6 ms·

The attempt is to remove the market do exploiting the attention of children for profit. This doesn’t have to be perfect to be worth it. What’s more, the idea

by bigfudge 10mo ago

The attempt is to remove the market do exploiting the attention of children for profit. This doesn’t have to be perfect to be worth it. What’s more, the idea that this puts children at the mercy of authoritarians is laughable. The US tech industry has shown us beyond doubt that they are perfectly ok with genuine authoritarians in charge, provided the dollars keep rolling. Fuck them, and good on ya Australia.

fnikacevic 10mo ago
So are we banning all advertising to children? Or only banning them from communicating and posting with each other? If it's about monetizing child attention not about speech control why isn't every single toy ad, food ad, movie ad, also banned?
- hshdhdhj4444 10mo ago
  Because all those aren’t close to being as harmful as social media is. We do ban the things that consume children the way social media does. Alcohol, addictive drugs, etc.
  - fnikacevic 10mo ago
    The data on social media harms is mixed at best. We know for a fact fast food, cosmetic ads for girls, are strictly more harmful. This is nothing more than speech control under the guise of "won't someone please think of the children"
    - tigroferoce 10mo ago
      > The data on social media harms is mixed at best. We know for a fact fast food, cosmetic ads for girls, are strictly more harmful. True, but let me remind you that we didn't have conclusive data on smoke harm until the 50s, but this doesn't mean that smoking was not harmful before, nor that we were lacking any clue before coming to a conclusive study. At the moment we don't have any conclusive study about e-cigarettes, but I'm sure you would never give kids e-cigarettes just because we don't have 30/40 years worth of data. > This is nothing more than speech control under the guise of "won't someone please think of the children" This is a bit more complex than this. Kids and adolescents online are targeted with all sort of techniques to leverage their attention in order to make money. I understand the speech control worry, and I agree up to a certain point, but I don't see how ignoring the problem makes it any better. What are the alternatives we have? I'm genuinely asking, not advocating for TINA. I have two kids and I see the effects of social media on them and on their friends. Keep in mind that this cannot be offloaded to families, for multiple reasons: - many family just don't have enough data or knowledge to make informed decisions - until the network effect is in place, banning your kid from social media while all of their friend are online can be impractical and cruel - parent decisions can affect kids health and overall society outcome; allowing a wrong decision by the parents (because the society doesn't want to handle the problem) would be unfair for the kids and no wise for the society. As in many aspects of life the best solution is neither white nor black, but a shade of grey, and is far from being perfect. Looking for a perfect solution is a waste of time, resources and unfair for those that are affected in the meanwhile. I understand the concerns, and probably Australia approach is not the best, but it's also the first. We probably will need a period of adjustments to reach a sound solution.
- optionalsquid 10mo ago
  > So are we banning all advertising to children? Or only banning them from communicating and posting with each other? Kids are not banned from communicating and posting with each other; the ban exempts a number of direct messing apps, as well as community apps like Discord: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/dec/10/social-media-ban-australia-explained-banned-apps-list-guide https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/dec/10/social-media-b... If I had to over-simplify it, then the ban appears to mostly target doom-scrolling apps. I say mostly, since I'm not sure why Twitch and Kick are included
  - awillowingmind 10mo ago
    Twitch & Kick are likely included because they can breed parasocial relationships between streamer & viewer.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- stephen_g 10mo ago
  Haha, no, here in Australia we can't even ban gambling/betting app ads on TV during sports when lots of kids are watching!
samename 10mo ago
What about future governments in Australia? This is ripe for abuse and scope creep. It also ties a uniform ID to an account, simplifying tracking and surveillance by corporations and governments. Plus, this is asking everyone in the country to give up their biometrics (face scanning is one implementation) or link your government issued ID to your social media account (look at the UK to see how this turned out - people are being arrested for simple tweets against the government). Sacrificing the freedom to be anonymous online to "protect the kids"
- 9dev 10mo ago
  > It also ties a uniform ID to an account, simplifying tracking and surveillance by corporations and governments. That is by no means the only solution. A lot of work is happening in the area of cryptographically verified assertions; for example, a government API could provide the simple assertion "at least 16 years of age" without the social media platform ever seeing your ID, and the government never able to tie you to the service requiring the assertion.
  - lukan 10mo ago
    Does that work already? If so, how? If the API asks for a users minimum age at a certain time, how can the government not know which data set it has to check?
    - SiempreViernes 10mo ago
      The anonymity is that the government doesn't know who is asking for the verification, not that the the government doesn't know whose majority it should attest.
    - danpat 10mo ago
      It can be achieved with a zero-knowledge proof - there are many schemes, but in essence, they all allow you to prove something (e.g. your birthdate, validated by a government agency), without revealing who you are. You can prove to a third party "the government authenticated that I was born on 1970-01-01" without exposing who "I" is. Some worthwhile reading on the topic if you're interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof#Zero-Knowledge_Proof_protocols https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof#Zero-Know... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_signature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_signature It should even possible to construct a protocol where you can prove that you're over 18 without revealing your birthdate. Zero-Knowledge Range Proofs: https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/430 https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/430 "Zero-knowledge range proofs (ZKRPs) allow a prover to convince a verifier that a secret value lies in a given interval."
pryce 10mo ago
It is not that simple: Authoritarians that want to "protect" their gender-questioning or orientation-questioning children from having online access to trans and gay spaces online are not only enthusiastically backing Australia's social media ban, they are involved in the very creation of this legislation, and are delighted in its negative affects on LGBTQ teens. There is considerable overlap between those who subscribe to the "trans people are a contagion" moral panic of writer Abigail Schrier, and the "ban social media" advocates in AU who were instrumental in creating this legislation.
- nuggets 10mo ago
  There's not really any plausible explanation as to why referrals to pediatric gender clinics became so skewed towards girls who want to be boys, other than social contagion. The sticking point is that it's politically controversial to point this out because of progressive beliefs about gender identity as an unquestionable facet of someone's being.
  - yosame 10mo ago
    I'm pretty sure this take is incorrect on multiple accounts. Trans demographics tend to skew towards trans women by about a third, not trans men - at least in all the research I've come across. And regardless, increased acceptance and awareness of different gender identities can very plausibily explain increased numbers, not "social contagion". Calling it a contagion is pretty indicative of your underlying beliefs here.
    - nuggets 10mo ago
      Regarding the change in sex ratio for childhood referrals, this is well documented. See for example this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324768316_Sex_Ratio_in_Children_and_Adolescents_Referred_to_the_Gender_Identity_Development_Service_in_the_UK_2009-2016 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324768316_Sex_Ratio... "Social contagion" is social science terminology. It's meant as an analogy not a pejorative.
twelvechairs 10mo ago
If you read the rhetoric it is not about removing commercial exploitation of children. It is about removing child bullying, grooming and algorithms that lead to things like misogynist content and eating disorders. I generally agree with parent commenter - some of this will be helped by the ban but theres a serious risk a small number will go through fringe social media even less policed or normalised than the big American ones and have much higher risk on some of these issues than before.

fnikacevic 10mo ago

So are we banning all advertising to children? Or only banning them from communicating and posting with each other? If it's about monetizing child attention not about speech control why isn't every single toy ad, food ad, movie ad, also banned?

hshdhdhj4444 10mo ago
Because all those aren’t close to being as harmful as social media is. We do ban the things that consume children the way social media does. Alcohol, addictive drugs, etc.
- fnikacevic 10mo ago
  The data on social media harms is mixed at best. We know for a fact fast food, cosmetic ads for girls, are strictly more harmful. This is nothing more than speech control under the guise of "won't someone please think of the children"
  - tigroferoce 10mo ago
    > The data on social media harms is mixed at best. We know for a fact fast food, cosmetic ads for girls, are strictly more harmful. True, but let me remind you that we didn't have conclusive data on smoke harm until the 50s, but this doesn't mean that smoking was not harmful before, nor that we were lacking any clue before coming to a conclusive study. At the moment we don't have any conclusive study about e-cigarettes, but I'm sure you would never give kids e-cigarettes just because we don't have 30/40 years worth of data. > This is nothing more than speech control under the guise of "won't someone please think of the children" This is a bit more complex than this. Kids and adolescents online are targeted with all sort of techniques to leverage their attention in order to make money. I understand the speech control worry, and I agree up to a certain point, but I don't see how ignoring the problem makes it any better. What are the alternatives we have? I'm genuinely asking, not advocating for TINA. I have two kids and I see the effects of social media on them and on their friends. Keep in mind that this cannot be offloaded to families, for multiple reasons: - many family just don't have enough data or knowledge to make informed decisions - until the network effect is in place, banning your kid from social media while all of their friend are online can be impractical and cruel - parent decisions can affect kids health and overall society outcome; allowing a wrong decision by the parents (because the society doesn't want to handle the problem) would be unfair for the kids and no wise for the society. As in many aspects of life the best solution is neither white nor black, but a shade of grey, and is far from being perfect. Looking for a perfect solution is a waste of time, resources and unfair for those that are affected in the meanwhile. I understand the concerns, and probably Australia approach is not the best, but it's also the first. We probably will need a period of adjustments to reach a sound solution.
optionalsquid 10mo ago
> So are we banning all advertising to children? Or only banning them from communicating and posting with each other? Kids are not banned from communicating and posting with each other; the ban exempts a number of direct messing apps, as well as community apps like Discord: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/dec/10/social-media-ban-australia-explained-banned-apps-list-guide https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/dec/10/social-media-b... If I had to over-simplify it, then the ban appears to mostly target doom-scrolling apps. I say mostly, since I'm not sure why Twitch and Kick are included
- awillowingmind 10mo ago
  Twitch & Kick are likely included because they can breed parasocial relationships between streamer & viewer.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
stephen_g 10mo ago
Haha, no, here in Australia we can't even ban gambling/betting app ads on TV during sports when lots of kids are watching!

samename 10mo ago

What about future governments in Australia? This is ripe for abuse and scope creep. It also ties a uniform ID to an account, simplifying tracking and surveillance by corporations and governments. Plus, this is asking everyone in the country to give up their biometrics (face scanning is one implementation) or link your government issued ID to your social media account (look at the UK to see how this turned out - people are being arrested for simple tweets against the government). Sacrificing the freedom to be anonymous online to "protect the kids"

9dev 10mo ago
> It also ties a uniform ID to an account, simplifying tracking and surveillance by corporations and governments. That is by no means the only solution. A lot of work is happening in the area of cryptographically verified assertions; for example, a government API could provide the simple assertion "at least 16 years of age" without the social media platform ever seeing your ID, and the government never able to tie you to the service requiring the assertion.
- lukan 10mo ago
  Does that work already? If so, how? If the API asks for a users minimum age at a certain time, how can the government not know which data set it has to check?
  - SiempreViernes 10mo ago
    The anonymity is that the government doesn't know who is asking for the verification, not that the the government doesn't know whose majority it should attest.
  - danpat 10mo ago
    It can be achieved with a zero-knowledge proof - there are many schemes, but in essence, they all allow you to prove something (e.g. your birthdate, validated by a government agency), without revealing who you are. You can prove to a third party "the government authenticated that I was born on 1970-01-01" without exposing who "I" is. Some worthwhile reading on the topic if you're interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof#Zero-Knowledge_Proof_protocols https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof#Zero-Know... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_signature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_signature It should even possible to construct a protocol where you can prove that you're over 18 without revealing your birthdate. Zero-Knowledge Range Proofs: https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/430 https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/430 "Zero-knowledge range proofs (ZKRPs) allow a prover to convince a verifier that a secret value lies in a given interval."

pryce 10mo ago

It is not that simple: Authoritarians that want to "protect" their gender-questioning or orientation-questioning children from having online access to trans and gay spaces online are not only enthusiastically backing Australia's social media ban, they are involved in the very creation of this legislation, and are delighted in its negative affects on LGBTQ teens. There is considerable overlap between those who subscribe to the "trans people are a contagion" moral panic of writer Abigail Schrier, and the "ban social media" advocates in AU who were instrumental in creating this legislation.

nuggets 10mo ago
There's not really any plausible explanation as to why referrals to pediatric gender clinics became so skewed towards girls who want to be boys, other than social contagion. The sticking point is that it's politically controversial to point this out because of progressive beliefs about gender identity as an unquestionable facet of someone's being.
- yosame 10mo ago
  I'm pretty sure this take is incorrect on multiple accounts. Trans demographics tend to skew towards trans women by about a third, not trans men - at least in all the research I've come across. And regardless, increased acceptance and awareness of different gender identities can very plausibily explain increased numbers, not "social contagion". Calling it a contagion is pretty indicative of your underlying beliefs here.
  - nuggets 10mo ago
    Regarding the change in sex ratio for childhood referrals, this is well documented. See for example this paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324768316_Sex_Ratio_in_Children_and_Adolescents_Referred_to_the_Gender_Identity_Development_Service_in_the_UK_2009-2016 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324768316_Sex_Ratio... "Social contagion" is social science terminology. It's meant as an analogy not a pejorative.

twelvechairs 10mo ago

If you read the rhetoric it is not about removing commercial exploitation of children. It is about removing child bullying, grooming and algorithms that lead to things like misogynist content and eating disorders. I generally agree with parent commenter - some of this will be helped by the ban but theres a serious risk a small number will go through fringe social media even less policed or normalised than the big American ones and have much higher risk on some of these issues than before.