11 ms·
Australians to face age checks from search engines
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- eidorb 1y agoMinor’s accounts must also revoke “sign out” functionality in case they see some titties.
- HKH2 1y ago> However, users who are not logged in should also expect “default blurring of images of online pornography and high-impact violence material detected in search results”.
- SoftTalker 1y agoTo be fair, most of the concern is about stuff that's far more hard-core than "titties"
- BLKNSLVR 1y agoNice to see the ACS implementing their own dark patterns in making the "Close" text in the top right of their full screen pop-up light-grey and thus difficult to find. /s
- glaucon 1y agoYep, it took me a while to find that.
- jackvalentine 1y agoAustralians are broadly supportive of these kind of actions - there is a view that foreign internet behemoths have failed to moderate for themselves and will therefore have moderation imposed on them however imperfect. Can’t say I blame them.
- bigfatkitten 1y agoIf you read through the issues that ASIO says they are most concerned about, it’s clear that companies like Meta have a lot to answer for. https://www.intelligence.gov.au/news/asio-annual-threat-assessment-2025 https://www.intelligence.gov.au/news/asio-annual-threat-asse...
- homeonthemtn 1y agoBut never will~
- hilbert42 1y agoWe don't need ASIO to tell us that. The real problem is that early on when Big Tech first took a stranglehold of the internet in the early 2000s that governments failed to regulate, they did SFA despite the warning signs. At the time it was obvious to many astute observers what was happening but governments themselves were mesmerized and awed by Big Tech. A 20-plus year delay in applying regulations means it'll be a long hard road to put the genie back in tbe bottle. For starters, there's too much money now tied up in these trillion-dollar companies, to disrupt their income would mean shareholders and even whole economies would be affected. Fixing the problem will be damn hard.
- BLKNSLVR 1y agoEven harder now that the US President is siding with the tech broligarchy since it aligns perfectly with the America First ideology. (It may be the last thing that the US has the world lead on) It's also why legislation protecting privacy and/or preventing the trade of personal information is almost impossible: the "right" people profit from it, and the industry around it has grown large enough that it would have non-trivial economic effects if it were destroyed (no matter how much it thoroughly deserves to be destroyed with fire).
- marcus_holmes 1y agoI just read through that, and it doesn't even mention Meta. Why do you think this is about "companies like Meta"?
- protocolture 1y agoStupid bipartisan authoritarian bs, so basically a normal day for the australian government.
- ethan_smith 1y agoAustralia's been down this road before with the failed 2019 age verification bill and the Online Safety Act. The technical implementation challenges are enormous - from VPN circumvention to privacy risks of ID verification systems.
- frollogaston 1y agoWell the age assurance is only for logged-in users, so they can just log out.
- bigfatkitten 1y agoYou’d have a hard time finding a 12+ year old who doesn’t know what Incognito mode in Chrome is for.
- postingawayonhn 1y agoThe article doesn't quite spell it out but I assume you won't be able to turn off safe search unless you log in with a verified 18+ account.
- frollogaston 1y agoIt does say "default" which implies you can turn off the filter, but yeah it's not very clear and does make a big difference. For example, YouTube already won't let you view flagged content without signing in.
- SchemaLoad 1y agoThis is how Youtube works now. Age restricted videos can't be viewed without logging in.
- ptek 1y agoYeah. Can’t watch king of the streets or some video game trailers.
- 1y ago
- OhioMan2943 1y agoAs an australian citizen i'm all for it. Look at how the internet and social media has destroyed our current youth and their naivety and sense of emotional security. They all act like they're living in soviet russia at this point and have become so hard and jaded. Better I give a little bit of pii than some kid grows up too early. Would you be able to tell the difference if this policy came from a place of compassion?
- abtinf 1y ago> They all act like they're living in soviet russia Nothing says “not living in Soviet Russia” like having to show your papers to access information.
- jp0d 1y agowhat's the alternative? Is it really information or misinformation?
- abtinf 1y ago> misinformation Nothing screams “not living in Soviet Russia” like having a ministry of truth.
- bamboozled 1y agoSo is being fed propaganda 24/7, the KGB seems to be winning by reading some of these comments. I don't see kids being banned from reading history books, which would be more like the world you're describing, I see a country which is pretty multicultural and open minded trying it's best to protect itself from the absolute nonsense that circulates online. When I was a kid, I could only watch certain TV shows because my bed time was 7:30-8pm, that's when the "naughty stuff" came on TV. Was that the ministry of truth at work? Do you have any idea what kids are exposed to now ? I mean the answer is probably, no, you have no idea. But judging by the rot I see my younger friends and family members watch and regurgitate, I can tell you, it's not great.
- hilbert42 1y agoA resident of said country here. Another questionable measure by Government to protect our mollycoddled, insufficiently-resilient society. That said, a better approach would be to limit kids under certain age from owning smartphones with full internet access. Instead, they could have a phone without internet access—dumb phones—or ones with curated/limited access. Personally, I'm not too worried about what risqué stuff they'll see online especially so teenagers (they'll find that one way or other) but it's more about the distraction smartphones cause. Thinking back to my teenage years I'm almost certain I would have been tempted to waste too much time online when it would have been better for me to be doing homework or playing sport. It goes without saying that smartphones are designed to be addictive and we need to protect kids more from this addiction than from from bad online content. That's not to say they should have unfettered access to extreme content, they should not. It seems to me that having access to only filtered IP addresses would be a better solution. This ill-considerd gut reaction involving the whole community isn't a sensible decision if for no other reason than it allows sites like Google to sap up even more of a user's personal information.
- abtinf 1y ago> Another questionable measure by Government to protect our mollycoddled, insufficiently-resilient society Complains about mollycoddling. > a better approach would be to limit Immediately proposes new mollycoddling scheme.
- hilbert42 1y agoMollycoddling kids is one thing, we've always done that to some extent. Mollycoddling adults is another matter altogether.
- xboxnolifes 1y agoBoth proposals are mollycoddling children. It just happens that one of them inconveniences adults.
- 1y ago
- pevansgreenwood 1y agoWith search moving from Google & MS to TikTok ET al, is this shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted?
- marcus_holmes 1y ago2025: if you're logged in, then we check your age to see if you can do or see some stuff 2027: the companies providing the logins must provide government with the identities 2028: because VPNs are being used to circumvent the law, if the logging entity knows you're an Australian citizen, even if you're not in Australia or using an Aussie IP address then they must still apply the law 2030: you must be logged in to visit these specific sites where you might see naked boobies, and if you're under age you can't - those sites must enforce logins and age limits 2031: Australian ISPs must enforce the login restrictions because some sites are refusing to and there are loopholes 2033: Australian ISPs must provide the government with a list of people who visited this list of specific sites, with dates and times of those visits 2035: you must be logged in to visit these other specific sites, regardless of your age 2036: you must have a valid login with one of these providers in order to use the internet 2037: all visits to all sites must be logged in 2038: all visits to all sites will be recorded 2039: this list of sites cannot be visited by any Australian of any age 2040: all visits to all sites will be reported to the government 2042: your browser history may be used as evidence in a criminal case Australian politicians, police, and a good chunk of the population would love this. Australia is quietly extremely authoritarian. It's all "beer and barbies on the beach" but that's all actually illegal.
- incompatible 1y ago> 2042: your browser history may be used as evidence in a criminal case We already reached that point several years ago.
- marcus_holmes 1y agoyeah true, I should have made it more explicit that it's your entire browser history, and every criminal case
- bravesoul2 1y agoInteresting question is warrant or no warrant required?
- Sevrene 1y agoI’m an Australian who values privacy and civil liberties more than most I meet. While I yearn for the more authentic and sincere days of the internet I grew up on, I recognize very quickly by visiting x or facebook how much it isn’t that, and hasn’t been for a long time. I think this bill is a good thing and I support it.
- theshackleford 1y ago>I think this bill is a good thing and I support it. Uhuh. >I’m an Australian who values privacy and civil liberties more than most I meet. No you're not.
- Sevrene 1y agoYes I am.
- hilbert42 1y ago"I’m an Australian who values privacy and civil liberties more than most I meet." Same here. Early on, if I found a site interesting I'd often follow its links to other sites and so on down into places that the Establishment would deem unacceptable but I'd not worry too much about it. Nowadays, I just assume authorities of all types are hovering over every mouse click I make. Not only is this horrible but it also robbs one of one's autonomy. It won't be long before we're handing info that was once commonplace in textbooks around in secret.
- frollogaston 1y agoThe AI-based version of this looks fine, the ID checks are odd though
- Sevrene 1y agoI can agree with that
- marcus_holmes 1y agoI don't understand why you think this bill and that phenomenon (the fact that Xitter or Facebook aren't like the old days of the internet) are connected, can you explain why you think this, please?
- incompatible 1y agoDo they realise that some of us may be using computers that don't even have a camera, and open source software that could in theory upload any image we like?
- Ycros 1y agoIt uses a video feed and asks you to look in certain directions. At least the one instance I've encountered did.
- hsbauauvhabzb 1y agoYeah. Certainly something AI generated video couldn’t solve.
- someNameIG 1y agoIt shouldn't be to difficult to determine if the camera is pointed at a real face vs a screen showing an AI generated image.
- aaron695 1y ago[dead]
- jauntywundrkind 1y agoWhat an awful sad fall for us all, from such lofty heights of possibility for technology, to a seemingly endless age of both humans being exploited and mechanized by technology and governments doing only the saddest most important useless clutching of pearls fear responses that do nothing to coax the world towards better. Apologies. I'm already pretty morose over the USA Supreme Court allowing age verification, which although claiming to target porn seems so likely to cudgel any "adult" or sexual material at all. Until recently the Declaration of Independence of Cyberspace has held pretty true. The online world has seen various regulations but mostly it's been taxes and businesses affected, and here we see a turn where humanity is now denied access by their governments, where we are no longer allowed to connect or to share, not without flashing our government verified id. It's such a sad lowering of the world, to such absolutely loser politicians doing such bitter pathetic anti governance for such low reasons. They impinge on the fundamental dignity & respect inherent on mankind here, in these intrusions into how we may think and connect. Links for recent Texas age verification: https://www.wired.com/story/us-supreme-court-porn-age-verification-decision-2025/ https://www.wired.com/story/us-supreme-court-porn-age-verifi... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44397799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44397799
- amaterasu 1y agoThe co-leads on drafting the code are rather interesting: > Drafting of the code was co-led by Digital Industry Group Inc. (DIGI), which was contacted for comment as it counts Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo among its members.
- fc417fc802 1y agoDo you suppose this is born of a desire to more easily identify people, or primarily as a regulatory fence to prevent upstart competitors? Perhaps both?
- shirro 1y agoYes. As usual people commenting based on their biases instead of comprehending the text. This is a proposal made by predominantly US companies (a country that actually has mandatory proof of age to access digital services in several states) to a US born eSafety commissioner who previously worked for Microsoft, Adobe and Twitter. Not really sure what this has to do with the Australian government or Australian people. We can't even properly tax these foreign companies fairly. If we did try to regulate them the US government would step in and play the victim despite a massively one sided balance of trade due to US services being shoved down our throats. We need to aggressively pursue digital sovereignty.
- 9283409232 1y agoThis is very simplistic but at a certain point I feel like parents should just be better parents and take responsibility for what their children do online in their home.
- ratchetgo1 1y agoGrand Fascist State Censor Julie Inman Grant strikes again. Another disgraceful loss of privacy for the country defining anglophone technological totalitarianism.
- ActorNightly 1y agoMeh, this is minor political fluff. Australia is still doing quite good.
- Cartoxy 1y agoin the digital rights and government spying department --- maybe VS china or Nkorea but in the "west" we are profanely the worst. easily.
- account42 1y agoDon't worry, the rest of the west is doing its best to catch up with you.
- defrost 1y agoYou're asserting AU TLA's are outperforming the UK's GCHQ et al., the US's NSA and friends, the private company Palantir, Isreal's Unit 8200, etc? Might want to wind back that Aussie Exceptionalism a notch or three. That or read up a little more.
- ActorNightly 1y agoThe thing that Australians don't realize is that like nobody cares that much about Australia. You are on that side of the world, pretty isolated as far as politics go. Take the minor losses, be glad that conservative party didn't win, and watch the shitstorm in US and Europe from afar.
- tjmc 1y ago"eKaren" is shorter
- Palmik 1y agoIt's interesting how all countries work in tandem implementing these measures. UK, EU, some US States and now Australia all require or will soon require age verification under certain conditions. It seems like it would make more sense to implement it at the browser level. Let the website return a header (ala RTA) or trigger some JavaScript API o indicate that the browser should block the tab until the user verifies their age.
- riffraff 1y agoI think lawmakers gravitate towards "required identification" because 1) it's easier to put blame on a single website than on whatever browser + the websites 2) it matches th experience of age restriction for movies and magazines, where age is enforced by whoever sells you the thing or allows access 3) client side restrictions seem easier to circumvent 4) some lawmakers probably think grown ups shouldn't watch porn either. IMO an "ok" solution to the parents' requirements of "I want my kids to not watch disturbing things" might be to enforce domain tags (violence, sex, guns, religion, social media, drugs, gambling, whatever) and allow ISPs to set filters per paying client, so people don't have to setup filters on their own (but they can). But it's a complex topic, and IMO a simpler solution is to just not let kids alone in the internet until you trust them enough.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- azov 1y agoI wonder if technical complexity of implementing online age checks is about the same as implementing a robust direct democracy system - one where people can vote down bad laws instead of outsourcing those decisions wholesale to politicians they don’t even like?..
- ggm 1y agoI predict Lower. Unrelated, but why I don't agree: The systems which permit voting down stupid laws also permit voting down good laws. This is very "be careful what you wish for" and reductive to "the voter is always right even when they want stupid things" interpretation of democracy. E.g. Swiss cantons opposing votes for women inside the last 2 decades.
- _Algernon_ 1y agoThey don't have to be always right, just be right more often than a representative democracy.
- azov 1y agoWell, direct democracy already exists in various forms (e.g., referendums, propositions on California ballots, etc.). Sometimes bad decisions are made, but I wouldn’t call it a total disaster. Can it be improved through technical means? How much improvement would it take for it to be better than the status quo?
- yakshaving_jgt 1y agoAs an Australian citizen, this further reinforces my position that the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that Australia is a laidback country full of easygoing people. It isn’t. For as long as I can remember it’s been wildly authoritarian, and it seems Australians harbour a fetish for the rules that would make even the average German blush. Hopefully times have changed (though I don’t think they have), but about 20 years ago, standard fare on the road was to provide essentially no driver training, and then aggressively enforce draconian traffic rules. New drivers can’t drive at night. New drivers have to abide by lower speed limits than other drivers. Police stop traffic for random breathalyser tests. “Double demerit” days… This seems like more of the same. Forget trying to educate the population about the dangers of free access to information (which they will encounter anyway). Just go full Orwell! What could go wrong!
- ggm 1y agoHomomorphic encryption and third parties. No need for government eyes to know axiomatically which 100pts ID verified which login, nor website or search engine to know who the real person is. Most legislation aims to create the offence of misleading, not actually stamp out 100% of offenders. Kids who get round this will make liabilities for themselves and their parents.
- bobbyraduloff 1y agoTaken straight from the new regulation: “Providers of internet search engine services are not required to implement age assurance measures for end-users who are not account holders.” How can you argue any of this is NOT in the interest of centralised surveillance and advertising identities for ADULTS when there’s such an easy way to bypass the regulation if you’re a child?
- g42gregory 1y agoFreedom and democracy in action.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Cartoxy 1y agoAims to protect kids online, but it could easily go too far. It covers way more than just search engines—pretty much anything that returns info, including AI tools. It pushes for heavy content filtering, age checks, and algorithm tweaks to hide certain results. That means more data tracking and less control over what users see. Plus, regulators can order stuff to be removed from search results, which edges into censorship. Sets the stage for broader control, surveillance, and over-moderation. slowburn additions all stack up. digital ID ,NBN monopoly ISP locked DNS servers . TR-069 etc etc. Hidden VOIP credentials. Australia is like the west's testing ground this kind of policy it seams.
- nenadg 1y agoah another one from the series of govt ideas so good that they have to be enforced
- attila-lendvai 1y agoage check = identity check
- aucisson_masque 1y ago> Search engines will not be required to implement age assurance measures for users who are not logged in to their services, according to the new rules. …
- tempera 1y ago[dead]
- shirro 1y agoThis looks like a voluntary industry code of conduct made by US companies Microsoft, Google etc. I am not aware of any legislation that would require this in Australia. If the commissioner thinks the industry codes are insufficient she might advise the government that a legislative approach is required but she is not an Australian politician and was not elected by anyone here. The eSafety commissioner is an American born ex-Microsoft, Adobe and Twitter employee who was appointed by the previous conservative government. I wouldn't be so sure her values are representative of the so-called Australian nanny state or the Australian Labor Party.
- southernplaces7 1y agoWhat is it with some of the anglo countries and these ridiculous slides into nannying, vaguely repressive surveillance. It's not even much useful for real crime fighting, as the case of the UK amply and frequently demonstrates.
- florkbork 1y agohttps://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7284_aspassed%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7284_aspassed%2F0000%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.... Read the legislation. Ask yourself if it's better for a country's government or a foreign set of social media companies to control what young people see. One has a profit motive above all else. One can be at least voted for or against.
- baobun 1y agoParents seem like the appropriate authority for minors? Neither should control adults.
- frollogaston 1y agoThese laws do seem in line with the way these countries operate, with heavier restrictions on speech and lifestyle. I prefer living in America, but that way might not work for every country, and I can see why they do this.
- Pooge 1y agoOne has a profit motive influenced by legislation/regulation put in place by the other, which the latter seems to have no interest of doing for the last 20 years.
- southernplaces7 1y agoOh my god, the information and social media might be "foreign"!! that's obviously cause for suspicion and prohibition. Do you perhaps live in some brainless mid-20th century authoritarian fantasy of social dangers? If you think X domestic legislation doesn't come with its own baggage of profit motives, hidden agendas and attempts at controlling narratives for young people, you're in for a rude awakening if you dig a bit deeper. That aside, i'd rather parents being the ones who decide what minors see instead of some hackneyed government censorship program rammed through by a plethora of boogeymen and possibly (very likely) later used to track and censor adult access to information choices. Laws like these and their supporters can both fuck off. It's the same old story from going back centuries, nationalist, religious or generally moralizing bullshit about the supposed dangers of some nefarious influence being used to restrict what I decide to read, watch or think about.
- dbg31415 1y agoPeople need to realize that Australia is a testing ground for laws like this. https://youtu.be/eW-OMR-iWOE https://youtu.be/eW-OMR-iWOE
- arresin 1y ago> Age assurance methods can include age verification systems, which use government documents or ID; age estimation systems, which typically use biometrics; and age inference systems, which use data about online activity or accounts to infer age. Oh how convenient.
- mediumsmart 1y agoI mailed the nanny state if I could comment but the one they provided says nothing.