baked platform: https://accscheme.com/ https://accscheme.com/
  • gloosx 2y ago
    >the government act with expertise to solve the problem Do you have an idea which problem did they solve? Did banning certain psychoactive drugs solved the problem of drug abuse? Maybe banning alcohol removed it from the streets during great depression? Banning gambling? Kids will find a way to get into their social media accounts anyway, and then these democrats will tell you they need to ban every VPN service and set-up Deep Packet Inspection devices for every ISP, make their own govt CA, and trust me all of it will be done in the name of people and child safety. Sad to see a dysfunctional govt. which bans and calls it a solution to the problem. When I will be in the office I would ban the whole concept of banning itself once and forever, and any politician who proposed a single ban in his life would be banned from service. I will of course step out for proposing this ban immediately.
    • oblio 2y ago
      Banning smoking in many places plus banning advertising it plus banning selling it to kids reduced smoking by unfathomable amounts.
      • gloosx 2y ago
        Do you have data do back it up? From quickly looking at historical records online, I can't see any unfathomable amounts reduction, It's levelled on 20-30% of smokers among kids, and it remains a core challenge for child and adolescent health to the current day (according to 2020 WHO report[0]), plus they started to smoke vapes. So did the bans you sampled really work, or do they just smoke more discreetly and use tricks to buy cigarettes now, making the whole thing more inaccessible and desirable for an average child? [0] https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/05-06-2020-smoking-still-a-core-challenge-for-child-and-adolescent-health-reveals-who-report https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/05-06-2020-smoking-stil...
        • Timwi 2y ago
          I might be wrong but I read the OP’s comment as sarcastic.
  • linuxandrew 2y ago
    > They specifically don’t prescribe any particular age verification methods. This would be a great time to follow up with legislation that updates their national IDs to be able to provide cryptographically secure proofs of age without leaking identity. Hard disagree. We do not need an internet driver's license. Australians are supposed to have a right to interact with organisations with privacy protections under the Privacy Act 1988, like APP2 which allows individuals to deal with organisations anonymously or pseudonymously. Social media companies are doing a great deal of harm to society, but banning under-16s is tackling the symptom, not the problem. All people should have more rights and protections, like opting out (or better, opting in) to infinite scroll and algorithmic content suggestions as opposed to subscribed content. Algorithmic content today is akin to spam in the early 2000s which governments regulated and has had some impact on bad behaviour by local companies (of course I am not under any pretense that spam will ever really be solved). Social media users should be able to opt in or out of content categories which AI could potentially help with that categorisation, ideally in an uber-transparent way. I'm young enough that "modern" social media was just starting up when I was a teenager. It's not clear that banning under 16s from modern digital communication would provide any benefits (which, by the way, social media is very loosely defined under the amendment). > Absent that, I’m sure many of the comments to come will worry about the privacy implications. The big issue is that we are importing the UK model which will see identity outsourcing to companies like Yoti and AU10TIX, the latter which was hacked in 2021 and led to some pretty serious implications for affected users. Of course the reality is that Meta is already doing age and identity verification on users who use privacy-protecting technologies like Firefox Container Tabs, at least in Australia, and has been for a number of years. This usually leads to an account being blocked until the user provides their ID via a photo. This will become formalised so that accounts that are detected as possibly being U16 (via various techniques like profiling and data matching against external sources) will be requested ID, and Yoti will likely be used to actually perform that verification. Another big concern will be that this is forced onto smaller operators like Australian Mastodon sites, internet forums, mailing lists and others.
    • liammclennan 2y ago
      Did you see the "without leaking identity" part? Your comment seems to ignore that.
  • vermilingua 2y ago
    > great to see the government act with expertise I’ve seen the Australian government accused of many things, but that’s certainly a first. This is the same country whose prime minister once said “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia”.
    • globalnode 2y ago
      That was back in 2017 when the govts were all up in arms over encryption. Apparently they don't mind it too much now, which means it all must be back door'able for them.
      • vermilingua 2y ago
        Has been backdoor(ed|able) for FVEY (via Australia) since 2018. https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/national-security/lawful-access-telecommunications/data-encryption https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/about-us/our-portfolios/natio...
        • globalnode 2y ago
          5y in jail if you refuse to give a password and power to covertly access devices and conceal that fact if they desire. Yikes, they don't mess around.
          • Der_Einzige 2y ago
            By far the most bootlicking country in the Anglo world. Disgusting, and their political system should be shattered into the wind
            • ruthmarx 2y ago
              The problem is Australians are fine with it. They might be the population with the most people saying "if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about" in the world, by a large margin.
  • lobochrome 2y ago
    Dear god, no. This doesn't need more technology. The whole purpose of this is only to give parents a reason to say no. Often, a single kid in a class with an unrestricted iPhone is enough to poison the well. Now it's much, much simpler. Kids understand when you say it's against the law.
    • 71bw 2y ago
      >Kids understand when you say it's against the law. Jesus, were you born 40? I don't know a single person who didn't willingly pirate media, games and break other laws (usual suspects like trespassing, underage + public drinking...) as kids and teens. They will not care about the law if they want to do something it limits.
      • lobochrome 2y ago
        I’m not called Jesus and I age normally. Do you have children?
        • bongodongobob 2y ago
          Just stop. You're being incredibly naive.
  • chris_wot 2y ago
    lol - hardly! Submissions were announced on the 22nd, this closed on the 23rd, the Committee was so blindsided they literally requested submissions should 1-2 pages long, the bill was introduced to the House on the 26th and passed on the 29th. That’s some really well reviewed legislation. Parliament sitting days close on the 31st.
  • magnetowasright 2y ago
    > functional democratic government Wait, where? Not in my Australia. Saying our govt has any competency is also gobsmacking. Yep, it's better here than other places (for certain groups) but when the notorious hate rag daily mail condemns (literal) neo-nazis marching and saluting in support of transphobe Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull you've really got to question what kind of functional democratic government or expertise leads and legislates this country. Literally the daily mail thinks our neo-nazi problem is a bit much. I genuinely can't wrap my head around that. The daily effing mail. That's the state of this country; what a healthy democracy that literal neo-nazi groups are free to demonstrate against human rights while the police force people doing nothing more for human rights than holding the pathetic signs back from the streets so the frog marching idiots can continue unimpeded. Utterly disgraceful state of affairs. It's so embarrassing. This legislation isn't going to stop kids accessing social media or prevent any of the related social harms, unfortunately. It's just going to give licence to erode privacy even further. All our pollies are so dangerously incompetent, especially when it comes to anything relating to computers, it's just enraging. It's a disgrace. Our governments don't give a single shit about human rights or the welfare of the people in our country. This law is no different, but it sure is a great distraction. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11879737/Neo-Nazis-throw-Hitler-salutes-trans-protest-outside-Parliament-House-Melbourne-Victoria.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11879737/Neo-Nazis-...
    • throwawaythekey 2y ago
      Call me oldschool but to me a functioning democracy is where anyone can express their opinions. Neo nazis, zionists, anti zionists, jews, palestinians, socialists, globalists, communists, libertarians etc.
      • magnetowasright 2y ago
        Yes, a functional democracy means neonazis advocating for genociding are protected from the vicious sign holders by the police. Yes, that is definitely a functional democracy. The state defending neonazis from people holding signs is absolutely the free marketplace of ideas in action. Genocide is acceptable if enough people vote for it. Wow, what a great idea! I one day hope to be so privileged to actually think like that. Give me half a billion dollars and a lobotomy and that's as close as I'll get; I'm not sure it'll be enough.
• defrost 2y ago
  In the past 24 hours: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-28/social-media-age-ban-passes-parliament/104647138 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-28/social-media-age-ban-... 256 points|llui85|17 hours ago|385 comments - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42264733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42264733 ( and seven others still alive and several others flagged [dead] )
• arlattimore 2y ago
  While I appreciate the sentiment of this legislation, removing social media access for everyone under 16 years to address the concerns of a few is a nanny state act. As a parent, you should be making these decisions for your children - not your government. Additionally, I would suggest it won't address the actual issue. The named/identified social media companies will comply as required, younger internet users will simply go elsewhere (the internet is a big place after all) and therefore the problem will ultimately go unaddressed.
  • kumarvvr 2y ago
    It is undeniable that big tech has warped the way even adults deal with each other. It warps social norms, social habits, human interactions, perspectives on the world and a lot more, all for the worse than the better. For children, it is very important for them to build their social skills based on interactions with other kids and adults, rather than from social media. They must learn about the world from the world, rather than through a commercial filtered lens of a big tech company, that is focussed on clicks, views and profits. True, its a nanny state move. But, in my view, it is absolutely essential, as big tech seldom seems to worry about their products and their effects on children. Sometimes, when the problem is big, the action must also be big.
    • BLKNSLVR 2y ago
      > It is undeniable that big tech has warped the way even adults deal with each other. It warps social norms, social habits, human interactions, perspectives on the world and a lot more, all for the worse than the better. Also true for television. Old Media had the monopoly on opinion-guidance back then. Part of the (encouragement of the) negative reaction to social media is it's threat to the status quo, much like Australia's previous legislation to force Facebook and Google to pay old media for linking to their news articles. Different groups of people will have different lists of things they don't like about society and where it's headed; violent video games, advertising, music videos (that tend to be soft-porn these days), internet browsing tracking. Where does a government draw the line on what to act on and what to leave to the responsibility of parents? (how does this help other agendas? Will this look like we're "doing something"? Will this score votes? which way is the breeze blowing on this topic?) Social media is a concentrator. I'm not convinced it's a 'cause'. There seems to be an epidemic of (social) anxiety, and maybe Facebook is the cause, but to me it feels societally deeper. World leadership is demonstrably not "the best of us" (I'm not just saying that because of Trump), to me, it feels as if there's a pervasive attitude of "I'll get mine and fuck the rest of you", which predictably trickles throughout the society whose leaders portray that attitude. Social media being one outlet of this, but I see plenty of 'us vs. them' polemics in traditional media. Just my theory. I'm already poking holes in it mentally, but anyway. I don't have any useful answers. I guess we'll see if this ban makes a difference.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• ClassyJacket 2y ago
  The point of this isn't to keep kids off social media. It's an excuse to require ID for adults so they can arrest us for criticizing them. They also recently tried to pass a "Misinformation" bill which would have given them the power to decree what we can and can't say on social media, and they'll try to sneak that back in, too. This country is a nanny state and it's getting scary.
  • kumarvvr 2y ago
    Adults can still be on SM and can still criticize the govt. Also, it must be the state of affairs that an Adult can have an ID on SM and criticize the govt. and the laws and courts should protect that individuals right to criticize. Avoiding IDs on the internet, just so that the govt can't catch hold of the critic is a lot of step backwards.
  • threeseed 2y ago
    You're literally spreading misinformation in your comment. a) The government was trying to outlaw deepfakes and fake accounts. But also require more transparency for users to contest moderation decisions. It did not try to limit what you can say. b) There is no law that makes it illegal to criticise the government.
    • Nasrudith 2y ago
      There are many places in the world where there is no law for "contempt of cop" but police find a way to extra-judicially punish anyway. The lack of a law allowing something doesn't stop abuse of power! And Australia is notorious for its raids of journalist's homes and has a court system very disinclined to punish the police for illegal activity.
      • hcfman 2y ago
        Yep. The Netherlands is one of those places. They have made extra judicial punishment a way of working. They call it an “intervention”. And they will make use of all the government organisations to do it. those organisations just have to follow orders because the interventions are co-ordinated by an intelligence agency called the RIEC. No evidence is required, there are no bounds as to what they can do and there are no repercussions.
• SamPatt 2y ago
  I don't like nanny state policies like this, but hopefully we'll get some data about social media usage from this after a few years. Prediction: the policy was both difficult to implement and difficult to determine if it made any impact, positive or negative.
  • chrishare 2y ago
    I've always wondered, when do policies become nanny state policies? If they have data showing that under-age use of social media leads to higher rates of suicide, why would that be a 'nanny state' policy? Does there have to be a gun or drug involved, rather than a phone?
    • niek_pas 2y ago
      “Nanny state policy” just means “restriction of freedom that I don’t personally like”.
      • xxs 2y ago
        I am sure someone else would point the origins of 'nanny-state' comes from. Yet, it has been used initially in the UK to support advertising of smoking, later for support of not using seat belts, and so on. It's a rather ironic twist in this case... and a very favorable read.
  • dools 2y ago
    I don't like people who refer to government regulation as "nanny state policies".
  • chris_wot 2y ago
    This legislation has no teeth. There is nothing that forces social media companies to verify ID. In fact in the legislation social media companies can’t force users to provide ID. It’s stupid legislation pandering to the lowest common denominator by a Labor government who have no vision and no idea how to deal with very real cost-of-living problems for Australians. The only problem is the LNP are even worse, an the Greens are nuts, so we’re stuck either anthem because they are the best of a terrible bunch.
• bigbacaloa 2y ago
  [dead]
• michaelhoney 2y ago
  This is a bad idea, and it’ll be very hard to implement. Better to ban old people from watching Sky News and using Facebook, that’s the real danger to our democracy
  • nixpulvis 2y ago
    Facebook already does this with users under 13. Read here about how they do it: https://about.fb.com/news/2021/07/age-verification/ https://about.fb.com/news/2021/07/age-verification/ But I agree it's a bad idea. See my comment above or below.
    • walrus01 2y ago
      The idea that your operating system might share with meta your personal data like your age is pretty messed up.
  • discordance 2y ago
    They’re not mutually exclusive, and this isn’t about democracy. We know that developing brains have been deeply impacted by the easy dopamine engineered hits Meta and Bytedance deliver. To me this feels like a contemporary version of the opium wars, but instead of nation states at war, it’s companies vs people.
    • hcfman 2y ago
      Perhaps we should also make it illegal to report on the war in the Middle East in case young people find it traumatising to see that that the western democracies are supporting dropping 2000 pound bombs on children in other countries. Can you image the damage being caused to young minds seeing that death and destruction visually through their own eyes ?
      • discordance 2y ago
        This is not about reporting or content. This is about the health outcomes of young people being negatively impacted by companies maximizing engagement metrics at all costs. Reporting on war happenings occurred before social media was around.
• nixpulvis 2y ago
  This is a bad idea. We should be forcing demonetization of the platforms content creators instead of hamstringing children. No I'm not joking. Content creators making money should be outside where I post about my cat. I'm fucking sick of engagement bait.
  • OsrsNeedsf2P 2y ago
    The money driven content creators are going to thrive on platforms that support them. If you don't want to have their content on the same feed as your cat pics, you're going to have to find some alt networks
    • nixpulvis 2y ago
      Supposedly Bluesky isn't monetized?
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
• nomilk 2y ago
  When the laws come in, many Australians will get VPNs rather than provide ID to random websites. If social media sites are compelled block VPNs, is that technically achievable/viable? Cloud providers and VPN services have predictable IP ranges, so are easily blocked (/majorly inconvenienced) by sites motivated to do so. But social media companies might not want to block VPNs since a lot of legitimate traffic comes through them (e.g. people anywhere in the world who simply wish to have that extra layer of privacy from their ISP and wifi owner). Are there VPN strategies that will allow an Australian to reliably access social media as though their traffic is coming from another country? I also guess Australians who try this might have to access social media sites via a browser on their phone (as opposed to native app). Asking for a friend, of course.
  • throwawaythekey 2y ago
    Due to the shared nature of the internet it's very hard to implement a technically foolproof block. For example you could rent a server on AWS, forward your traffic to it (e2e encrypted) and then have that forward your traffic to a regular VPN. Now just imagine that the VPN does the forwarding for you and offers it as a service.
• znyboy 2y ago
  I personally welcome this change. Anecdotally, I experienced unimpeded and unsupervised internet access throughout my younger teenage years, and was exposed to some truly horrendous material courtesy of the bigger social platforms. My parents knew I used social media. They believed it was fine because it was "just MySpace and Facebook". Meanwhile, I witnessed large amounts of open bullying between my peers, recordings of physical assaults, underage revenge pornography, and a massive decline of people physically spending time together outside of online contexts, culminating in widespread loneliness and isolation. In recent times I have seen the dramatic failure of social media companies to moderate their content, actively promoting extremist content, and even openly protecting the originators of illicit material. Rates of youth suicide skyrocketed shortly after the rise of smartphones, social media and always-available internet access as evident by published statistics. While none of these can be individually attributed as the cause of this rise, all are undoubtedly a contributing factor, as suggested by countless studies globally.
  • throwawaythekey 2y ago
    I started using the internet unsupervised heavily in my tweens in the early 2000's and came across some horrendous stuff pretty early. Despite that, for me I think it's been a net positive and I would like my children to grow up in a similar environment. The lasting qualities I think it's given me are: - An open mindedness and the ability to examine issues from multiple angles - A thick skin against shocking material/online forms of bullying - A stronger understanding of how technology interacts with society/power structures I think the country needs to be building digitally strong youth, not trying to put the genie back into the bottle.
    • anal_reactor 2y ago
      Nothing I have ever seen on the internet comes anywhere close to what I was dealing with IRL.
• ChrisArchitect 2y ago
  [dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42264733 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42264733
• hackable_sand 2y ago
  Tell me why They didn't just ban pedophiles off the apps
• profsummergig 2y ago
  I'm thinking about how in France kids are allowed to have wine, and they have fewer alcohol problems when they grow up.
  • usr1106 2y ago
    They are not allowed to buy wine themselves. Most parents wouldn't allow them to drink when alone. Drinking small amounts of wine at the family dinner table makes the educational difference. Social media is consumed without any family interaction and can consume all free-time and more.
    • squigz 2y ago
      > Drinking small amounts of wine at the family dinner table makes the educational difference. So it sounds like responsible parenting is the key there. > Most parents wouldn't allow them to drink when alone ... Social media is consumed without any family interaction How do parents stop their kids from drinking alone? Why can't they prevent the overuse of social media in the same way?
• vinni2 2y ago
  But off topic how does selecting for top news work? I posted the same thing 17 hours ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42265447 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42265447 I posted from BBC is it less reliable source?
  • kreetx 2y ago
    I think it's accidental. It depends on upvotes and how quickly they happen to come in.
• renegat0x0 2y ago
  Ahhh yes, and thumbs down button in youtube was removed to protect small creators from harm. It is funny to observe how many naive people there are in the world. Australia for years hated the idea that you can anonymously share your opinion. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-07/prime-minister-defends-dutton-twitter-defamation-action/100522002 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-07/prime-minister-defend... And no, privacy is not already lost. It is a lie often said. Sure you share a lot of data about you, but you are often not required, especially by law to share it. Big tech also do not know everything about you, they often lie to shareholders, or advertisers about amount of users, clicks. Protect the children, and remove the ability to freely express your opinion. I vividly remember people being arrested because of social media activity during covid.
  • ffsm8 2y ago
    I'm not Australian and don't know the specifics if this legislation, so I cannot speak with any authority on the matter, but I think you're mistakenly conflating banning <16yo with identifying everyone. Porn is also banned for <18yo and you generally don't need to id yourself to get access, you only need to claim you're 18 via button, checkmark or similar This doesn't actually remove all kids from the platform, but at least they're no longer being served legally. This will make it less ubiquitous for them. Relevant part of 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.
    • renegat0x0 2y ago
      Thanks for providing that last part info, but I think you misunderstand how the world works. The privacy is removed in erosion, not in one action. First create a law, then require providing a button, then require debit card number, then require ID. I am aware of slippery slope fallacy, but I think that is where this all is going to go. Therefore it does not matter if "it is just a button" right now. Every change in that direction is not good. I worry about the trajectory more. Let's also look at it from a different point of view. Does the button "I am over 18" protect the children? Really? Sorry, but this is not the final step in that road.
• senectus1 2y ago
  wait till everyone figures out that everyone will have to provide ID to link to their account for this to even come close to being actioned.... No more anonymous Social Media accounts....
• lysp 2y ago
  The "behind the scenes" of this was a repeated campaign based on News Corp's (ie. Fox News / The Murdoch's) newsrooms (TV, radio + paper). The legislation was primarily based on their campaign - likely as an attack against TikTok and other social media companies, who are taking their viewership and advertising revenue. I believe in the premise of the change (to protect young children), just not the motivation or interests behind this law.
  • krige 2y ago
    I rather doubt under-16s ever watched any news corpos and the new corpos are more than likely aware of this from their own research so I don't think fighting over viewership is a factor in this.
    • lmm 2y ago
      > I rather doubt under-16s ever watched any news corpos Well, no, because social media is a better alternative. Hence why they're getting it banned.
      • krige 2y ago
        No, because kids don't care about news channels. It's not a darn kids on tiktoks thing, before tiktok or twitter or facebook they were outside, or playing video games, or reading books, or any number of things because underage kids don't give a hoot about talking heads newsstations.
  • willyt 2y ago
    There’s an interview on The Rest is Politics Leading podcast with the politician Peter Malinauskas the premier of New South Wales who started the introduction of this law in his state first. I think it was maybe then taken up by the federal government. https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/leading/id1665265193?i=1000665706896 https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/leading/id1665265193?i... It’s very insightful and from listening to this it seems unlikely that murdoch was a huge influence on this.
• bpiroman 2y ago
  Seems like legislation that will be weakly applied and is most likely a distraction. Australian politics are notorious for this.
• thombles 2y ago
  As an Australian parent this is really pleasing to see. It's clearly inspired heavily by the work of Jon Haidt and Jean Twenge et al. The kids are not okay and the main thing stopping a worried parent from addressing it is that "all the other kids are on it". If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? Collective action is needed and this is what it looks like. We don't need watertight compliance, verification or enforcement - just raise the level of difficulty for kids to get on and create a culture among kids, parents and schools that social media is not allowed. This will be enough breathing room for parents to say no and kids not to feel like they're the only ones missing out.
  • GoblinSlayer 2y ago
    My nephew is denied a smartphone due to low grades. Seems like a good enough excuse. Granted, it can work only if your country allows low grades.
    • trogdor 2y ago
      What countries don’t allow low grades?
  • 71bw 2y ago
    > If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? They'd be addicted/bullied regardless?
  • noufalibrahim 2y ago
    As a non Australian parent, I quite envy you. Parents are almost as addicted as children and often take dozens of photos of every tiny event and post it on IG without permission of other children who are there in the pictures. Many kids have their own channels which are promoted by parents and their identities are based around them. I do what I can (don't give them devices till they're 18 etc.) but it's hard when the whole society around you is pushing the other way. Some kind of societal regulation like what's happened in Australia will be a good thing. It will add friction to kids getting onto these platforms and that will significantly slow down adoption.
• bongodongobob 2y ago
  Now let's apply an age restriction to books too. This is fucking stupid.
• semi-extrinsic 2y ago
  A solution I would be very OK with is the following: * Enforce the age limits only on smartphones and tablets. This solves >95% of the problem and still leaves a way for people to be anonymous. * Smartphone OS vendors come up with a common age verification framework that's based on zero knowledge proofs constructed over the electronic certificate in your passport - there are already working PoCs of this on Github * Each identity can only be installed on one device at a time. Then parents cannot share identity with kids (unless the parents completely give up on all social media) * For people who don't have a passport, offer a manual and thorough process for age verification, after which you get issued a small plastic card with identity certificate readable by NFC.
  • bongodongobob 2y ago
    Why would the government do that when they can just track everyone with some kind of internet ID?
• fungiblecog 2y ago
  It's well intended but it won't work. Just like every other form of censorship that's ever been tried
• jessenaser 2y ago
  Following observation of the comments: 1. Those in favor of identity based control over using electronic devices, attaching a real world identity to your computing use. (Including up to signed software only allowed to run on devices). 2. Those in favor of the restriction of access of the internet by a government entity (Including up to regulated speech). This is similar to the break up Google arguments. Instead you just have to out-code it. (For the counterarguments, this applies to code-based companies, instead of infrastructure based)... If a social media is harmful, then parents can put those restrictions already on devices. But letting the government do this gives much more freedoms away than initially thought. Not just this, but if there happens to ever be a social media that is 10 times better than all existing ones, where even more real speech discussion and conversation happens, or whatever form it is, it will still be regulated and controlled using the same methods. I usually don't comment often, but I would usually expect someone here to bring up these concerns... which is unusual to not find them. And I mean the specific two points are the argument. Those must be flipped to allow this law to be just, which is to say, most likely not. And a third point, even in a perfect implementation, (imagine a perfect world), you end up with the first two points still being an issue. The technological ability to restrict devices by signed software, and speech to a central authority, allows the attack surface for anyone to have the ability to control the entirety of the devices on that system, in ways that would be hard to discern. Extend this technology to other devices, like VR, and see the domino...
• attila-lendvai 2y ago
  Proper title: Australia intoduces digital ID to access the internet
• pyuser583 2y ago
  This is really good.
• cchi_co 2y ago
  This legislation is a bold step, but it raises a lot of questions about implementation and unintended consequences. While protecting children from online harms is undoubtedly important, enforcing an age limit like this on social media platforms could be incredibly challenging
  • xxs 2y ago
    It already works for gambling. It will reduce the access to adults, of course, but I can't say it'd see it as a negative
    • hcfman 2y ago
      Those who will trade privacy for safety deserve neither.
      • cchi_co 2y ago
        [dead]
    • itshossein 2y ago
      gambling is a little bit different, as you have to pay and receive money (easily enforceable bans). But here we are talking about a free service which is also offered by many foreign alternatives (which of course are not going to cooperate.)
      • xxs 2y ago
        The age verification is on creating the account prior to any deposits. As for not cooperating - I'd expect to ban them altogether (ISP) unless they comply. Gambling is exactly the same.
    • cchi_co 2y ago
      [dead]
• anal_reactor 2y ago
  It just hurts me to see what the internet has become, simply because we allowed the general public.
  • dwattttt 2y ago
    The juxtaposition of this comment and username are sending me, let me tell you.
    • ryan-c 2y ago
      feels like i'm on reddit circa 2010
• pvaldes 2y ago
  If everybody in western societies agree that under-aged are forbidden to access a Casino or a brothel and also shouldn't do paid work; why should the same societies install easy doors for children to casinos, brothels and sweatshops, in every school, and children room?
• herunan 2y ago
  Rather than banning social media, we should be forcing social media companies to make their apps less addictive and promote more positive interactions. This only stigmatises social media more and gives them a ‘free pass’ to keep being a net negative contributor to society. It’s such a lazy legislation. Besides, what counts as social media? Texting? Gaming? The internet is inherently social.
• chris_wot 2y ago
  If anyone wants to know just how rushed this bill was pushed through parliament, here is the text of the public consultation announcement: “On 21 November 2024, the Senate referred the provisions of the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for report by 26 November 2024. The closing date for submissions is 22 November 2024. Due to the short timeframe of this inquiry, the committee would appreciate submissions being limited to 1-2 pages.” How’s that for well written? They announced the bill on the 21st and closed the date for submissions on the 22nd. It then went to parliament in the 26th. It has passed on the 29th. Parliament sitting days end a few days after. Pathetic. That’s why the Committee that scrutinises the bill asked for “1 or 2 page submissions”.
• thaumasiotes 2y ago
  How's the ban on pornography for under-18s going? How about the ban on various things, like gmail, for under-13s?
• neumann 2y ago
  I find it absolutely wild that we've managed to ban social media for under-16s, but somehow not pornography. And so kids can just stream hardcore, violent porn on tap, as long as they click "I am 18 or older". I am all for limiting social media (though not necessarily in this implementation), but just utterly puzzled why what seems to be an equally damaging influence for developing minds can't be limited.
  • stirlo 2y ago
    Do we expect the social media ban implementation to be any different to the 18+ restriction on pornography? Personally I doubt it. Real enforcement will come from parents and schools now having authority to stop kids instead of currently being told “but all the other kids have it”. There does seem to be an opportunity for a big tech companies like Apple and Google to introduce an over 18 verification that’s built into the browser but remains fully anonymous after initial verification. Most over 18 verification schemes have faltered at the point where adults are asked to verify their identity to view among other things porn. If it was cryptographically proven anonymous there’d be much less resistance.
• JeremyStinson 2y ago
  Just so it's clear - this new law will require everyone over 16 to provide proof-of-age, and thus identity, to use the most popular portions of the internet. Saving the children is the voter-acceptable way of getting it past public scrutiny, and paves the way for a national DigitalID that will be required by all citizens.
  • neumann 2y ago
    Can you elaborate what you mean? We already need identity for ISP access and mobile phones, no?
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    • JeremyStinson 2y ago
      Only for activation of a service, which has nothing to do with the actual user. Purchase a phone using cash from any store selling mobile phones, and then use free WiFi (however insecure that may be) anywhere you can find it. If you want mobile data, get someone to register a prepaid SIM card, then add money to it using a prepaid debit card from AusPost, which you don't need ID to do.
  • underwater 2y ago
    Where does the legislation say that? My reading is that it specifically says that social networks have to provide an alternative verification mechanism that doesn’t rely on government ID.
    • JeremyStinson 2y ago
      That's the outcome of the law. Think of it this way - how will YOU, specifically, prove you are actually over the age of 16 without having some proof of age object that is tied to your device(s) or usage patterns? If a 15 year old will have to prove they're 16 to use a service, so will a 35 year old. It's not just the kids proving their age.
• anon373839 2y ago
  > The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts Unless the fines accumulate, it seems the law is rather toothless? US $33M is a parking ticket for companies at this scale.
  • proteal 2y ago
    I think you’re right about the relative scale of the fine, but theres a part of me that believes the companies will try to comply with the law, similar to how pornhub is blocked in many US states. They could easily ignore the regulation but choose not to because thats ultimately what Australians want. Companies of this scale by and large try to follow the law, especially when the affected cohort is relatively small.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• morgengold 2y ago
  I like this very much. Why? 1. Life long habits are mostly formed at a young age. 2. Real social interaction is very important at this life stage. 3. There is no need to put the vulnerable self concept of a young human being at risk.
• sandos 2y ago
  In Sweden advertising aimed at kids is illegal, and has been for a long time. But "social media" is bizarrely aimed at kids, or at least kids are extremely susceptible to what influencers are doing. My 10-year old has a wish list this year with about 70 beauty products. It makes me kinda sick. The problem: me banning social media completely (instead of limiting which we do now) would not help completely, since all her friends use it and would influence her anyway.
• tonis2 2y ago
  I think kids that wont be able to use YouTube until they are 16, might miss some good stuff too, like they might find hobbies there, learn programming.
  • timbit42 2y ago
    But they won't be able to use YouTube to learn about their hobby or programming.
• 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...?
• tigerlily 2y ago
  I wonder what counts as social media? What about traditional bbs, or irc?