Australian Cabinet Proposes Social Media Ban For Under-16s
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
The Australia government has proposed 16 as the minimum age for minors to use social media and lays the onus on platforms to demonstrate reasonable actions to prevent any younger users. However, the government did not explain how it expects platforms to enforce the age limits.
In a statement to the press today (7 November), Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese said that the government’s proposed minimum age legislation will be introduced when the country’s parliament returns in two weeks, and if passed, will come into force a year later.
[...] The proposed new legislation enforces a blanket ban on everyone under 16 from using social media, including those already on it and those with parental consent.
“The fact is that social media has a social responsibility, but the platforms are falling short,” said the Australian minister for communications, Michelle Rowland.
“What we are announcing here and what we will legislate will be truly world leading,”
Rowland said that the platforms that do not comply will face penalties under the proposed Act – which under current legislation are less than A$1m.
Australia To Ban Social Media Until Age Of 16
Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
The Australian government has confirmed it will create legislation that bans access to social media for people under the age of 16.
"The Bill builds upon the Australian Government's work to address online harms for young people, including the $6.5 million age assurance trial, establishing an online dating apps code, legislating new criminal penalties for non-consensual sexual deepfakes, and quadrupling base funding for the eSafety Commissioner," explained a notice from the prime minister's office on November 8.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's government has worked toward the plan for months, but only late last week did it finally receive backing from the National Cabinet.
[...] Services that primarily provide education and health services will not be included in the ban. The nation's eSafety Commissioner will handle oversight and enforcement. Under the current legislation, maximum fines are less than a million dollars.
The new bill "puts the onus" on social media platforms instead of parents to make sure fundamental protections are in place, the notice stated.
[...] The Prime Minister specified there will be no penalties for users. There are also no exemptions from the policy with parental consent or "grandfathering in" for those who already have accounts.
As to how exactly age verification would be executed, Rowland said that was part of the purpose of the nation's $6.5 million age assurance trial.
Launched earlier this year, the trial tests ways of automatically detecting age. The trial includes evaluating methods like biometric facial analysis, voice analysis, and behavioral data to estimate user age without relying solely on traditional identification.
The 12-month lead time is designed to make sure implementation is done in a "practical way," said Rowland.
"But let's be clear too, these platforms know their users better than anyone," added Rowland. "These platforms understand their habits, their capabilities, what sort of content should be driven to them, and what their behaviors are."
[...] Social media's harm to children has been extensively documented. For example, US Surgeon General Dr Vivek Murthy cited adolescents who spend more than three hours per day on social media as having double the risk of developing depression and anxiety. Murthy has advocated for health warning labels on social networks.
The US has been working on its own age verification software, but the results of its efforts remain unreliable.
The UK's communications regulator, Ofcom, has also outlined guidance on how online services might verify age. Some MPs have actually pushed for a total ban on smartphones until the age of 16.
However, Australia's new bill will be the most concrete age-related legislation by a government on social media yet.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14, @08:02PM (1 child)
Good thing they don't have a first amendment to provide the crutch for Libertarians on here.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 15, @12:42AM
and to the surprise of no one, people are all for it in someplace other than the United Snakes
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kolie on Thursday November 14, @08:04PM
Probably for the best.
(Score: 4, Touché) by looorg on Thursday November 14, @08:34PM
... of .au over night as millions of people magically became 17 years old in the new user form.
Will it be locked away or deleted? Article prediction about youths having their entire, digital-, life rubbed out and the mental anguish it has brought them.
Will lying in a social media registration form be a felony now?
If one fifth of the population cries out into the void but nobody is around to share or like it does it matter?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Revek on Thursday November 14, @08:52PM (24 children)
If you have any current experience with kids on a daily basis in the US. You will see that they have no attention span and place way too much faith in garbage like talking toilets. Almost none of them can sit and read a short story much less a novel. The screens are everywhere in schools now and they are the problem with education. No child left behind has become every child left unprepared for life.
This page was generated by a Swarm of Roaming Elephants
(Score: 5, Interesting) by corey on Thursday November 14, @09:50PM (17 children)
You quickly went to +5 in the past 15 minutes!
As an Aussie, I'm glad the government is doing this, even if it's going to be a shitstorm to implement. It might only get a portion of the 16yr population, the others will find ways around it. But anything is better than nothing. Given how technically inept most of the population are (reference here to our wish people would install ad blockers, use Firefox, use Linux, etc etc, but hardly anyone does), I suspect the age limit should work fairly broadly. Maybe it'll teach youngsters about cookies, how to delete them, how to install ad blockers and cookie-autodelete, browser fingerprint, etc?
My kids (both under 9) go to a bush school where mobiles are banned, and there's no 4G reception there anyway. And there's no way my kids are getting a phone or social media access for a long time. I'm just glad I happen to have kids at a time when the govt is doing this, rather than 10 years ago when a lot of parents didn't understand the social media risks and let their kids just use it (but I closed my FB account around 10 years ago anyway as I hated it then and still do). I've been talking to a lot of other parents who also are anxious about their kids getting to an age when they wanna start using social media, and how we're going to collectively work through it.
(Score: 5, Touché) by EJ on Thursday November 14, @10:13PM (5 children)
Social media sites are worthless for people except for gaining attention and clout. They will out themselves by posting pictures and talking about their lives. It will be trivial to tell who is 16 and under.
Just look at the types of things people post on social media. Most of them are not very smart.
"Look at this video of me actively breaking the law! LoOk aT hOw SmArT I iS!"
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 15, @02:38PM (4 children)
>Just look at the types of things people post on social media. Most of them are not very smart.
Look at the type of campaigning that wins recent elections...
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by EJ on Friday November 15, @03:46PM (3 children)
I only care about results, so I reserve my judgment until I see what actually happens rather than what people imagine might happen.
People are tired of being lied to over and over again by both sides. I don't think anyone who voted for Trump did anything illogical.
If what is going on today isn't working, then the scientific method suggests trying something different. Harris was given an easy chance on The View to say what she would do differently, and she couldn't think of a single thing.
Maybe the next four years will suck. Maybe they won't. Either way, I will never have to hear people freaking out about Trump again after his term ends. The boogeyman will be gone.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 15, @04:24PM (2 children)
>I reserve my judgment until I see what actually happens rather than what people imagine might happen.
I grant myself some prejudice, based on the fact that we've had this party before...
Last go around, I did actually like some of the things that the "down with the establishment" agenda brought, my favorite was: "For every new law passed, two old ones need to be taken off the books." It's brilliantly unhinged and impractical and ultimately beneficial to the extent that they did implement it. Defunding and otherwise hobbling the operation of our science based institutions, as corrupt as they may be, was my least favorite part of the party - not because I graze at the "government funded science" trough (which I don't...) but because those institutions, more than any other, have achieved more measurable progress in making not only America, but the entire world Great during my lifetime. The fact that they are an inconvenience for people who could be collecting more money faster is a feature, not a bug.
>tired of being lied to over and over again by both sides.
I am, but I at least want the lies to be somewhat self-consistent, and embarrassing enough to elicit reform when they are exposed.
>I don't think anyone who voted for Trump did anything illogical.
I disagree, along these lines: Here's one spin - they don't call it a waffle anymore, they call it logical contradictions - I would say it's a political malleability to better fit evolving roles and times: https://www.newsweek.com/voters-will-see-through-kamalas-contradictory-record-crime-opinion-1934714 [newsweek.com] And, why do I think that Trump voters are illogical? Because some were voting against Harris because she was too tough on crime, while others were voting against her because she was too soft on crime: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/nov/09/us-voters-kamala-harris-donald-trump-republican [theguardian.com] The 2024 MAGA campaign was all over the map with its messaging, and apparently able to woo voters with inconsistent messaging - with each camp only hearing what they wanted to hear.
>If what is going on today isn't working
That's the main disagreement point... what's going on today is working pretty damn well, and the Guardian story linked above gets into that as well: most people surveyed felt that they themselves were doing fine, but the economy in general is going to shit. Me, personally, I don't think this: https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/30/economy/us-economy-gdp-q3/index.html [cnn.com] is "fake news." I think it's a remarkable achievement after the biggest cash handout in the history of the world which took place during the run up to the 2020 election.
By the way, since I (and nobody I knew well and liked) died from COVID, I'll say that it was the single most beneficial event of my entire life - work from home is now a reality for me, and the benefits are tremendous. Thank you MAGA for defunding the CDC and letting COVID spread globally where so many previous potential pandemics were contained, it really worked out for the best in the end. This is #2 behind Ronnie Ray-gun's administration playing nuclear chicken with the USSR and ultimately collapsing the Iron Curtain - that was party worthy in the extreme, even if they were risking millions of lives to achieve it. Personally, I think a more moderate approach keeping the USSR teetering on the edge of collapse for another 40 years would have been better for the West than where we are today, but these things are impossible to fully predict how they work out. At least many of the East Bloc people benefitted for the past 35 years from the collapse.
Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. Is radical chaos the answer? For the people with a lot of power, sure - chaos is opportunity. For the majority? No. Historically, that opportunity for the people on top comes through a lot of pain for the masses. I see no reason for any "revolutionary changes" today to be any different.
>Harris was given an easy chance on The View to say
Meanwhile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf3km6WDCyw [youtube.com]
>Maybe the next four years will suck. Maybe they won't.
Agreed, though my concern isn't for the four years themselves as much as it is for the impact of those four years into the next 40.
>Either way, I will never have to hear people freaking out about Trump again after his term ends. The boogeyman will be gone.
Old as he is, you would think he'd expire or retire before 2028 comes around, but... https://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-tells-house-republicans-202438608.html [yahoo.com] https://people.com/donald-trump-suggests-three-term-presidency-8651252 [people.com]
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Saturday November 16, @02:30AM (1 child)
Is that what's going on in Ukraine? Is Russia running out of its own troops?
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday November 16, @12:52PM
>>Personally, I think a more moderate approach keeping the USSR teetering on the edge of collapse for another 40 years would have been better for the West
>Is that what's going on in Ukraine? Is Russia running out of its own troops?
It's what it looks like to me with the North Korean troops coming in, are Chinese next? That would be an interesting test, but the US just elected much more Russia friendly leadership, so I do suspect a quick end to the conflict is coming.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Reziac on Friday November 15, @02:12AM (10 children)
I agree with you. It's done our younger folks no end of harm.
However, there's also the problem that this is one more point where the state is being given "parenting rights" and I foresee that this will become prosecution of parents who, wittingly or no, allow their kids access.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday November 15, @02:29PM (3 children)
Different countries have different laws and I'm not about to weigh in on the Australian parenting thing. While I may not necessarily agree that government should be the one dealing with it. I'm certainly supportive of measures to ban access for minors.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Reziac on Friday November 15, @03:29PM (2 children)
Yep... I agree something needs to be done,but is it the job of the government, or the parents? Parents clearly are not doing that job, yet did that happen because they'd abdicated it willingly or because the government crept in and took control? It's a conundrum, but I think it's worth trying something, and sooner rather than later.
And so few kids now being free-range and thereby learned to be capable of entertaining themselves, how are they going to be affected when this (crappy, but avaiilable) outlet disappears?
It's all one problem, but the spiral into universally-addicted needs to stop, so... I conclude this is probably better than doing nothing. It's not really that different from "thou shalt not sell booze to minors."
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Freeman on Monday November 18, @02:51PM (1 child)
Funnily enough, not all that long ago it was, thou shalt give thy child a night cap (bit of whiskey or the like), before tucking them into bed. Not that it has much to do with this conversation as the negative effects of Alcohol are well documented at this point.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday November 18, @04:28PM
Yep, a lot of what used to be more or less universal, we now know was harmful. Looks like we've found another.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 15, @02:40PM (5 children)
> It's done our younger folks no end of harm.
I'm in my late 50s, and it's done me harm. Holding my cell phone for hours (as something to keep the brain cells firing) has given me RSI in the left elbow, shooting pains and eye strain headaches.
My brain may not be plastic enough to completely turn to mush on the small screen, but it's killing my body too.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday November 15, @03:19PM (4 children)
Ouch. Have you considered having it surgically implanted? I hear that's less painful... or you could just join us curmudgeons and rebel against the tyranny of the small screen.
I'm coming 70 and ... I got irritated at endless scrolling early on, and having come out of the BBS and Usenet era, I knew same-old-on-steroids when I saw it. And I loathe the cellphone interface. All combined to repel me from any chance of addiction. I don't even carry the phone with me, unless it's the flip that is useless as anything but a phone, and rarely carry that.
Seriously, the physical pain may be a small price if as you say it keeps the brain online... we may disagree on everything but I'd miss you if you were gone. So stay healthy.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 15, @03:54PM (3 children)
> rebel against the tyranny of the small screen.
That leaves me with nothing to do in the evenings but contemplate my existence, which used to be a more pleasant passtime than it is lately.
> having it surgically implanted?
I do try to rest the weight on something rather than holding it suspended in air, that seems to help the elbow, but is a bit harder on the eyestrain.
> I loathe the cellphone interface.
As do I, except... my "proper" terminals aren't in the living room. I refuse to bake my lap with a laptop for any length of time (though my wife uses hers in the living room most of the time...) and, so, the cellphone is always "handy" - and I also find that being proficient in the small screen interface is a significant advantage when traveling and the cellphone is the only possible interface.
> I don't even carry the phone with me
I used to be there, these days I just have it set on "Do Not Disturb" 24-7, if you're not in my contacts list, I don't hear your calls, I don't hear your text messages, I don't hear anybody's e-mails ever. I'll see them the next time _I_ want to check in.
> it keeps the brain online...
Yeah, that's how I justify it to myself... I figure it's at least as good as Granny's crosswords.
> we may disagree on everything but I'd miss you if you were gone. So stay healthy.
Same.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday November 15, @04:57PM (2 children)
My computers have taken over the living room, but I don't have a wife to complain about the clutter. :O
I'm wondering if docking the thing when you're settled into the comfy chair would help? give you a normal screen instead of that micro-eyestrainer, and a keyboard of a size more useful to real humans. There exist portable screens for the purpose now, maybe that's an option.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 15, @09:04PM (1 child)
We've got "stuff" everywhere, computer hooked to big (enough) screen in two main rooms and two bedrooms, a couple of tablets, more notebooks than I can count easily... stuff isn't the problem. Keeping the computer stuff from getting in the way of other life is the bigger challenge.
If I were really trying to work my day job downstairs, I'd get some kind of lap-desk, maybe floor standing so it doesn't rest on my actual lap, and use a notebook on that, possibly screen casting a 2nd monitor to a big screen, but... this isn't about that, this is about doom scrolling news articles or playing Hearts as something easy to do when not working.
That is kind of the weird thing about work from home, it's always there waiting for you - when a 20 minute compile cycle comes up it's brilliant to be able to go spend 15 minutes with the family, but on the flip side, it's also creeping into evenings and weekends at times. Hands down though: lunch is really great when you can just go downstairs and get home cooked food instead of driving to go sit and wait to be served a bunch of salt and sugar.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday November 15, @09:27PM
Ya know, that's a good insight on the nominal topic. It's pervasive enough that kids can't get away from it, even when they should.
Be interesting to see how this goes, if it does.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bussdriver on Thursday November 14, @10:10PM (3 children)
They next need to ban smart devices for kids under 8. How about taking advice from developmental psychologists instead of turning children into lab rats? They should have to fund years of studies before life and culture altering tech gets promoted to children.
Children do not have 100% freedom, nor should they. Also, children are NOT private property; they belong to all of us and it's out wisdom and duty to our future adults.
No child left behind was a covert plot to destroy public education in the USA. a popular institution that empowers the "wrong kind of people" needs to be undermined from within and from the outside so it can be destroyed and replaced with a "free-market" meritocracy that benefits the values of the powerful who control it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14, @10:40PM (2 children)
The destruction of the "meritocracy" -- where the high-achievers succeed -- is entirely what "no asshole left behind" was supposed to be about. So you want the same thing? destroy the _merit_-based system? Treat everyone the same? Ensure that no one gets ahead?
How is this different?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bussdriver on Friday November 15, @12:33AM (1 child)
They always CLAIM they are for a meritocracy; if you pay attention or experience aspects of such things, you realize that it is never working if not just cover for something else (often racism which is a historic cover.) Furthermore, every Karen thinks their brat is a special genius who is being held back and some frankly admit they are supposed to fight and demand their kid be treated special regardless of merit. Public schools DO bend to some parents to give unfair benefits and I've seen it. Private schools are even worse with no accountability or limits; make it all a business and it'll get even worse. Imagine a Walmart school where nobody with a decent income would send their child that focuses on future Walmart employees...
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 15, @01:55PM
>some frankly admit they are supposed to fight and demand their kid be treated special regardless of merit. Public schools DO bend to some parents to give unfair benefits and I've seen it.
Absolutely. The squeaky wheel gets... something to shut it up.
On the flip side of that, there are laws about what students are supposed to get in school, federal laws on the books for 40+ years, laws that are tied to federal matching funds for state schools. Laws that are flaunted, outright ignored in so many cases. When those laws are shown to be broken, it can impact those federal matching funds - Billions annually in Florida alone.
So, yeah, if you as a parent find things like that and make enough noise, you do get a little grease.
I have also seen parents who know something isn't right, try to work with the schools to get it corrected, and just get turned away for the exact thing that a more savvy, convincing parent just got for their kid from the same schoolboard gatekeeper in the meeting one hour before.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by PiMuNu on Friday November 15, @12:28PM
Bah! Kids nowadays.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 15, @01:51PM
If by "kids in the US" you mean everyone born after 1990, yeah I have noticed "no attention span and way too much faith in... everything digitally connected to the internet."
The screens are everywhere in schools now and they are not the problem with education at all. The problem is, and always has been, engagement. Screens can help with engagement, tremendously, but screens can also be used as a crutch which lowers engagement. Take away the screens and you get my 9th grade English class with the pregnant teacher who just let us sit and talk among ourselves the entire period. Out of 180 hours of "instruction time" that year we might have gotten 18, and 10 of those were from substitute teachers.
Screens didn't start in 2010 with $200 ("free" with 2 year contract) smartphones, screens were already a thing when my parents started teaching in 1970 - film projectors. Sometimes they showed educational films, sometimes they showed cartoons, both can help drive engagement when used properly, but how often do you think that underpaid, underappreciated, underrespected teachers care about engagement? Not enough.
No child left behind has driven the classroom to accommodate the lowest common denominator, and it has driven the segmentation of our schools. Around here it used to be 85% public, 15% private for parents who cared to pay double tuition - once in their property taxes and again direct to the private schools. Now we have the rise of the "charter school" segment, hailed as "school choice" - which really means: "the school gets to choose who can attend, and who can't." Amid booming population, our county is closing 18 public elementary schools, many kids are homeschooled now, many of them receiving a LOT of tax dollars in exchange for doing so - my 2 kids received over $25K per year in "scholarship" from the state if we would just keep them home out of the public schools (special needs, they'd be costing the school district over $60K if they were in the public schools, even ordinary students can get about $5K per head for staying out.) Charter schools get even more funding per student, and the "no child left behind" public schools are sitting full of the children that have been left behind, denied entry to the "good" schools.
Screens in the classroom are nothing like the root cause of the problems - for the root causes, look up the administration chain to the policymakers who do things like promise big raises for teachers when it's election time, then pull a Lucy vs Charlie Brown football yank every single time just before the money gets into actual teacher paychecks. Not only teacher pay, but policies around teacher working conditions, paperwork reporting requirements, etc. etc. There are still passionate teachers who care about their students futures, despite all the abuse, but their numbers have been dwindling for the last 50 years.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14, @08:52PM (4 children)
... can soylentnews survive then?
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14, @09:49PM (2 children)
Easy... nobody here under 50. Act grumpy enough and complain about your prostate and medicare deductibles, and their "AI" will think you're 70
(Score: 4, Funny) by looorg on Thursday November 14, @10:31PM (1 child)
Hey! I'm not over 50 (yet). I'm just grumpy by nature.
(Score: 2) by Barenflimski on Thursday November 14, @10:55PM
Not over 50? Kids....
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday November 15, @07:43PM
I'm sure our OnlyFans revenue will make up for lost online advertisements to Australian children.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Thursday November 14, @09:53PM (7 children)
Aussie here. I can't think of a single person or group over the age of 16 here who opposes this plan except for the social media companies themselves, and even they are being quite tame in their criticisms.
Obviously the under-16s are up in arms about it, but when I've spoken to some kids I know (14-15 yo) they all privately acknowledge that screen addiction is a real problem that they don't know how to control.
The problem with the legislation as it currently stands is the vagueness of it all. The government wants to put the full responsibility of this on social media companies, but has no plans to punish kids or parents who break the law (obviously to avoid any opposition to the plan). I don't think they have managed to define "Social Media" in the bill either yet. Would SoylentNews count? Probably not, but it's not clear.
Cue the alarm about needing to provide identity to gain a social media account.
(Score: 2, Funny) by looorg on Thursday November 14, @10:34PM (1 child)
Easy fix. Ministry of Social Media accounts, they can share an office with the Ministry of Silly Walks. The University of Woolamaloo will set up an education program as part of the philosophy department.
(Score: 2) by kazzie on Friday November 15, @04:19AM
A Ministry of Social Media: MSM? I can't see them being any better accepted than the mainstream media...
(Score: 4, Interesting) by boltronics on Friday November 15, @02:28AM (3 children)
As a fellow Aussie, I'm just curious about what they'll do with federated sites like Mastodon, where any kid can self-host on a Raspberry Pi if they really need to. All ISPs I've ever used in Australia give you an IPv4 address with no ports blocked and nothing preventing you from serving your own traffic (assuming NBN, Gigacomm, etc and not a wireless plan). Most will even give you a static IP and even a PTR record for just a few extra dollars per year (which is how I host my mail, websites, etc.).
Since there is no Mastodon company but just a non-profit in Germany (with no control over user signups), is the Australian government going to outlaw it? Or just pretend that it doesn't exist and hope that nobody asks about it?
While I think that not having social media for people under 16 is probably a good thing, I don't trust the government enough to blindly support it without seeing specific details of how it will work.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 3, Touché) by deimtee on Friday November 15, @07:34AM (1 child)
Also an Aussie, and I would say any kid capable of self-hosting a Mastodon instance on a Raspberry Pi should be allowed to. It's a pretty small percentage.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 3, Touché) by boltronics on Friday November 15, @08:06AM
I think it's a short sighted viewpoint though, because it's making these big assumptions:
* That it is very difficult, and will always be difficult, to host an instance of any current or future federated social network.
* That each smart kid won't just create accounts on his or her instance for all of the other kids that want an account.
However, the above will probably be rendered moot by these scenarios:
* That self-hosting will even be necessary.
* That the government won't outright declare such networks illegal if they cannot be regulated.
In my view, if the government really wanted to prevent harm to children, they would start by banning gambling ads anywhere children could see them (if not outright) — a move which is widely supported. Instead, this is mostly a political stunt in preparation for the election early next year.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 15, @02:47PM
> federated sites like Mastodon, where any kid can self-host on a Raspberry Pi
There's such a thing as critical mass... Soylent News has barely reached it to continue to be someplace interesting to visit and participate in.
Time and time again, I have seen independently hosted alternatives to Facebook groups, technically far superior sites where finding valuable archived content is 10x easier, responsiveness is better, interface is better, but... after 3 or 4 people give it a go and post a few dozen things each, it fizzles and dies, while the Facebook group carries on due to the "drive by traffic" phenomenon that made air conditioned shopping malls the place for businesses to be in the late 1980s / early 1990s.
What I'm saying is: most Mastodon sites are going to be pretty poorly subscribed, not worth much attention, and frankly: not the kind of addictive problem that this law is targeting.
Of course, it's also very convenient when "everybody is breaking the law" and if one of these smarty-pants self hosted sites gets cross-grained with some powers that be, they can be obliterated with a single court order / threat of litigation with fines attached 10x the operators' net worth.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 15, @02:02PM
>screen addiction is a real problem that they don't know how to control.
Agreed, and not just for under 16s, although I bet an actual valid study of the phenomenon would find "brain pathway modification" in young adults from the swipe and stare dopamine releases very similar to the puff and hold nicotine delivery systems from tobacco and vaping.
>The problem with the legislation as it currently stands is the vagueness of it all.
And that's lazy legislators using the threat of court entanglement to attempt to bully big business into figuring it out for them. To be fair, the social media companies are in a much better position to develop and implement real working solutions, it's just that they are totally negatively incentivized to do so. I'm going to guess that this legislation is too weak to actually make them effect real change, it's more of a "well, we did what we could - remember to vote for the incumbents next go around."
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 15, @05:00AM (2 children)
Middle age people can't handle it any better than the kids. In fact it makes them dumber than the kids. We can let them on after they retire. Same goes for weed. Let's reclaim our brains back!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 15, @02:04PM (1 child)
>Let's reclaim our brains back!
Spoiler alert: there never was much worth having there in the first place.
🌻🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday November 15, @06:05PM
The older I get, and the more I see of what our species is doing, the more I believe exactly that.
Welcome to Edgeways. Words should apply in advance as spaces are highly limite—
(Score: 4, Insightful) by acid andy on Friday November 15, @06:02PM (4 children)
I don't think kids should be on the big social media networks the way they are today, but this type of legislation goes against my general political beliefs. The trend is towards imposing ever more restrictions on the behavior of individuals, whilst deregulating the big and the powerful corporations. This is exactly the inverse how I believe it should be. It is also unsurprising coming from Australia, which always seems to be leading the charge towards removing civil liberties.
To apply my beliefs to this particular issue, parents should be responsible for how their kids are raised. The government should be responsible for stopping social media corporations getting too big and powerful and ideally there needs to be independent oversight to disincentivize the spread of disnformation but we all know such efforts can be misused. Ultimately an end to big data and going back to non targeted ads would probably help a lot but I doubt it will happen anytime soon because there's far too much of the world's wealth invested there.
Welcome to Edgeways. Words should apply in advance as spaces are highly limite—
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Monday November 18, @04:34PM
That's what I'm getting at up above. I think it's misplaced responsibility, but a generation of parents have been taught to abdicate that to the state, or to Big Corp, so now what? is this a way to make everyone pull back, or the next step into the abyss? Or will it simply self-correct when one cohort fails to stay in the gene pool?
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by evilcam on Tuesday November 19, @05:53AM (2 children)
As an Aussie, I take issue with this garbage:
Put up or shut up. Us Aussies have plenty of freedoms down here; I encourage you to come and enjoy them some time instead of spouting mindless nonsense.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday November 19, @09:54PM (1 child)
Yeah you have freedoms and if you're happy with them and with the ways your government changes them over time, then fair enough. What you are calling mindless nonsense is due to a pattern I have noticed (mainly from reading the news) of things being illegal and/or becoming illegal in Australia that aren't in other western countries and other dystopian changes like expanding surveillance. It's not that it isn't happening in other western countries; rather I have an impression that Australia often does it before they do.
Before you ask I am not going to start digging out examples, so you will probably still think I am full of crap. That's OK. If it makes you feel any better, I think individual freedom could be improved in most countries of the world.
Welcome to Edgeways. Words should apply in advance as spaces are highly limite—
(Score: 3, Funny) by acid andy on Tuesday November 19, @10:02PM
And uh, yeah, I know Australia isn't a western country. I probably could have used a comma between "other" and "western". :)
Welcome to Edgeways. Words should apply in advance as spaces are highly limite—
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ShovelOperator1 on Friday November 15, @07:46PM
And they tell that register of data used to authenticate users (that they are older than 16) will not be abused? Even by the government?
I remember genealogy sites stating that they will not share their DNA collections with cops.
I remember promises that data from registered pre-paid SIM cards will be confidential and used only when prosecutor's documents require so.
I remember the laws stating that ISP's DPI will not be used for dubious practices if someone copies someone else's movie, but for serious investigations.
So sorry, this is not the way to go. This is the way to steal more data because think-about-children argument.
What is the way to go? I don't know. But as Users intentionally invited corporations to the Internet, intentionally lifted the netiquette for them, it means that these corporate fortresses can be intentionally uprooted. The key thing is the education. And, while it may now sound outright anti-patriotic, education involving the economy of stealing attention, the profiling and its consequences, including these in their own country. It was a creativity (which now sounds racist for some reason) and encouraging experimenting what powered the pre-corporate Internet.
And, it's not needed to register a North Korean style "internet driving license" cards if the technology itself can verify it. Everyone who had the Net before "Social Media" saw this.
(Score: 2, Troll) by VLM on Friday November 15, @08:04PM (1 child)
Seems like fake news. The official legislation doesn't seem to be available anywhere and this seems like a vaporware proposal.
What I've seen so far is claims that endusers will not be punished and the max tax or penalty or whatever will be $1M.
My guess is this is the usual entrenched large corporations pulling the ladder up behind them. SN would have to ban participation from Australia as $1M seems a bit out of the risk budget. On the other hand it's pocket change to Facebook or the other big social media companies so they'll act surprised anyone would ever break the law.
Also, as its "illegal" for kids to be on the platform then there's no need for any other regulation or limitation, correct?
So it seems to be the "look like we're doing something while actually doing nothing for the people" proposal, while providing benefits to the big companies that probably authored the entire thing to eliminate up and coming competition.
My limited observational experience with trying to 'help' self-destructive addictive personalities is they'll just ruin themselves some other way. Do they have meth in Australia? How about corn syrup? I bet they have beer. People without an addictive personality don't need help and people with an addictive personality can't be helped, so playing whack-a-mole with precisely one addiction is pretty much a feel-good waste of time ...
(Score: 2) by evilcam on Tuesday November 19, @05:55AM
From the APH Presser:
The bill hasn't been tabled in the Parliament yet, much less debated, or signed into legislation.