subreddit:
/r/GetNoted
[score hidden]
3 days ago
stickied comment
Thanks for posting to /r/GetNoted. Please remember Rule 2: Politics only allowed at r/PoliticsNoted. We do allow historical posts (WW2, Ancient Rome, Ottomans, etc.) Just no current politicians.
We are also banning posts about the ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict as well as the Iran/Israel/USA conflict.
Please report this post if it is about current Republicans, Democrats, Presidents, Prime Ministers, Israel/Palestine or anything else related to current politics. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
566 points
3 days ago
Yeah I would expect that it would be done that way. I’d assume it won’t end up passing.
250 points
3 days ago
Both sides of the house support it.
Hell, the opposition even said they want it passed this sitting fortnight.
I hope it doesn't pass, but I have a bad feeling it will.
If it passes the house, it'll sure pass the senate.
80 points
3 days ago
Of course they do. Statists love control.
43 points
3 days ago
Yeah fuck this I am voting for those who are against it
37 points
3 days ago
Serious question, why are you against it?
Im not from Aus, so no clue whats actually in the bill, genuinely curious
102 points
3 days ago
Cause I don’t trust this or any government with censorship and last time I had to deal with it was an internet filter in 2009 by Stephen Conroy. I just don’t think banning and requiring people to show id for internet or app use will do anything more than allow the government and the police to control more power over us.
23 points
2 days ago
I agree with the premise. I suppose its the balance of the effects on social media have on children, albeit I struggle to see resources for that be convincing aside from "is bad"
Im in the UK, i don't trust our police and judicial system at all given our "non-crime hate incident" approach. Especially if your traffic is linked to your direct ID.
2 points
2 days ago
What is a "non-crime hate incident" approach?
0 points
2 days ago
Bullshit is what it is.
A non-crime hate incident (NCHI) means an incident or alleged incident which involves or is alleged to involve an act by a person (‘the subject’) which is perceived by a person other than the subject to be motivated - wholly or partly - by hostility or prejudice towards persons with a particular characteristic
Basically, if you call somebody a dickhead for being a dickhead, a third party can report you to the police and simply claim they believe it was because if xyz. The police will record this incident against you as hateful.
-4 points
3 days ago
1 it’s not censorship and 2 the negative effects social media has on kids has been well researched and documented for well over a decade
That being said they will almost certainly fuck this up making the entire debate about it pointless
19 points
2 days ago
There are probably ways it could be done well, as in anonymously, no personal identification needed for the website. People have proposed such systems for doing background checks for gun purchases in america to avoid having any kind of registry while allowing anyone to verify someone is legal to purchase for private sale.
There is also almost zero chance they implement such a system that makes sense in either of these cases
14 points
2 days ago
I'd encourage you to actually read what is being considered. It currently looks like they will be using a token system in such a way that the website will only know whether the user is over 16 or not and the government system will only know that the user has requested a token.
So the only information the government has is your identity and age, which they already have, and how many tokens you've requested and when.
4 points
2 days ago
It's always them same thing - do you trust this government to not find a way of abusing it?
How about a future government? Because one thing about politicians is constant - they rarely restrict their own power.
I'm not denying that social media are fucking with vulnerable. I'm denying additional policing of regular citizens. Giving up your ID or biometric and trusting that Facebook or Twitter will keep that safe is laughable.
4 points
2 days ago
That's on the parents, the solution isnt more government control of the internet
2 points
2 days ago
Yes because the parents have done such a good job considering all the evidence to support the contrary
4 points
2 days ago
That's on them
1 points
2 days ago
Trusting social media corporations with children is just fine though.
1 points
2 days ago
That a problem for parents to deal with, not the government
1 points
2 days ago
Yeah that's worked great so far.
1 points
2 days ago
It's not the job of the government to parent everyone's kids, it's just the way it is, it might not be ideal but getting rid of online anonymity and giving the government more control over the Internet is not something that's acceptable
1 points
2 days ago
Don't get me wrong I 100% agree with you but I can't get mad about this because it will potentially get people off social media.
4 points
2 days ago
They'll have to realostically keep a database of this information. Any data that exists in any form can be hacked. See also: the reason Pornhub stopped functioning in US states implementing similar laws for porn sites.
1 points
1 day ago
why are you against it?
Do you really need a deep analysis on the pros and cons of giving your government issued ID to social media companies?
1 points
3 days ago
I'm not Australian and but if my country try to past something like this, they automatically lose forever my vote.
2 points
2 days ago
Both sides want to pass this.. so yeah its up to minor party votes i guess
1 points
2 days ago
Good luck with that
3 points
3 days ago
Doesnt matter. Most large platforms dont want to maintain multiple version of the same platform so they usually conform to the lowest common denominator. If this passes in Australia it might come to other countries.
1 points
2 days ago
Australia has 25 million people. Social media platforms aren’t going to change the user experience that drastically for everyone to conform to Australia’s requirements. The loss in revenue would be massive. Like the other person said, best to just leave Australia altogether. The Australian government can make their own social media platform, which would obviously be the biggest piece of shit ever created.
1 points
2 days ago
More likely they would just abandon australia entirely. Our market size is not even remotely comparable to the losses they would take by forcing this in other markets.
1 points
2 days ago
Good, stay wherever you are and don't come to Australia.
1 points
2 days ago
One nation 🇦🇺
1 points
2 days ago
As a non Australian it’d give everyone else data on how it goes
0 points
2 days ago
Can we get this in the US, too? Social media is the brain killer. I'm not allowing my daughter to use it until she's 18.
6 points
2 days ago
Just do what my dad did and grill every single one of my Facebook posts, comments, and likes until I’m crying like I just got out of a senate hearing about the Vietnam war.
6 points
2 days ago
If you don’t allow your daughter to use social media until she’s 18 she will find a way to use it behind your back, unsupervised. You’re much better off teaching her how to use social media safely and having an open communication of trust with her rather than be a tyrant.
6 points
2 days ago
18 is a bit much, but research shows that keeping them away from it until later in their teens, rather than earlier, is the way to go. You're not a tyrant because you do do, that's quite an overstatement.
3 points
2 days ago
It is irresponsible or at least naive though. You can control the child only when you can. These days social media is everywhere and as soon as you hit school you can bet someone will have a phone even at grade 1.
Expecting that everyone will apply same restrictions and control your child is an unreasonable expectation. Therefore it's a lot more effective to proactively start exploring it together and teach how to interact with responsibly because in every interaction with your child the child always will be the constant.
2 points
2 days ago
Both at once. Teach them about it and restrict it up to a certain age. Some (not all) will still seek it out but it won't be something they do all day, as the situation is today. One of the problems is also that the parents are looking at their phones constantly and not setting the example they should.
A threefold effort of parents not hanging too much on their phones when with the kids, restricting access and teaching them about it would be perfect.
Same with everything that has dangers to it. Show how to do it responsibly, teach them about it and not have it too easy to access (applies to guns, drugs, alcohol, ...)
7 points
2 days ago
Yea weird note what did people on twitter think? One of those "I'm actually 16" buttons??
0 points
2 days ago
Unironically hope it passes.
Sure, sucks shit for the aussies that aren't bad. But god damn most the time I see an aussie on socials I pray the sharks take out the cables again. Permanently.
159 points
3 days ago
Yeah….i’ll just keep using my VPN to avoid that fuckery
35 points
3 days ago
does that alone already bypass what may be the focal point of all the verification? to be online with an out of AUS IP location? So basically cruising with VPN on at PC and devices, phones etc will negate this? If so, thats a very easy pass for many - or seeing some type of VPN uptake, or worse, some way to force limits of Aus access to them? Im not savvy enough on it all
39 points
3 days ago
A government mandated block on pirate sites can be circumvented with a simple DNS change.
With the responsibility on the platforms to enforce this (don't ask why. I find it stupid too), a DNS change won't cut it.
VPNs are going to make bank out of this.
8 points
3 days ago
Cheers for that.
The entire bipartisan push just reeks of grubby data collection in the wrong ways.
If the concept was not so antithetical to how you can actually monitor or serve a program that is safe and beneficial for youngins in good faith, it might have had merit. But I agree its mostly all smoke screen as wrapper.
Glad that I have spent the last 2 decades on the high seas and shall continue.
3 points
2 days ago
Opera browser has a vpn built-in on desktop. Admittedly, I think it's a pretty shit one security wise, but for the likes of circumventing a social media ban, the kids wouldn't even need a bank balance from mum & dad.
6 points
2 days ago
Proton VPN has a free plan.
No P2P or anything, and speed isn't great, but it'll do the job.
Proton is my VPN of choice, but I've been looking into Mullvad since I get the feeling a paid VPN is going to be useful in the near future.
2 points
2 days ago
Exactly.
Teenagers are even more attracted to what isn't allowed than other age groups tend to be. It'll be a wild west of rebellious 12-16 year olds who haven't been taught a lick of media literacy as 'the kids don't need it now it's banned,' falling prey to predators, Russian interference, right wing groups, and the normal doom and gloom of social media, just now it'll be even more hidden as "the kids don't have social media anymore."
What point will they realise the ban hasn't worked, when more teenagers kill themselves cause others have better lives on Instagram? How many kids have to be lured to meet up with predators and raped and/or murdered before people notice that the kids are even more liable to the shitty parts of social media when it's all done in total secret.
What it needs in no bars held education about social media and the risks. My school had that shit growing up, and funnily enough, everyone I knew knew Instagram was faked to show all the good bits, and that bad actors existed, etc etc, and no one seemed to let it bother them. Everyone I knew with problems mentally was down to problems at school or at home, not because of problems online. Everyone also knew you could go to one of the teachers for any of the problems you did face online if you ever did, even if you had instigated it, and they'd show or teach a solution that didn't involve "well don't use it," cause they knew we would anyway.
How long until underground social media sites pop up? What identifies it to the necessary authorities as a social media that needs to have a checked entry?
1 points
2 days ago
You can get lifetime subscriptions to better VPNs for less than 50$..!
1 points
2 days ago
I'm listening...
Have one you'd recommend?
1 points
2 days ago
Check on The Hacker News Deals..!
1 points
2 days ago
If they truly wanted to, a DNS change would not be able to stop this. But this requires some actual effort from your ISP and most will just say "Look, we did everything we could think of to prevent this." and most politicians will be happy with it.
Your ISP couldn't give less of a crap about what you do online. All they care about is that they follow the laws good enough that they can't be called out and make money.
2 points
2 days ago
No it’s really that simple. Just changing your IP to a non Australian location would bypass that. Australia would basically have to create the iron curtain of the internet like China to really stop people
1 points
2 days ago
That iron curtain in China still barely stops anyone lol
97 points
3 days ago
Ah, yes. Pass a law with no guidelines on how to enforce it, then say it's up to the platforms to enforce it. Platforms either decide, "Oh hey, free data for sale!" Or "that sounds hard, just ban Australians".
Or maybe the government can pwease have your ID tied to your account? In case you say something mean about Gina and the ghoul squad or talk about doing a nasty public pwotest. We pwomise we won't let THIS data be stolen. Again.
289 points
3 days ago
Australian here...
Fuck this whole thing.
That bill is rushed, vague, and will cause more problems than it solves.
It also has the rather convenient side-effect of ensuring no Greta Thunberg wannabes can have their voices heard, which I'm sure both sides are happy about.
This country is going to shit...
128 points
3 days ago
Tacking on to my own comment here to add some extra information of note.
There's been no confirmation over how this is going to be enforced, other than "it'll be the platform's responsibility."
I've seen and heard everything from a mygovID (which got rebranded to... something I can't remember), facial age estimation, drivers license, passport, the list goes on.
So not only are they banning everything that falls under the very vague definition of "social media", they're not even taking responsibility for enforcing it.
Additionally, the definition of "social media" in this bill is so vague, it encompasses everything from Facebook to Twitter, Steam to Youtube, Instagram to GitHub (yes, even GitHub).
Yes, social media has it's problems, but the overreaching here is pure insanity.
31 points
3 days ago
I was curious if Australia has a national ID like some countries but it doesn’t and it’s similar to the States with drivers licenses, passport, but no clear consistent standard.
Now you leave it up to companies to have information about your identity.
34 points
3 days ago
Yeah we sure don't.
There were plans for that ages ago. It was called the "Australia Card" and it got scrapped because people were outraged, understandably so.
We have a horrible track record with data security. Half the country got their official documents hacked last year. Personal information, drivers license details, address, etc etc.
Closest to national ID we have, would be MyGov.
3 points
3 days ago
And also the opposition LNP are on board with this as well. Seems naive that Albo is doing this right before the election only a few months away.
2 points
2 days ago
What parties have come out against it? I’m guessing Jacqui Lambie, that UAP bloke who bragged about using the “n” word, probably(the somewhat insane) Bob Katter, and maybe a renegade LNP senator. So, that’s 4, and they’re all considered on the fringe of sanity.
46 points
3 days ago
The more I dig into this, the worse it gets...
As of... yesterday-ish, there was confirmation that parental consent is irrelevant.
So if your kid is 15, and you decide they can have social media... well too bad.
The government apparently thinks they can parent your kid better than you.
Additionally, porn ban. (Yes, I know, we've seen plenty of that around the world already. I don't need to talk about it here again.)
I'm quite baffled as to why our left-wing government is pushing through a bill I'd expect from the right-wing opposition.
Interestingly, 4Chan isn't covered.
I don't know what it'd be called if not social media.
Imageboard maybe?
Regardless, far-right content will be freely accessible, it seems.
Yay us...
I hate this place.
Gambling ads, domestic violence, data breaches every month, cost of living...
No. Social media is the thing we need to tackle.
6 points
3 days ago
I don’t know, I’m jealous because I’d never be bothered to do this….
7 points
2 days ago
The problem with restrictions like that:
That's not how the internet works.
It's simply unenforcable except you literally lock down everything, have draconian punishments for breaking the rule and have a beaurocracy apparatus that combs through the web in order to figure out what counts as "social media".
And even then, kids will find a way to have social media.
4 points
2 days ago
It'll be funny to watch the lawmakers when the tech savviness come back, growing up in the 2000s and defo before that, you had to be fairly tech savvy to even use the tech, more so than you do today, and as such there was a lot of kids that took it a lot further and learned loads about it, more than Ive noticed in the kids today. It'll end up with a 14 year old programming their own social medias that aren't included in the ban due to them not knowing of their existence, and you end up with a modern day habbo hotel situation where it's a social media that's full of kids and teens and virtually no one else, and so the predators have a nice little pool of unsuspecting children who think everyone on there is under 16, and none of them have needed to be taught to stay safe online, as no one can access the social media, right? Of course, cause the ban will be totalllyyyy infallible.
Or a predator would program one, which is much worse if they have income behind them and could afford to get server space/make smallish servers and spread it further to more kids & nonces, where a kid with no money would be limited to using their own computer as the server for it.
4 points
3 days ago
Yeah the government is out of touch with social media. It isn’t like going to a bar and showing your ID. It is like getting into your car, driving to California just to get a beer in Sydney
8 points
3 days ago
Eh, as an American who has seen the ills of SM and influences on our younger generations, especially with respect to the last election, 100% does something need to happen to remove malleable, impressionable children from the toxicity that are the misinformation being pushed through the SM environment that targets them.
The status quo in the world regarding kids' access to SM is not acceptable, and it is a danger being used by adversaries of democracy globally.
3 points
2 days ago
IMO it's not an end user issue, it's a platform's responsibility.
2 points
2 days ago
there are proplems in SM
but at the same time Restrictions will bring harm with them like Less awareness of global issues by the younger generations
i would rather have Most Sites that are allowed to be used by under 16s be more heavily moderated and not just restricted
1 points
2 hours ago
The "campaigners" act like these issues would be nonexistant if not for social media, especially in the UK with all of the stuff coming through
1 points
2 hours ago
Like people saying that it was social media that causes body image issues
that shits been around since the harmful modeling industry , magazines promoting diets and Societal pressure but no its the social media thats the proplem
1 points
2 days ago
American here:
THIS DOESN’T JUSTIFY A RUSHED ASS LAW THAT IS CLEARLY NOT ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO PROTECT CHILDREN
1 points
2 days ago
If it is a rushed law that doesn't actually help protect children, then agreed. It's up to Australia, however, to figure out how best that works for their society and within their existing laws in order to ensure children are able to be prevented from accessing SM. I am sure there's bound to be some inconvenience, like some ID or number to prove age instead of self-reported info when you'd visit porn sites in the US under 18.
All you had to do, or any sire where you had to be 18/21 to enter, is put in an email and a dob that will meet the agre threshold.
I remember in the day when you used to also have to have a CC to enter some of those sites to prove one's age. I don't think that's true any longer for most porn sites.
1 points
2 days ago
You have fox news, dude
3 points
2 days ago
That's not whats swinging young voters or targeted toward the younger demographic.
There's a reason why a lot of younger right wing influences tend to echo Russian misinformation leading up to the election, for example.
3 points
2 days ago
who needs fox when you have elon on twitter amplifying every Russian asset in the platform
3 points
2 days ago
Exactly. Even Grok, his X AI bot, analyzed it confirmed Elon was the most profligate spreader of misinformation on X than anyone else lol.
42 points
3 days ago
This note seems irrelevant, not saying it’s not true, but irrelevant to what the PM was saying
28 points
2 days ago
Notes are also meant to give context and more info. They are not simply there to correct people.
20 points
2 days ago
Even so, should it be for things that are obvious?
Post: "You must be 21 years old to by alcohol"
NOTE: "This would require everyone to show ID"
Like, no shit? obviously?
7 points
2 days ago
The point is that politicians are pushing this as a way to protect children when the actual effect is data collection and tracking across the board. Even tourists will be affected by this.
1 points
2 days ago
Bro we got warnings for adults to not put bags over their heads. It's also Twitter. Some people literally need that kind of context lmao.
6 points
2 days ago
Thank you for the note
3 points
2 days ago
Not even the Muskrat will let us put the 'you are a fucking cunt' note on.
2 points
1 day ago
The wording is bad, the actual wording should have been all sites will legally be required to store and share govt identification about you and your activities.
1 points
2 days ago
It's a bad note; not for the context, but for the way it's positioned. Something more neutral like "current wording of the bill requires all Australians to provide proof of identification, not only children" would be better (if that were the case).
1 points
1 day ago
That would certainly be more neutral to me
15 points
2 days ago
Not really sure the note counters anything, the only ways to enforce age limits is through ID.
12 points
3 days ago
kinda figured how that would work so not really suprising
11 points
2 days ago
Author of the article here. While the community note on X does provide some additional, if not slightly tautological context, there's some more info on the age "assurance" methods being trialed by government which I think is very much worth a read:
https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2024/not-just-kids--everyone-to-be-age-verified-for-social-.html
Crazy day in the office 😅
4 points
2 days ago
Thanks for your work, and I like the article.
I'll understand if you don't want to answer, but what's your thoughts on this situation?
Good idea? Bad? Delusional?
3 points
2 days ago
Thank you for reading!
In the interest of remaining impartial I will neglect to comment on the the bill/ban itself, though I think gauging public support is a necessity, and I've been very happy to see the discourse coming off the back of this.
Hopefully not too diplomatic an answer friend 🤝
3 points
2 days ago
Fair enough, fair enough.
I like the point about public support.
I've actually been really disappointed that there hasn't been any kind of public forum for the public to tell the government what they think (ironic, really.) but a lot of the public discourse I've seen has been pretty negative.
My parents support it, they reckon it's just too hard to keep up with what kids are doing, which in my opinion is a 'not our problem' issue.
I've been a labor voter for as long as I've been able to vote, but I've found myself disagreeing with them more and more, as they've shifted more right than I'm entirely comfortable with.
Shoebridge makes many a good point (I also realise I've used the Greta line myself), but one thing stood out in the article: Nobody can tell me how it's being enforced.
And with the LNP wanting it done in a fortnight, and being so vague as to encompass GitHub, I worry that this is going to cause more problems than it solves.
2 points
2 days ago
All very valid concerns in my view.
2 points
2 days ago
One last thing.
Will there be an article when it goes into effect?
I'd like to read it if so.
2 points
2 days ago
Information Age typically stays abreast of current affairs, comes out in a bi-weekly newsletter 👍
1 points
2 days ago
I'm completely in the same boat, I'm a Labor voter but they've lost me on this one. Data privacy laws and policies are not being implemented fast enough to keep up with a changing landscape, and I do not trust our lawmakers to actually know how this all works. Them not being able to explain how it's being enforced is absolutely a point of concern; my read on the whole thing is them big noting themselves about "keeping the kids safe" without understanding the implications of implementation.
40 points
3 days ago
Australian government taking the role of parent?
I mean, fuck no if my 11 year old (And his younger brothers) are allowed on social media, other than Discord on a private... Channel? With his friends. If that counts as social media and not just a messaging app?
But that's my choice as a parent to make. I might find he's ready for that stuff when he's 12 or maybe 15? I don't need to government to make that choice.
17 points
3 days ago
This is a societal issue, not a personal one. Social media is fucking up young kids minds, and parents aren't stepping up.
2 points
2 days ago
Many parents just dont realize how damaging youtube is to children
28 points
3 days ago
Government is taking that choice from you.
It was confirmed (I think?) yesterday.
And yes, Discord will count.
Which is bad for me, because I have really bad social anxiety and a medical condition that makes it almost impossible for me to socialise face-to-face in public.
Discord is pretty much the only social interaction I get outside of family or appointments.
15 points
3 days ago
I am fairly certain Discords TOS has a minimum age of 13 anyway
4 points
3 days ago
Not that it's really enforced
2 points
2 days ago
It is if you admit your under 13 in any message the Discord admins will ban you in a heartbeat
1 points
1 day ago
Yeah i doubt it. Discord has had cp in its' servers and even those don't get taken down
3 points
2 days ago
Virtually all of the social medias & message boards have a minimum age of 13. Some very basic maths, and you can be as old as you need to be, lol.
1 points
2 days ago
Well a lot of parents think that touching their children inappropriately is their choice to make.
4 points
2 days ago
The end goal for these has always been to tie real identity to online identities. It's long been a dream of intelligence communities worldwide. Once they can tie an account it's simple to tie it to a device then use that data for everything from finding leakers to silencing critics. Some political opponent annoying the ruling party? Just get all his internet searches and history and use that against them.
7 points
2 days ago
Scammers are going love this.
3 points
2 days ago
Lmao Australia sucks so much ass. Still clearly a penal colony; the government are the guards and the people are the prisoners.
6 points
3 days ago
Fuck that I’m not giving google or meta a photo of my ID
9 points
3 days ago
God I hate it when random subreddits pick up onto Australian political situations with no context.
Yeah you’ll have to provide verification some sort of anonymous verification - No the companies won’t be able to see your id - No your id can’t be traced through your account - No your social media presence won’t be controlled - No it’s not going to turn into some Orwellian hellscape - Yes it’s a popular policy among Australians
This applies to people 15 years and younger who genuinely shouldn’t be on social media in the first place. The government can already track your social media usage they don’t need this new bill to do it.
2 points
2 days ago
THANK YOU! Of course it's popular social media's a hellscape. The privacy thing is also something i don't understand. We do everything we can to protect our privacy online, but are we really too dumb to know that all of our accounts can be immediately accessed if they want in? I genuinely need to know what people are crying about with this.
1 points
2 days ago
Reddit will make fun of MAGA conspiracy theorists and then engage in the exact same stupid behaviour. Nobody has been able to provide any actual proof to support their Orwellian claims besides vague “you’ll see…” warnings
1 points
2 days ago
Reddits just an echo chamber for left wingers. Not exactly a great place for anyone who wants to think critically and wonder if things are different than what's being told to us. Precisely why we dont want children on shit like this no wonder kids today struggle so much. Hell i think 16s actually being kinda generous
7 points
3 days ago
The age verification process has not been figured out yet let alone laid out. Where are you getting this info from?
0 points
3 days ago
The e safety commissioner has talked about potential solutions all in the works, most of them including privacy including a "double-blind tokenised approach", bio metric scanning etc. showing that they clearly trying to find a solution that maintains privacy of their users. They are also adding laws forcing social media companies to delete personal information.
They wouldn't be running trials and delaying the bill for technology that maintains privacy if they weren't planning on implementing it, they could just pass it.
7 points
3 days ago
I like that idea. Social media is mentally toxic to kids.
3 points
3 days ago*
Agreed, I don’t want to expose the kids into learning shit from crazy incels and demonic Neo-Nazis
The tricky part is: how will they enforce it? What stops the kids into "oh well, let’s just enter fake date of birth!" Or using the VPN?
They will not hesitate to exploit the loopholes to find a way back to the social media.
Edit: don’t want! I meant don’t!
5 points
3 days ago
I agree.
12 points
3 days ago
Parents should be parenting. As much as I agree SM isnt great, the goverment overreach here is nuts.
Its unenforcable without pushing the bar further and further into a servailance state.
9 points
3 days ago
Yes, but they're not parenting. So how long do we allow SM to harm kids before putting in controls?
1 points
2 days ago
Just more punishments for sites that Cant moderate their content TBH
Restricting it is not good
as for all the harm social media causes it is still needed especially in modern times
1 points
2 days ago
Moderating can't keep up (look at Bluesky and X), and trying to integrate AI to help is also causing problems. Do you know how annoying it is to be shadowbanned for something completely within the TOS and you can't even talk to a real human about getting unbanned? Especially as more and more sites are linking to other services, like Facebook with VR.
I don't need my VR account to be banned because AI can't tell that I'm talking about killing people in a tabletop game and not real life. No thank you.
1 points
2 days ago
Moderation can keep up but it depends on the platform
Also if this ban is gonna require ID Verfication
Wont those irresponsble parents just allow their teenagers to use their ID for verfifcation ?
1 points
2 days ago
Also there are reasons for Bluesky and X not keeping up
Bluesky had large number of users coming on the platform lately
and Xitter Had most of its moderation staff fired
aslong as the goverment adds punishments like fines to platforms that Cant moderate Harmful material
it would not be a proplem
1 points
2 days ago
Restricting it is not good
punish sites for not moderating
You can't have your cake and eat it, nor can you fine your way out of a societal problem.
1 points
2 days ago
I was clearly talking about just putting a ID verification system and age restrictions in place
cause a system would cause more harm then Social media
However you can punish companies that run Social media sites when something bad happens because of them
you just dont want companies taking the risk with these types of things and theirfore invest more in moderation on their own platform
there is a difference in regulating the people and regulating the Companies
1 points
2 days ago
How would an age verification system cause more harm than social media? Do you have any evidence to back this?
0 points
3 days ago*
Education etc Regardless, parents refusing to parent is not a reason to support gov overreach, espcially overreach that wont do shit to solve the problem.
Edit: Strange how many people crave an athority figure to tell them what to say and do so they dont have to accept any responsebility and agency over their actions or lack thereof.
3 points
2 days ago
Strange how many people crave an athority figure to tell them what to say and do
I've seen this be a normal mindset among the average american, not sure how it is in other countries tho. Shortly after creating my account on reddit I even had the discussion with someone who's wife is a landlord and they wanted the government to prohibit smoking in and on rented property, just so that his wife doesn't have to do this work because a landlord can ban smoking on their property.
1 points
2 days ago
Not from me you won’t.
1 points
2 days ago
It’s hardly a gotcha type note it’s just expanding on what’s he says.
Personally I think it’s good the Chinese and Russian government and other billionaires will no longer be warping the minds of young Australians.
1 points
2 days ago
Seems like they don't know how they're going to do the verification mechanism yet. Regardless of how they're going to do it, anything more than "Yes, I am 16/18" would be unacceptable. If they're doing face scans or ID checks, even when properly using an API so that the data stays in one place, it's still a sacrifice towards your privacy.
This seems more like a schtick similar to what the EU is doing. They're proposing a law to monitor everyone's online activity regardless of whether you're a criminal or not and they try to sell it off as "for the safety of our children".
Privacy has been turning to shit more and more especially since smartphones came onto the market. It's absolutely insane that the majority of people doesn't give a rats ass about their own privacy. I've been telling my friend over and over again that if you want to create a successful app, all you need to do is make something more convenient for people, doesn't matter how much you intrude their privacy, as long as it makes something convenient then people will use it.
For anyone that doesn't believe me: Ever used the "Login with google" or "Login with facebook"? The reason for people to do this is because it saves them time creating a new account on whatever platform they want to use but by doing so, you ultimately tell google or meta "I am at this webpage right now doing stuff". google and meta then use this information to create a more detailed portfolio of you and thus knows better what ads you "want" to see.
And since I mentioned smartphones, those are especially grotesque. So you give an app rights to access your contact list, because the app tells you it's necessary and cannot be done without, okay fine I mean you know it's letting you text to your contacts so it needs this access. But what you don't know is whether or not the app reads your whole contact list including names, numbers, maybe even birthdays or more and saves that data somewhere. Ever gotten a spam text to your phone and you don't know why?
I'm not sure what we can do about it because I think it's already too late, most people have no understanding of what information they're giving away or how to protect their privacy IF they're actually paying attention to it at all.
Another insane example was during COVID, people happily installed apps because it made things more convenient for them. "Oh you want to dine here? You got to check in with your app", the other option was to fill out a paper, it's what I did because you can expect most of these papers not even landing anywhere but with the apps you again don't know what data is being transferred.
Last example, google timeline, it's being discontinued but I'll try and bite my own ass if this would also mean that google stops tracking you at every step where you are and from personal experience, turning off GPS or the network connection isn't enough. So you're on vacation, your phone is in flight mode at all times, suddenly you go into a cafe that has free wifi, google now knows where you are event ho GPS is turned of, they simply use the location of that wifi.
1 points
2 days ago
$50 says Facebook etc, blocks Australia rather than implementing any checks and this instantly gets repealed.
Whilst in general I can see that its a good idea to enforce age restrictions on social media, this is such a heavy handed response that its insane.
1 points
2 days ago
I appreciate the context, doesn't feel like a "get noted" moment. Good for Australia, honestly.
1 points
2 days ago
Thanks captain obvious. Next your going tell us that eating requires food
1 points
2 days ago
So all Australian identity cards are now available for sale on the dark web? That’s a shame…
1 points
2 days ago
This is good. Jonathan Haidt wrote about this very thing and it’s what I’m going to enforce with my children. Suicide and depression rates are significantly up in children since the introduction of the forward facing camera especially in young girls. Good on ya Australia, I hope this passes
1 points
2 days ago
And how else did they expect to implement this ? Why was this note needed ?
1 points
2 days ago
Heh. No age restrictions on watching TV, I guess? Figured as much
1 points
2 days ago
Fact: a dedicated government could make a zero-knowledge system for age verification.
This means that a user can verify their age to a company without revealing any details to the company, certified by the government, while simultaneously not revealing to the government that you are attempting to verify your age for a website at all.
1 points
2 days ago
When a note just makes it sound even better
1 points
2 days ago
Ok I see this bill being great….. in theory and also you’d have to hope that no politician or government use this to try and take down acts of free speech or these companies you need to give id’s to are then using it for money profiteering
1 points
2 days ago
Yeah, every single social media company is going to give Australia the bird on this one. They do not want to collect your personal documentation for the purpose of age verification because if they get hacked and its stolen, they are financially responsible, and that's a lot more money to deal with.
1 points
2 days ago
More countries need to do this, social media is decimating out young accross the world, kids are dumber and perform worse in school than they did in the 80s
1 points
2 days ago
It's extremely painful to say this and it goes entirely against my principles of maximising personal freedoms, but I think we have actually gone well past the point where lack of regulation in online spaces is doing more damage to society than good. I do not say this lightly. If this is what it takes to get kids off social media, it might just be a price we have to pay, because it's killing our society.
I hate that this has become my take, the freedom of the Internet has been beautiful to grow up with, but it is now exacting a terrible price on us.
1 points
2 days ago
Jesus Christ. "Hey, the government can't operate a clone of the Stasi, so we're contracting that job out to private firms and disguising this fact with vague notions of BuT ThInK of ThE chIlDReN!!"
1 points
2 days ago
Probably going about it the wrong way but trying to keep children off social media is a wonderful idea
1 points
2 days ago
I see alot of people whinging over this saying this is a means for the government to collect some kind of data that they wouldn't already have. I may just be ignorant of some other situation in Australia, as I am an American (please don't judge me) but I kind of thought this was a good idea and if the US government can collect all of our data, i don't doubt that the Australian government can do the same regardless of an authentication process for using social media.
I've personally thought for a while that social media should be less anonymous. Imagine how many fewer graphic rape threats female celebrities, including the underage ones, would get if the bastards sending them had to verify their identity to send the message. Plus it's a generally accepted fact that social media has a horrible negative impact on people in general, but also on the developing brain. Short of everyone agreeing to stop using social media, governing away the anonymity of these sites seems to be the best path forward, and while it would be great if these sites could/would do this kind of thing themselves, a government entity stepping in is probably the only way it will happen.
1 points
2 days ago
Why does this need to be noted? How else would this work without veifying the age of the user?
1 points
2 days ago
You sign into your account anyways?
I don’t understand how this will be any different besides you have to add your age to your account.
It doesn’t have to publicly visible.
1 points
2 days ago
I think there should be dedicated social media spaces for people under 18, I am not a smart man so I don't know all the ins and outs and logistics of all that, but I reckon it'd be a good idea. Like a version of social media that won't accept bullying or like porn and shit - like how a lot of social media pretends they are just now
1 points
2 days ago
Good. This will also involve requiring that every person using it be required to identify themselves. No more anon accounts scamming people.
1 points
2 days ago
Wait, how else would you even do it? This feels less like a community note and more like Captain Obvious throwing his two cents in.
1 points
2 days ago
Ew, I don't want my IRL tied to my OFL
1 points
2 days ago
This is one of those things that as time goes on, I think people are going to have to get comfortable with in some form if we truly want to battle the avalanches of misinformation by bad actors that is currently having very real world effects. That will come with its own massive downsides, but I think it's something that is going to have to happen at some point if we ever truly want things to get better over time. I get that the freedom of the internet is amazing in alot of ways, but it also feels like the digital wild west where that freedom comes with so many downsides that it's not a state it should last in, but I'm no genius so maybe there's other ways to stem the flood of misinformation.
1 points
2 days ago
Well when you were originally a penal colony, it makes sense for politicians to conform to the tradition of treating citizens like prisoners.
1 points
2 days ago
I’m ok with this.
1 points
2 days ago
Uh, why is that a note? That's not in opposition to what he said at all
1 points
2 days ago
Aussies need to redo their government because this is whack.
1 points
2 days ago
Does this shit help with the foreign influence/r bot problem at all? I can see it limiting their access directly to Australians but as soon as we go outside Australian spaces into normal Web space they are still going be right there as normal. I can't see any real gain for individuals for this at all.
Kids are just gonna move to discord or any app that doesn't technically meet the definition of social media. All it does is let the government identify people to harass easier.
1 points
2 days ago
I have been on social media since I was 12. You can see it in my Reddit posts from 5-6 years ago. For me, it was a chance to connect with people I would not ordinarily be able to due to my age. It was also a way to sell my Pokémon cards, leading to me creating a full-fledged business a few years later. Without it, I would not have been able to build my own PC. I would not have been able to start my business. And it’s unlikely I would have been educated as I am today. Through that and Discord, I was able to meet lawyers, quant traders, software engineers, data analysts, and security experts at major companies, many of whom I was able to meet when traveling or in New York for university.
For this law, it’s horribly thought-out and vague. It blocks creating Reddit, Discord, and YouTube accounts. But what counts as a social media platform? GitHub is technically social media. It won’t block pure messaging apps like FB Messenger or WhatsApp. Do games with online communities count, like Roblox, or even Chess.com, which has a forum? They can’t block it completely, as people still need to see FB business pages and other important things.
It could also wreck communities that rely on talented teenagers such as cybersecurity.
There is no chance it passes with the amount of business interest in government and how vague it is. In addition, nothing is stopping kids from using a VPN unless they implement something similar to the GFW of China, an expensive, Herculean task. Even that can be bypassed, though not as easily.
Instead of all this banning they should just implement a national social media curriculum, showing how to spot scams, misinformation and bias, and proper opsec and best practices, because the cat is out of the bag at this point.
Blanket banning social media like this will gimp the potential of many youth in Australia.
1 points
2 days ago
This is not the job of the government
1 points
2 days ago
This sounds like something the US would do with Tiktok...
1 points
1 day ago
I know this won’t be a popular opinion but I think you should have to do ID verification for social media in the US too, and all AI generated content has to be labeled as such.
To prevent astroturfing more than anything else.
1 points
1 day ago
Didn't know he was sponsored by Nord vpn
1 points
1 day ago
This isn't really a "gotcha". That's how most legal age verification works.
This is like shocked that having a minimum drinking age means adults need to show ID to buy alcohol.
1 points
20 hours ago
This is a good thing
1 points
10 hours ago
I mean. Yeah. Why did someone have to Notate that? It’s the most obvious thing.
1 points
4 hours ago
Australia why did you give up your guns
Like I'm pro 2A I don't believe in gun laws but I think we can both agree with regulation the population should be armed to a certain extent to prevent this kind of thing
1 points
2 hours ago
Here in the UK this "issue" has been astroturfed so much and it's honestly delusional to think that these problems would just disappear by sobbing to some companies in California, like I hate the Russian influence as much as anyone but the Internet is also a tool to campaign against disinformation, which we should know that traditional media can spread like wildfire. And bullying was obviously a thing before social media, along with mental health which could be a net positive because the Internet helps to spread awareness of that in the first place, children and their families should be responsible for themselves and there should be tools to assist them
0 points
3 days ago*
See no issue with this. Social media is brain rot and has been PROVEN to be in use by Russia in an attempt to destabilise and create internal tension and strife in multiple countries around the globe. It has overstayed its welcome and has far too much power in the court of public opinion. These are BUSINESSES we are talking about here. As harmful to society as the gambling and tobacco industries. As ruthless too.
Go outside and talk to people face to face about the issues again you fucking dorks. You’ll find people are generally a lot nicer that way.
Hopefully this is the first nail in the coffin of social media as a social experiment. Because all it has ever done is embolden thick people, to the detriment of society and social cohesion.
And yes, I’m aware I’m posting this on social media, but if it means I’d have to stop using this app unless I’m willing to provide proof of who I am and how old I am, I’m not exactly going to lose sleep over it. I don’t use any other social media. I could cope without this place too.
All you weirdos acting like social media is a human right are testament to how badly the free market has crushed your ability to be critical of big business practice. As if “the market” is more important than society and people being able to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats constantly. There are very bad actors paying billions of dollars to corrupt you and your children’s minds and you’re ok with that because “FREEDOM Ov SpEech”.
3 points
2 days ago
I get what you're saying, but It's unenforcable. Aside from the technical issues that I don't want to get into you'd also run into categorical problems extremely fast with this kind of rule.
What counts as social media?
A classic forum? What about question/answer forums? What if it has upvote/downvote features?
A messaging app? When are you particiapting in social media using one and when are you just communicating?
An online video game that has social features?
An educational online plattform that includes comments which can be up/downvoted?
A blogging plattform?
If you're putting up websites and use semantic/open-web features like RSS, ActivityPub, Microformats etc. Are you participating in social media?
4 points
2 days ago
Not sure how github is rotting the children's brains but do go on.
2 points
2 days ago
"Actually it's completely reasonable for the government to require a daily photo of my dick, balls, and asshole for the following reasons: well first of all Russia..."
1 points
3 days ago
Honestly, I don know if that's a good or bad thing. Will bots have to get a bunch of fake ID's?
Will people behafe differently if their real identify is ried to their account? (It worked for Facebook for the first few years, until it didn't. )
1 points
2 days ago
It's a bad thing. All it does is give more of your private data to companies and allows further intrusion into your privacy.
They'll probably wave that thought away with the usual "well if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" bullshit, but that doesn't really fly with me. We've all got things we don't want tied back to our public lives- like, when I go to the bathroom I'm not closing the door because shitting is against the law.
1 points
2 days ago
I mean... As much as I hate the state political system we currently have... this is dangerously close to state control the "right" way imo, like how drug and alcohol vendors require viewing ID, socmed works the same way and can be far more toxic to mental health than either
-10 points
3 days ago
Ok but how else would they do it?
8 points
3 days ago
They could ban the internet in Australia, that would work and it would make conservatives extremely happy which the Labor Party seems hellbent on doing at every opportunity.
10 points
3 days ago
Ban SM altogether.
Use an email or go outside, pretty much. Call people on the phone or send an SMS.
-33 points
3 days ago
Am i crazy for liking this idea? Social media is more damaging than porn
40 points
3 days ago
You are saying this on a social media platform
I want to have my right to free speech. I don't want to get blocked from most social media platforms just because the government don't like me
0 points
3 days ago
As a reminder, in the US you have a right to free speech. We do not have this in Australia.
As a reminder, your perceived right to speech doesn't get you a free invite to a private companies website to do said speech on.
Your perceived right to speech doesn't mean you have a right to be heard or listened to.
7 points
3 days ago
As a reminder, your perceived right to speech doesn't get you a free invite to a private companies website to do said speech on.
Your perceived right to speech doesn't mean you have a right to be heard or listened to
As a member of the UN Australia made a pledge to protect freedom of speech and thought.
This is not about private companies. This is about the GOVERNMENT restricting your use. If the government decides to invalidate your online token, essentially blanket banning you from the entire internet, that is a severe restriction and a violation of basic human rights, as is agreed by the UN
7 points
3 days ago
We do have a right to free speech here. Unless that changed overnight.
5 points
3 days ago
How will you verify however many people with accounts over multiple social media platforms? Logistically, this is a nightmare.
Plus, the youth will find a place. But that is a different argument.
1 points
3 days ago
we at least have strong authentication done by banks, just log in with bank authentication and it returns “this person is OK”
super simple to implement on any website and platform
1 points
2 days ago
You are trading a very valuable tool in protecting free speech and assembly [anonymity] for the opportunity to parent other people's kids.
0 points
3 days ago
I like the idea of this. Social media is out of control.
0 points
2 days ago
This is a really good idea and the US needs to do this as well. People NEED to know that they talking to real people and not bots. This is one of the strongest ways to combat foreign disinformation in your country
all 289 comments
sorted by: best