Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Friday November 29, @02:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the good-luck-with-that dept.

"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:

  1. the "sole purpose, or a significant purpose" is to enable "online social interaction" between people
  2. people can "link to, or interact with" others on the service
  3. people can "post material", or
  4. it falls under other conditions as set out in the legislation.

Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only. Log in and try again!
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DrkShadow on Saturday November 30, @06:11AM (1 child)

    by DrkShadow (1404) on Saturday November 30, @06:11AM (#1383823)

    Lets put it this way.

    Can you give any example of a non-american company with a large social-media aspect?

    Can you show any forum with more than a hundred-thousand users that is not owned and hosted by a company subject to section 230 protections?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Lester on Saturday November 30, @02:35PM

    by Lester (6231) on Saturday November 30, @02:35PM (#1383828) Journal

    What he is telling is that in spite of being American, it must abide the laws in the country that it operates, otherwise it will face fines. And most of them decide to abide the local laws. For instance Google in China. Business is business.

    Yes, I can mention several companies. For example Chiness weechat surpasses Facebook and WhatsApp, Tick Tock. Out the western bobble, there are many things that we usually don't hear about. Russia, China, Japan, Korea and India have their own social networks, and Facebook tweeter etc are residual there.
    Another reason why you don't hear of them is that USA sees those foreign social networks as a menace. USA thinks foreign governments could use the networkrs as USA does, as a tool to gather information of citizens around de world. (see tick tock judicial journey)