this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
282 points (97.6% liked)

Technology

60330 readers
4253 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Landmark legislation sees the Australian government committed to the novel step of child protection by banning social media for under sixteens.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 56 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (4 children)

It's still not entirely clear how the Australian government thinks they're actually going to enforce this.

Plenty of web services already require you to state your age to use them and I believe a large majority of users just coincidentally happen to be born on January 1st, 1900 as a result.

If they're expecting these tech companies to be gathering and storing peoples' government ID's, or something, somebody needs to carefully explain to them using small words why this is a monumentally stupid idea. Does something need to be done about social media addiction and the rampant sketchy behavior of the tech giants? Yes, probably. Is a blanket ban ever the actual solution to anything? No, very rarely.

It's just apparently all anyone can come up with when they've got government-brain.

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 6 points 1 hour ago

The commissioner is supposed to come up with guidelines for what is a reasonable check, so we find out when they come up with it I guess 🀷

[–] Affidavit@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

Magic. That is the only way they can enforce this drivel.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

it’s still not entirely clear how the Australian government thinks they’re actually going to enforce this.

"Awww shucks everyone, looks like we don't get to have internet privacy after all. Don't worry, it's FOR THE CHILDREN."

[–] OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml 1 points 12 minutes ago

Another way to think about this: Why should you have to give random companies your ID because Australian teens need to prove their age?

[–] huginn@feddit.it 14 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

They've set it up so it's a legal mess. The platforms aren't given any mechanism to actually perform verifications (no double blind id system, for example) but are legally on the hook for each and every under-16 on the platforms. A quote in the article suggests it should be the app stores verifying which is even more fucking stupid.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Well, I know how that would go if I were a globe-spanning social media giant. Given that the entirety of the Australian market is roughly the size of New York state (~26 vs ~20 million people), I would say, "Nah mate, we just won't do business in Oz anymore. Bye."

Vanishingly few business make a "New York only" version of their product because it's simply not worth it. Australia already suffers under this problem for a great deal of physical products. Ask any computer nerd about that, when trying to source parts and often video game titles as well. Shipping things to the Antipodes and/or dealing with Antipodean regulations is expensive, for an objectively low number of potential sales.

It would not surprise me to learn if it follows that Australia generates roughly 1.7% of the revenue for Facebook or whoever as, say, India. So in other words, bupkis.

[–] ABCDE@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago (3 children)

A quote in the article suggests it should be the app stores verifying which is even more fucking stupid.

Why?

[–] EngineerGaming@feddit.nl 2 points 1 hour ago

Because how would you do that on desktop? Or on a degoogled phone? Or if the download was via an apk from elsewhere?

[–] UnbrokenTaco@lemm.ee 11 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Probably because the internet isn't an app store

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] huginn@feddit.it 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Because the app store isn't the only way to install an app. It is trivially easy to side load apps and it's well within the technologic skillset of the average 12 year old.

They can also just use a web browser.

[–] UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 13 points 3 hours ago

Problem: Higher childhood depression rates linked to social media usage, social media caused disruption in education (like usage in schools), privacy violation of minors, etc.

An enforceable, common sense solution: Very strict privacy protection laws, that would end up protecting everybody, including minors. Better, kid friendly urban infrastructure like dedicated bike paths protected from car traffic, better pedestrian areas, parks and so on. Kids will get outside their house if there is a kid friendly outside. A greener, more human friendly outside where you can socialize with other humans would always be preferred over doom scrolling online. For the disruption in education issue, it is very education system dependent.

What solution these people came up with: Make it illegal for individuals under the age of 16 to create social media accounts. How do they enforce this? No idea. Does this solve any of the above problems? No. Is this performative? Yes.

Speaking from personal experience, social media was one of the most liberating tools for me as a kid. I lived in a shitty, conservative country and was gay. Social media told me that I wasn't disgusting. I was always more of a lurker than a poster, so I thankfully didn't really experience being contacted by groomers and so on. However, many of my friends who posted their images and stuff almost always got pedos in their DMs, so that's a very real issue.

I could ask my silly little questions related to astrophysics on Reddit and get really good answers. Noone around me irl was ever interested/able to talk about stuff like this. I could explore different political ideologies, get into related servers on Discord and learn more about this. None of this was possible without social media.

Banning social media outright is such a boomer move lol. Doing so isn't going to solve any real problems associated with childhood social media usage. It's just going to give the jackass parents complaining about this a false sense of security, when the kids still end up suffering.

[–] FergleFFergleson@infosec.pub 10 points 3 hours ago

Based on what I've seen over the last few years, it's the over-16s that should probably be banned from social media.

[–] Spitzspot@lemmings.world 38 points 5 hours ago (4 children)
[–] Robin@lemmy.world 29 points 5 hours ago (14 children)

In case you forgot, Lemmy is social media

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 minutes ago

Old people can use Tor

[–] Lupus@feddit.org 29 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Honestly - fine with me, tear it all down.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Sounds like youre deleting your account soon.

Goodbye.

[–] lemmeBe@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 minutes ago
[–] Zachariah@lemmy.world 10 points 4 hours ago

antisocial media

[–] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago

Let's ban centralized for profit social media.

[–] glowie@h4x0r.host 5 points 4 hours ago
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 12 points 4 hours ago

I’d prefer 17+. I think it would be fun to have only 1 year on social media.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

It has been 3 hours as of this comment, and Spitzspot has yet to delete their account. I guess they don't really believe what they say.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Affidavit@lemm.ee 0 points 1 hour ago

Absolute stupidity and a waste of taxpayers' money spending so much time on this nonsense.

These incompetent morons are pretty much guaranteeing that they will lose the next election. In the middle of a housing and inflation crisis this is what these fuckheads decided was important.

I loathe the opposition, but it's hard to defend the sheer incompetence the Labor Party has displayed their entire term.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 14 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

What happens if an Australian kid starts running their own Pixelfed or Lemmy site?

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 12 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

My instance is in Australia, and the new laws affect social media like Lemmy. The hard part is that there apparently isn't much guidance on how to follow the law. Do you have to use ID? Is a location-specific popup making you state that you're 16+ enough? Nobody knows.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 4 points 2 hours ago

If you are the sole user on your own ActivityPub site running on your own server, can it even be called a social media site?

I think a mastodon instance started asking aussies to send a pic of them with a bottle of vodka or a pack of smokes.

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 11 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

We are yet to see. My guess is they charge the kid for providing social media to an underaged user (themselves). Will be very interesting to watch ngl. Also idk how they gonna implement it cos i sure as shit aint handing over my id to the social media companies.

[–] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 3 points 2 hours ago

I'm not sure that a self hosted ActivityPub site with a single user could reasonably be called a social media site. I wonder how the law defines a social media site.

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Are they still allowed on Lemmy?

Australian legislators probably don't even know that Lemmy exists.

[–] FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

If the law was well made, it wouldn’t applly to websites under a certain threshold of active users.

I mean you can’t expect octopusforums.co with 40 cephalopod enthusiasts to ID check australians can you.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 33 seconds ago

I don't know what it's like in Australia, but here in the USA the large websites write laws like that specifically to prevent competition from small websites.

Better make an octopus Facebook group instead.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 hours ago

The Australian government is to cowardly to regulate social media to be healthy for all ages.

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

this isn't for the safety of kids; it's to eliminate the ability for queer kids to find a community.

[–] CTDummy@lemm.ee 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

No offence but that’s shortsighted to be generous. I feel like half of lemmy will carry on about social media being cancer, the frequent articles citing negative effects of SM on mental health and the fact that multiple social media companies are accused of propagating misinformation (Zuckerberg face sure is in lemmy a lot lately for some reason). Like Zuck has all but greenlit harassing lgbt+ people on FB and the SM ban is to stop gay kids finding a community? Please. Corporate SM is a blight and before someone says lemmy/reddit check the mod logs or the fact that lemmy only got CSAM under control relatively recently before suggesting it’s fine for kids.

Besides, LGTB kids aren't the only ones who need the internet to find refuge

[–] HowAbt2morrow@futurology.today 4 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Fair dinkem mate. How are they gonna regulate this?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 hours ago

I'm just waiting until they remember why borders are a thing that exists.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί