"This bill seeks to set a new normative value in society that accessing social media is not the defining feature of growing up in Australia. There is wide acknowledgement that something must be done in the immediate term to help prevent young teens and children from being exposed to streams of content unfiltered and infinite.
(Michelle Rowland, Minister for Communications, Australian Parliament, Nov 21)
Australia's House of Representatives has passed a bill that would ban access to social media platforms TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram for youngsters under 16. The bill passed by 102 against 13.
Once the bill gets through the Senate -- expected this week -- the platforms would have a year to work out how to implement the age restriction, without using government-issued identity documents (passport, driving licenses), and without digital identification through a government system.
The leaders of all eight Australian states and mainland territories have unanimously backed the plan, although Tasmania, the smallest state, would have preferred the threshold was set at 14.
There are some counter-noises though (no, not you, Elon). More than 140 academics signed an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemning the 16-year age limit as "too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively."
The writers of that open letter fear that the responsibility of giving access to social media will fall on the parents, and "not all parents will be able to manage the responsibility of protection in the digital world".
Further, " Some social media 'type' services appear too integral to childhood to be banned, for example short form video streamers. But these too have safety risks like risks of dangerous algorithms promoting risky content. A ban does not function to improve the products children will be allowed to use."
The open letter pleads instead for systemic regulation, which "has the capacity to drive up safety and privacy standards on platforms for all children and eschews the issues described above. Digital platforms are just like other products, and can have safety standards imposed."
Australia's ban on social media will be a world-first, with fines of up to 50 million Australian Dollars for each failure to prevent them youngsters of having a social media account.
Under the laws, which won't come into force for another 12 months, social media companies could be fined up to $50 million for failing to take "reasonable steps" to keep under 16s off their platforms. There are no penalties for young people or parents who flout the rules. Social media companies also won't be able to force users to provide government identification, including the Digital ID, to assess their age.
From ban children under the age of 16 from accessing social media we also get the following:
Under the laws, which won't come into force for another 12 months, social media companies could be fined up to $50 million for failing to take "reasonable steps" to keep under 16s off their platforms. There are no penalties for young people or parents who flout the rules. Social media companies also won't be able to force users to provide government identification, including the Digital ID, to assess their age.
Social Media, or an "age-restricted social media platform" has been defined in the legislation as including services where:
- the "sole purpose, or a significant purpose" is to enable "online social interaction" between people
- people can "link to, or interact with" others on the service
- people can "post material", or
- it falls under other conditions as set out in the legislation.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday November 29, @11:12PM (1 child)
I'm not sure that I agree that the site is not for minors. We never ask for a person's age.
If a teen joins in a technical conversation, perhaps searching for help setting up a server or something, I don't see why we have to immediately ban him. I know 12-14 year olds who have set up their own simple web pages and I do not see any harm in that. I also know that if their parents have told them not to do something then they probably wouldn't but, you know, kids will be kids. Much older as I am now I can still remember building HF radios at the same age. I got help from adults then too, it just wasn't on a computer.
We did have a mid-teen probably 6 or 7 years ago as a member - I think he was 15 at the time but it is not a clear recollection. I will have to scroll the usernames to see if I can remember him.
I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Saturday November 30, @12:28AM
I agree with your disagreement. But if you want to be in compliance with Australian Law, then this can be added. Or maybe conditionally on detection connection from Australian IPs. Of course, then you need to have a GDPR notice because in EU they ruled that IP Address is "identifying, private information", even hashed.
https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/61076/storing-ips-and-gdpr-compliance [stackexchange.com]
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
US had this policy about gays in military -- don't ask, don't tell. This is probably a good policy for "underage Australians" on public forums!
I agree with your sentiment though. I've had some interesting discussions on FidoNet and NNTP servers back in the day -- math and astronomy groups were interesting, though they've had some strange people there too. I think I was in that pre-16 age group at the time.