Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-28/social-media-age-ban-passes-parliament/104647138

by llui85 • 2 years ago

282 440 2 years ago

abc.net.au

sekai• 2 years ago

If this is not enforced properly, it's meaningless. Just like the fight against piracy.

The main point here is probably to force ID control and have a constant flux of fully identified users on the networks ?

The gov gets at least full legal check of any SNS account.

vidarh4• 2 years ago

From the article:

Social media companies also won't be able to force users to provide government identification, including the Digital ID, to assess their age.

Aeolun• 2 years ago

What they're really saying is that all websites will add a 'are you really over 16' checkbox?

makeitdouble3• 2 years ago

Apparently the gov has been setting up their own system for that:

https://www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/media-releases/statement...

nineteen999• 2 years ago

Which will probably work as well as most apps implemented by the Australian Govt; myNDIS, myGov, myMedicare etc etc etc. They are all trash. We do not have a good track record in this area.

llui854• 2 years ago

Some notes:

* It is illegal for a platform to provide children with a social media account, not for the child to create an account. Circumvention of this by the child is not illegal.

* No grandfathering - all accounts under 16 once this takes effect (which won't be until this time next year at earliest) must be deactivated.

* Maximum fine (per instance?) is 50 million AUD (about 32 million USD)

* The legislation is vague on the technical details, although it does specifically mandate that platforms cannot use government-issued ID of any kind (including digital ID).

guidedlight• 2 years ago

Leisure Suit Larry was ahead of its time with its age verification system.

elros• 2 years ago

For those of us who weren’t around at the time, could you d on what made it good? Thanks!

LinuxBender2• 2 years ago

I don't have a horse in this race but in my opinion a more graceful way to deal with this is to freeze the account until the under-16 is over-16 so they don't lose their friend connections, history, etc... The under 16 should have time to add a comment saying how to contact them otherwise. Discord group, etc... There must be a reason to remove the account that I can not see.

dyauspitr5• 2 years ago

Ideally they do lose all of that. That’s the root of the problem.

dyauspitr5• 2 years ago

How do they plan on verifying age without using a government id?

xienze• 2 years ago

They have something called “myID” (a digital ID), which is available to anyone 15 or older.

plagiarist2• 2 years ago

The legislation is vague on the technical details, although it does specifically mandate that platforms cannot use government-issued ID of any kind (including digital ID).

That's unexpectedly sane from a law like this. Hopefully they can figure out some zero-knowledge proof of age. (But then there's nothing stopping adults from creating and selling proof values to kids.)

stephen_g7• 2 years ago

That wasn't in the original bill and it was only amended to add that yesterday, because it wouldn't get past the Conservative (Liberal/National Party) whose votes they needed to ram it through Parliament with almost no scrutiny otherwise (the hastily drafted bill only having been introduced the Friday before the final sitting week of the year).

triceratops• 2 years ago

But then there's nothing stopping adults from creating and selling proof values to kids

That's also true for alcohol and tobacco.

nileshtrivedi• 2 years ago

What happens if the account belongs to the parent but all the content is by the child?

stephen_g7• 2 years ago

Careful there, you've potentially just thought about this more deeply than any of the politicians in our Parliament has...

2OEH8eoCRo04• 2 years ago

Yes, because kids love when parents are all up in their social media accounts watching their interactions. What about parents who just buy their kids booze?

makeitdouble3• 2 years ago

Is the actual discussed measure available somewhere ? Looking around none of the articles discussing this had references to official documents.

Judging from the info in the article:

- kids will have one year to see which platforms are not categorized as SNS, yet can be used as such.

- kids stuck with brainwashing parents, especially in remote rural areas, will have it a bit more tougher I guess.

llui854• 2 years ago

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi... (explanatory memorandum here: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/em...)

And the amendment to the first reading which was agreed to today which has the bits about ID verification being disallowed: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/am... (supplementary explanatory memorandum here: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/em...)

mavhc2• 2 years ago

Not disallowed, just they also have to offer an alternative.

Question is why hasn't Australia created a Digital ID system that can prove you're >= 16 years old without giving away other info?

defrost• 2 years ago

This was rushed through with a public comment period of 24 hours.

It's going to be a mess, while the spirit is well intentioned it has edge cases up the wazoo, foot guns galore, and stinks of back door government ID for adults.

Pretty much the only media outlet in Australia that stood up with questions and non fawning commentary was Crikey:

eg: https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/11/26/teen-social-media-ban-s...

and: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Acrikey.com.au+social+...

This was deeply rooted in traditional media ( Murdoch News et al ) in AU putting pressure on the Government in AU to take action against Facebook & Co. after the ceasation of payments for linking to news media.

123yawaworht456• 2 years ago

for-profit media unapologetically uses what little influence they have left to smear their competitors, hence all the drivel: "think of the children / fear the evil russians!" about social media and "think of the copyright holders / fear the evil terminators!" about AI.

God wills it, ten years from now they will all be out of job. The publications will still be there, of course, but the shilling will be delegated to LLMs prompted by Bangladeshi youths for $5 a day, with a few meatsack editors to set the tone.

stephen_g7• 2 years ago

It's vibes based - the definitions could cover almost any online service, but the Minister of Communications gets to decide who will be targeted.

They have zero detail on how to verify anybody's age. But massive fines if the tech companies fail. Basically the only reliable way to do it would be to ID everyone, but then they had to sort of mostly rule that out in a rushed amendment yesterday to get it past the Conservatives (Liberal/National Party) because they neeed their votes in the Senate.

So basically they're asking tech companies to come up with magical technology to perfectly know how old someone is without any identification.

lmpdev• 2 years ago

My friend is a media lawyer in Australia

He can’t even advise if some video game developers he represents’ multiplayer games are exempt from the ban

He says the legislation is just an under defined word salad

Note this was several days ago and it may have been amended in the mean time

InsideOutSanta• 2 years ago

"He can’t even advise if some video game developers he represents’ multiplayer games are exempt from the ban"

There are a lot of issues with this legislation, but I'm not sure this is one of them. Games like Roblox are so exploitative, they're probably worse for children than most social media.

See, for example: https://www.eurogamer.net/roblox-exploiting-young-game-devel...

liminvorous• 2 years ago

The point is not about whether video games should be exempt, it's about being able to tell whether they are covered by this law or not

fwsgonzo• 2 years ago

I have to strongly agree here. Video games are not free from the social media problems that we are trying to free ourselves from. We also have parents and close family that have been caught in outrage nets, and who knows when, if they will ever be free? We know the pipeline for right-wing grifters.

Who doesn't have any taters in the family these days? A literal human trafficker and pimp who has been in prison is giving advice to our youth in droves. More than you will ever know. My family members stopped talking about it, and started complaining about how we can't talk about things anymore once they discovered that outside of their bubble people know what these monsters/grifters actually do.

lawn2• 2 years ago

I'd guess that some games should be banned too but not everything. Something like Street Fighter is widely different from Roblox for example.

The problem with a badly written law is how can you decide which is which?

johnisgood5• 2 years ago

Roblox already filters out a lot of words, including links (to social media and whatnot especially). They filter so many words they may just shut down the chats entirely.

stephen_g7• 2 years ago

This is a trend in lawmaking in Australia, and it's seriously damaging. It's basically written so the Government's Minister of Communications gets to decide who to directly target (or not target) with the law.

Basically allows them to arbitarily apply the law to some parties and not others, with no right of appeal. That does lead to potential constitutionality concerns, but it would take years for it to be struck down if so, if a service is affected and eventually gets it before the High Court.

MichaelZuo• 2 years ago

Isn’t that what the electorate desires?

By electing personable but mediocore, sometimes even incompetent, MPs over the intelligent but aloof candidates.

Someone or some committee, somewhere, still has to actually work out all the details, and if it’s not done in Parliament, because the average MP literally can’t grasp even half the agenda items, it has to be done elsewhere.

Edit: And even that is probably being too optimistic, I’ve heard of MPs who can’t even remember the key facts and figures from the last 100 executive summaries they’ve read. Let alone any detail within the reports whatsoever.

tokai• 2 years ago

Its been going on for so long that its hard to cal it a trend still.

cies2• 2 years ago

He says the legislation is just an under defined word salad

This might be on purpose. I've heard many say online that this law is sold as "save the children" but is designed to be used to get everyone to provide ID when they go/public/message online.

He can’t even advise if some video game developers he represents’ multiplayer games are exempt from the ban

Bad for video game dev's business, and great for lawyers! The interpretation of the law will get clarified by many lawsuits (costing businesses a lot).

71bw5• 2 years ago

I've heard many say online that this law is sold as "save the children" but is designed to be used to get everyone to provide ID when they go/public/message online.

Because this was attempted already, for example with the UK "porn ban" law. And Australia is one of the few countries that are even more batshit insane when it comes to policing and controlling its own population, and possibly the only country where such a law could pass now.

high_na_euv• 2 years ago

What about spirit of the law vs letter of the law?

_hyn32• 2 years ago

Runs smack into the Rule of Lenity.

tiahura2• 2 years ago

I’m not sure how I’m going to be able to sleep tonight knowing the child exploitation industry is experiencing an existential crisis.

rstuart4133• 2 years ago

I haven't read it, but if it follows their previous efforts it will say what they want to happen (which is: get kids off social media), without saying how it will be done. Until the discussion this bill generated the "get kids off social media" meme had fairly broad support. In the currency of the pollies, this translates to "vote winner". Australia has already banned mobile phones at schools, and that looks to be a achieved roughly what everyone though it would. Maybe they expected this to go the same way.

It hasn't. Now the idea has been floated (and the bill passed!) discussion has inevitably turned to "how do we do this". It was the mental heath professionals (of all people) that first voiced objections. Apparently, social media is the main way kids connect with them. Which is kinda obvious if you think about it, because either the family or school seeks help on their behalf, or it's the family / school that's the problem in which case they need to seek help without them knowing.

Next, when it became obvious they were going ahead, where the discussions on how it would be implemented. To give you an idea of how that's panning out, the minister has said kids won't be prosecuted for using social media and just recently said the federal government ID schemes won't be used. Instead the minister said "the platforms will use their existing mechanisms".

If that happens it could end up being a nothing burger. The big platforms already have checkboxes asking "are you over 16" or whatever.

Regardless, they have passed the legalisation now, and the election is coming up soon. It's effects, if any, won't become evident for a year or two. That means they will be able proudly point to it during the election and say "look what we have done for the kids". As one prime minister explained show particularly bad decisions he made at the time "it was just retail politics".

jeremycarter• 2 years ago

What if the platform is not registered as a business in Australia? You can't fine it if it's not a legal entity there. Simply setup a php Facebook clone and host it in another country.

jmyeet• 2 years ago

Facebook does business in Australia. They sell ads.

ChrisRR• 2 years ago

"Simply" If you're making money from aussie customers, you need to comply to aussie rules

rmah• 2 years ago

How will the Australian government compel such companies to comply?

goalieca• 2 years ago

I can’t get behind a ban because we’re fighting an unstoppable force: the connected future. This is the world we live in and kids will have to “evolve” to their new environment.

I think parents and schools need to change the role they play.

dyauspitr5• 2 years ago

Nothing unstoppable about it. It’s about as straightforward and controlling access to tobacco or alcohol.

sneak2• 2 years ago

Or marijuana or cocaine. It’s super easy for the government to deny access to things people want by fiat, as evidenced by the fact that nobody does cocaine anymore.

ysavir• 2 years ago

What changes are you recommending?

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS3• 2 years ago

Kids are looking for community. Connections with other people who they share experiences with (and can make more experiences together). They're looking for others who see the world the way they do.

The solution is more face to face time with other families on a regular basis. Replace Facebook with actual faces.

pineaux• 2 years ago

This is not true. We have a technological tool to block all of that connected future if we want to. It's called "government" and it can even choose to destroy all landlines, jam all satellite signals en fire Rockets at satellites that want to fly over their land while connecting to people on the ground. This IS an option. Maybe not the best or simplest...

mrweasel• 2 years ago

I think parents and schools need to change the role they play.

It's not that I directly disagree, but honestly I don't think parents and schools have much of a fighting chance against companies like TikTok, SnapChat YouTube or Facebook. We need to create rules that prevent companies from employing addictive algorithms which locks users in cycles of endless mind numbing doom scrolling. Once the social media companies have changed their "algorithms" and recommendation engines or removed them entirely, then we can start talking about what parents and schools can do.

gonzo41• 2 years ago

Don't worry, this is performative law making. There's going ot be an election in March, probably called in January. So the government will probably return, then fix and alter this when they work out just how impossible it will be to enforce.

OR, everyone in Australia is going to have to prove their age to use social media, and TBH, social media ain't that great. It just may be the cold shower we all need.

creakingstairs• 2 years ago

I was wondering how "social media" was defined. Anyone got a link to the actual bill?

From the article:

"Messaging apps," "online gaming services" and "services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users" will not fall under the ban, as well as sites like YouTube that do not require users to log in to access the platform.

Almost every "social" apps are basically messaging apps these days. What's the differentiating factor between banned and not banned? Having an algorithmic feed? So YouTube is not banned because its doesn't require users to log in to access the plaform? Can Instagram enable browsing without logging in (and disable some features except DM) to avoid the ban then?

Also, now kids can create YouTube accounts to use shorts as Instagram reels, community posts as Instagram Posts and subscribe to each other. But hey, that's not a "Social media" right?

llui854• 2 years ago

    (i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users;
    (ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users;
    (iii) the service allows end-users to post material on the service;

Linked to the legislation in another comment.

tekla• 2 years ago

This is so generic, you might as well ban the internet.

throwaway69123• 2 years ago

translated, who ever doesnt toe the line

vidarh4• 2 years ago

Guess Australia will get a lot of kids well-versed in VPN use.

gregoryl• 2 years ago

I've recently been teaching kids to code (in Aus) - 7 year olds already know about VPNs, and use them to circumvent various roadblocks to playing roblox!

AlchemistCamp2• 2 years ago

Few things in this world can stop kids from finding a way to play their favorite video games.

Hizonner3• 2 years ago

Until they ban VPNs. Moral panics acknowledge no bounds of sanity.

cherryteastain• 2 years ago

Even China does not have a blanket VPN ban

vidarh4• 2 years ago

Banning VPNs requires significant investment in filtering traffic, because the VPNs these kids will be using won't be hosted in Australia.

ocschwar4• 2 years ago

What we'll learn first is how schools use the new law as a tool for limiting device access in general and kids spend 8 hours a day reliving Gen-X.

lm284695• 2 years ago

According to recent studies kids don't know what a file or a folder is and can't even copy/paste anymore, I think we have a good margin.

vidarh4• 2 years ago

You don't need any of those things to figure out how to install a VPN. My son had installed a VPN before he knew those concepts because a VPN mattered to him to circumvent region locks while knowing what folders are didn't.

Toorkit• 2 years ago

"Hey guys, it's time to talk about our sponsor, Surf shark VPN"

whimsicalism9• 2 years ago

file/folder abstractions are irrelevant for most mobile users. VPN is a different axis

academic_84572• 2 years ago

Yes, this is flawed legislation, and yes kids will find ways to bypass these protections.

But I think this is a step in the right direction. There is clear evidence of the harms caused by social media, especially for adolescents. We have to start trying things - albeit imperfectly - to get to a better place. We can learn a lot from the outcomes of this experiment.

stephen_g7• 2 years ago

The key feedback that was unaniamous from all the experts that managed to reply to the Government's 24-hour consultation period was that they all agreed a blanket ban is the worst way to approach the platform (they were all ignored by all but a few Senators).

An interesting part of the ban is that kids will be banned from Instagram, but sites like 4chan (and ovbiously anything on the dark web, which teens might now be more motivated to access) will be out of the reach of it...

Hizonner3• 2 years ago

Nice of you to volunteer others as experimental subjects.

maxglute• 2 years ago

World is divided by people who grew up with social media and people who didn't. I'd imagine there's already ample longitudinal metrics to extrapolate differences and draw conclusions between the two groups. The experiment's not really whether social media is bad for adolescents, but whether one can successfully legislate to reduce social media use among them. Not holding my breath.

johnisgood5• 2 years ago

We have taken such steps in many areas now, and it simply does not work. We can keep trying this old, tired method, but it does not work. I do not want ID verification for the Internet either, to be honest.

from-nibly• 2 years ago

The fact that kids are going to circumvent the rules means that it's going to be a wild back and forth between companies and the courts when they do.

alt2276• 2 years ago

kids will find ways to bypass these protections.

But this is a change in law. Yes kids will easily be able to access social media if they want to, but it will be illegal and punishable.

whimsicalism9• 2 years ago

could you share the clear causal evidence?

soulofmischief12• 2 years ago

Make absolutely no mistake. The real reason why politicians push through these anti-social media laws is to prevent children from networking and discussing and sharing revolutionary ideas.

These laws are designed to prevent generations from establishing a baseline sociopolitical coherency and unity.

I was subject to a home firewall and computer use surveillance as a child for the exact same reason, because my cult guardians did not want me encountering unapproved ideas or networking with like-minded individuals who might weaken their ability to control and brainwash me.

I was treated as a criminal, and so my response was to educate myself deeply in how to succeed as a criminal. I learned to hack my imposed surveillance systems, and then hack websites on the web. I learned how to lie and manipulate authority in order to survive without compromising my internal compass. I collectivized with other hackers.

Is that the path we want every child subject to these bans to take? I fortunately have a moral and ethical foundation which led to me using my skills for good, but I am certainly capable of quite a lot of things that wouldn't be a net good for society, and I know how to get away with it. Perhaps we shouldn't teach a generation of repressed children these skills, and institutionalize them from a young age in opposition to society.

This is the exact same mechanism used to criminalize cannabis smokers. Smoking cannabis in my late teens and early twenties in a state where it was illegal led me to learning quite a lot about how to navigate the criminal underbelly of the world. The "gateway drug" rhetoric becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, enacted by the very people who lie through their teeth about their intentions.

Oppose these laws. Violently, if necessary. If you are a child, learn how to protect yourself online, familiarize yourself with security culture, and continue to safely and covertly network with other children online.

Form strong bonds. Collectivize. Create art, study politics and science. Make lasting, useful connections. Broadcast and distribute your opinions and demands of your governing bodies.

This is what being a child growing up on the internet is about. I owe everything in my life to my formative years on the internet. It was an escape hatch from my abusive home. I learned a lot, and formed precious memories joining and starting forums and chat rooms in my youth. I would probably be dead today without the web.

Attack the real problem. The techniques which certain social media sites use to manipulate and hook children and others are well-documented. Ban them. Make an example of their practitioners. The web that I grew up on did not have these problems.

Fuck Australia, and fuck every other person who dares to suggest that children should not be allowed to congregate safely online and be allowed to navigate society and culture according to their own compass.

reliabilityguy2• 2 years ago

Sorry, but it’s rubbish.

Are you saying that all the people who were 16 and grew up without social media had no social connections? Didn’t form strong bonds with their peers?

Social media is absolutely terrible for kids. Social media absolutely destroyed social skills in teens.

soulofmischief12• 2 years ago

I personally lived in a very backwater state, surrounded by racist conservatives, and was raised hardcore Catholic by extremely abusive guardians. I owe every single ounce of my rationality to the web and the ideas and people I encountered there.

Facebook, etc are definitely terrible for kids. But the wording of these laws is intentionally vague, in order for these kinds of laws to be used according to the whim of the incumbent, as a tool of oppression.

actionfromafar• 2 years ago

You may also be just the right age to have had access to an internet less dominated by doomscrolling and bullying.

soulofmischief12• 2 years ago

I think there was a ton of bullying depending on what part of the internet you spent your time in, but importantly it was very easy to find inclusive, safe spaces.

Today, it is not as easy. This is probably part of why so many have moved to group chats and direct messages for online interaction in recent years.

sneak2• 2 years ago

Someone’s never been on 1998 hacker IRC.

kspacewalk2• 2 years ago

I think it's safe to say that, in under-16s, cyberbullying and susceptibility to intentionally addictive social media algorithms are a bit more of a common problem than revolutionary activities. Any would-be Che Guevaras can put in the time arousing the working class in person until such time as they can grow facial hair.

soulofmischief12• 2 years ago

Then we attack the systemic issues, instead of pushing through intentionally vague legislation. Some of the similar legislation being explored by multiple US states is frightening.

raxxorraxor10• 2 years ago

I don't think you have addressed the criticism and the alleged solution is ineffective as well.

cityofdelusion• 2 years ago

Opposing a social media law “violently” is not an appropriate call to action. That said, the web of yesteryear and the way kids use social media today could not be any more different. Kids mindlessly scrolling through oceans of vanity, teen girls with more and more suicidal, being stuck in the high-school bullying social environment 24/7. The laws are a response to a real issue — especially as parents themselves get addicted / stuck in the same ways. They have kids and are rightfully fearful. I grew up in the same awesome web, but it sucks now, commercialized and tapped for every last cent it can produce.

soulofmischief12• 2 years ago

Opposing a social media law “violently” is not an appropriate call to action.

Every single ounce of freedom you enjoy today was won with bloodshed. There is nothing extreme about reminding your local legalized mafia who is actually in charge: the People. Your compromised governments work hard to condition you to think otherwise.

Direct political violence should always an absolute last resort, when every other realistic option has been exhausted. However, every freedom is ultimately backed by threat of violence, even when it isn't said aloud.

The laws are a response to a real issue

They use a real issue as a vehicle for tightening the authoritarian ratchet. All good antidemocratic legislation is wrapped in legitimate issues. But what authoritarian governments such as Australia fear is the power of unification which the internet offers new generations.

maxehmookau• 2 years ago

Rising up violently to protect my child's right to scroll mindless on TikTok for hours? No. Social media today is unrecognisable to the internet that you, or I grew up with.

Children will always network, and share ideas and form community. They don't need to do it on a platform designed to exploit as much of their attention as possible as a way to sell advertisements.

I think children should be able to congregate safely online. If you think a meta-owned platform is a good place to do that, I've got bad news for you.

I think a lot of my generation owes a lot to the internet during our formative years too, but the idea that Meta offers anything other than a curated stream of addictive ragebait nowadays is for the birds. Maybe this ban will encourage teenagers to hang out in less corporately owned spaces online. I can hope.

An outright ban probably won't work, but it sends a signal that perhaps society needs to use the internet better to be a benefit.

soulofmischief12• 2 years ago

The problem is that the wording of these laws carry a common thread of intentional vagueness, such that the laws can be abused for ideological persecution and maintaining the status quo.

I'm all for directly banning certain practices Meta and others engage in, within scope. I'm completely opposed to ideological oppression.

alexhawdon• 2 years ago

Questions about how this is going to be implemented and enforced from a technical and legal perspective are missing the point/benefit: this is about empowering parents and collectively changing behaviours.

"It's against the law so no you can't" isn't going to work with EVERY 14 year old. But it will work for many and hopefully that's enough.

stephen_g7• 2 years ago

I actually see this as potentially damaging to society. "It's against the law for you to use any website that lets you look at cat pictures and make any contact with anybody else" is so silly that kids are going to see right through that, and rightly not care about following it. So they're going to have less respect for the rule of law generally...

I'm very big on compentent laws, but also on just not having silly laws. It devalues the whole system...

(I would also wonder how many 14-year olds you know if you think this would work for many, but also I suppose that could be a cultural difference)

TomK323• 2 years ago

Here in Austria in fourth grade kids take a little test for their bicycling skill. Not that it matters much in a car-centric country, but people forget that cycling, even in company with a parent, give kids the chance to learn the necessary traffic rules. Why not have something similar for social media or as the problem seems to be general conduct in social media, educate the kids and give them better ways to raise the alarm when things to bad. Just banning kids won't help them much.

tilolebo• 2 years ago

Right. Let's do the same for drugs.

Irony aside, these platforms are addictive and polarizing by design. I doubt a little test will change anything.

lukan5• 2 years ago

You realize HN here is social media, too?

g105b• 2 years ago

You're being facetious but I genuinely think it's a good idea to normalise drugs. I believe that part of the problem with drugs is that they're considered forbidden, so if you share my viewpoint then it's not too dissimilar to the problems with social media or other addictive-but-bad-for-you products.

lintfordpickle• 2 years ago

as the problem seems to be general conduct in social media

is that the problem? I'd have thought the problem is more about the ill effects of social media on children, not the children's behavior on said social media.

TomK323• 2 years ago

Hen or egg? To make it worse, for some it's simple in their nature to show some degree of anti-social behaviour. We all have to learn how to interact with others in a social manner, be it on the playground, school or internet.

stephenitis2• 2 years ago

This sounds like a good idea, at least actively educate them about the psychological game they may choose to play

valval• 2 years ago

It’s not trivial to teach someone about a subject we don’t understand ourselves.

dhx2• 2 years ago

Here in Australia we teach kids real bicycling skills like how to socially share bets with their friends on the Sportsbet app for Tour de France 2025.[1][2] Thankfully this bill doesn't restrict Australian kids from learning these important life lessons every few minutes within a 10 hour long loop of Baby Shark.

[1] https://www.sportsbet.com.au/betting/cycling/tour-de-france/...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrTFl1gKEuk

AlchemistCamp2• 2 years ago

It's a bit difficult to tell from your comment what you meant by "Not that it matters much in a car-centric country". Do you mean that Austria is "car-centric"? Or that it isn't?

I grew up in America, Colorado to be more specific, and rode a bicycle all over my neighborhood (where there wasn't that much traffic) as a 7-12 year-old. Later, I biked to work in Chia-yi, Taiwan, where there was a bit more car traffic and then still later I did so from Mountain View to Palo Alto, when there was still more. In all cases, I found it very useful to be familiar with traffic rules!

asgerhb• 2 years ago

My thoughts immediately go to all the queer kids in rural areas who stand to be cut off from the only support networks they have.

adventured2• 2 years ago

Any and all kids in rural areas.

Experience deprivation is a very real thing. I grew up in a desolate rural area, circa the 1980s and 1990s. The Internet - WebChatBroadcasting, ICQ, IRC, etc - was like a gift from the gods in the early 1990s.

Cutting off young teens from access to the world via 'social media,' is a human rights violation.

dngray• 2 years ago

That very reason was raised in parliament, during question time by one senator, but neither side (LNP/Labor) gives a shit.

BSDobelix4• 2 years ago

The internet today is a very different place from the 90's. I really hope your children don't have access to the sickest, shallowest, most addictive and most dangerous place on the net.

owisd2• 2 years ago

The idea that social media is like a Meta commercial, all making new friends and video calls to smiling Grandparents, etc. is a fabrication, presumably one that a lot of HN folks have a vested interest in maintaining. Kids are lonelier now than they have ever been.

DrillShopper• 2 years ago

Cutting off young teens from access to the world via 'social media,' is a human rights violation.

Is that more or less of a human rights violation than preventing children from buying alcohol, preventing them from buying cigarettes, preventing them from buying pornography, preventing them from voting, preventing them from working full time, preventing them from entering into contracts, or preventing them from driving an automobile?

Ratelman• 2 years ago

I'd say human rights violation is a bit of a stretch - the negative impact of social media use on an adolescent's psychological well-being is well documented - so possibly even the exact opposite.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS3• 2 years ago

The Internet - WebChatBroadcasting, ICQ, IRC, etc - was like a gift from the gods in the early 1990s.

I grew up in a wealthy very tech-savvy area, and most kids except the really geeky like me didn't get internet until the mid or late 1990s, so you weren't as "backwards" as you think. You would have still been on the bleeding edge to have internet in the early 1990s.

tdb78932• 2 years ago

I think messaging apps are exempted so hopefully online communities in places like Discord will be perfectly fine

whimsicalism9• 2 years ago

if Discord is fine then I really don’t understand this legislation at all…

DaiPlusPlus• 2 years ago

My thoughts immediately go to all the queer kids in rural areas who stand to be cut off from the only support networks they have

I shared those concerns at first - as that was similar to my situation (though less lgbt+ but more just on-the-spectrum stuff), but if the article is correct then I find myself strongly in support (so-far...): my impression is that this is targeting the kinds of vacuous mass-market "engagement"-driven social-media services that us HN denizens aren't exactly fans of: Facebook, Instagram, the like. The article says that sites like YouTube and IM services are exempt.

Messaging apps, "online gaming services" and "services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users" will not fall under the ban, as well as sites like YouTube that do not require users to log in to access the platform.

-----

For an anecdote: when I was middle-school-aged and unsupervised on the net, the "mainstream" platforms of the day (AOL Groups, I guess?) were just as unappealing then as Facebook is today (fortunately I wasn't on AOL anyway) - instead I found my home in places you get to via IRC - or extremely niche phpNuke-then-phpBB sites: these places aren't run by companies, just basement-dwelling sysadmins so they'd be exempt I imagine, so it doesn't look like any harm will come to those kinds of places.

For those youngsters-that-dont-fit-in starting their journey of self-discovery, I think getting banned from Facebook is a good start. Who wants their parents (and let's be honest: it's only our parents on Facebook now anyway) to get notified about your joining a cybergoth meetup group.

...now if only we could ban everyone else off Facebook too.

ocschwar4• 2 years ago

I shared those concerns at first - as that was similar to my situation (though less lgbt+ but more just on-the-spectrum stuff)

The catch is, unfortunately, that our social media data trails make it all to feasible to detect which of us is on the spectrum using machine learning.

And which if our kids have what is vulgarly called "daddy issues."

And which of us are beginning to succumb to schizophrenia.

We've only begun to see the creepy dystopian consequences of centrally archived social media.

idisagree• 2 years ago

immediately concerned with the leftist recruiting ring that social media had become, being compromised. I've already trawled your internet presence enough to know you're an activist. you're revolting.

ChrisArchitect• 2 years ago

[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42251758

Funes-2• 2 years ago

Reminder that, often, that which is intended to be passed as a measure to enforce moral rules or increase security is actually a way to deprive you of your privacy.

shadowgovt• 2 years ago

Heh. Good luck with that.

puppycodes3• 2 years ago

jinx

cies2• 2 years ago

What is social media? Is HN social media? Is a news paper site with a comment section social media? And FB-messenger, is that part of it?

bloak• 2 years ago

The Online Safety Act 2021 (https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2021A00076/latest/text) says:

(1) For the purposes of this Act, social media service means: (a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions: (i) the sole or primary purpose of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end‑users; (ii) the service allows end‑users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end‑users; (iii) the service allows end‑users to post material on the service; (iv) such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules; or (b) an electronic service specified in the legislative rules; but does not include an exempt service (as defined by subsection (4)). Note: Online social interaction does not include (for example) online business interaction.

Since "business interaction" is mentioned as an example of something that is not "social interaction" one might plausibly claim that "social interaction" should be interpreted quite narrowly, and then one could claim both that the primary purpose of HN is not interaction at all (it's a new aggregator) and that any interaction that does happen to take place in the comments is not "social" interaction but some other kind of interaction.

(It really does say "2 or more" rather than "two or more".)

xp842• 2 years ago

If you’re tempted to think “this isn’t worth it, too hard to enforce without affecting something else”… read “The Anxious Generation” by Jonathan Haidt. There is very real, irreparable harm being done to young people, and it merits trying to make it right, not just surrendering to it.

Surely the problem of verifying a property of someone (the Boolean of “is over X age”) without sharing further details, is a surmountable problem given all the cryptographic technologies at our disposal. If a government wants to make this possible, given they know everyone’s birthdate, they could.

brookst2• 2 years ago

The information theory problem is how to do so without creating a government ledger of every platform that every person uses, and a government kill switch to disable any platform the government doesn’t like.

BadHumans3• 2 years ago

Surely the problem of verifying a property of someone (the Boolean of “is over X age”) without sharing further details, is a surmountable problem given all the cryptographic technologies at our disposal.

Only if preserving privacy is the goal and I'm sure we both know it isn't.

owisd2• 2 years ago

I guess it will become self-fulfilling if everyone denies that there are privacy friendly options. Legislatures globally are starting to take this seriously so chances are it's happening one way or another.

isodev• 2 years ago

Indeed, the challenge is already resolved in Europe by eID/EIDAS in a privacy respecting way, so the technology exists and it's already proven on a large scale.

voltaireodactyl• 2 years ago

My issue with this idealistic and understandable perspective is that it completely ignores all historical precedent in the modern age. That is to say: if you think the government is going to use this as anything other than an opportunity to turn all those little dots on the GPS tracker into fully-authenticated names and profiles they can keep tabs on 24/7, I have a bridge to sell you.

And if you think the third parties they contract out the tracking to won’t sell that info/access for profit, I have some magic beans as well.

I support keeping kids protected. I’m just not naive enough to think the current governments of the world have any interest in achieving that goal while maintaining any semblance of privacy for their citizens.

ocschwar4• 2 years ago

Frankly I want Australia to go ahead with this law so the rest of us can have a test case for it. If it works well we can copy it with tweaks. If not, then we know to seek other options.

_hyn32• 2 years ago

What is the acceptance criteria for this test case?

egorfine3• 2 years ago

It will not work and this is exactly why it will be copied.

casey2• 2 years ago

What do you even mean by "work". You live in a fantasy land if you think the government will say we expect outcomes A, B and C from this law and will repeal or adjust it if all outcomes aren't met in 3 years. It's either a power grab or lobbying as others have suggested.

SERIOUSLY! Is anyone claiming that childhood depression and suicide will go down to some range after this law is put in effect? Of course not. Will grades go up? "Government says I can't use social media, guess I'll study, go to sleep on time, and become a productive worker." - Average Australian kid? Will the number of sextortion caused suicides (in the <16 bracket) go back to 0 from 1 to the glory days of 2021 when social media didn't exist (nope, because he was 17 when he died and that was last year). Will the number of girls being sextorted for cash decrease? (reading this [1] you can just ask and they'll tell you, that's great, also it's the general sentiment between students that social media should be banned, another big win! Isn't it convenient when reality bends to ideology.) How exactly can you measure this? Is there a counter of the number of <16s who have seen porn/gore on social media and became too misogynistic or too autistic (or too much of a gay, trans, pedophile, brainrotted, degenerate, debauched, profligate, libertine, licentious, effeminate, wanton, vicious, perverse, recreant, lascivious, unrīht sodomite) for the government's taste? Anything more than a vague sense that cyberbulling will go down and irlbullying will go up a bit? probably Who knows, who cares! We allegedly have vague public sentiment! So grab away!

It's blindingly obvious that this ban can't and won't change <16s habits past switching from their favorite app to whatever their friends are using now.

[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/australian-father-of-te...

kevinh• 2 years ago

The Anxious Generation is poorly researched pop science book that people believe to be true because it feels intuitively right to them.

acron0• 2 years ago

Is this just your opinion, or is there a scientific retort I can read?

skyyler3• 2 years ago

On the surface it seems very similar to a book he previously worked on, The Coddling of the American Mind, which is also full of poorly researched pop science that confirms biases people already had.

Kind of an "airport book"

qball• 2 years ago

Just like "the science" about brain development ages.

rpdillon2• 2 years ago

I have tried to find good scientific evidence that shows that social media is a net negative for kids and or adults. I have been unable to do so.

Reports that I read on conventional media sites often summarize government reports, but they do so incorrectly. And when I go and read the government reports, they present a much more balanced picture than the summaries would suggest. In particular, for marginalized teens, social media represents a unique avenue to connect with teens in similar situations, which provides a significant support network.

I know it's popular now to say that social media is the root of all evil, but I would be very curious to see a scientific justification for banning it for kids under 16. Just a few years ago, this was a concern presented as 'screen time', but I had similar problems there. There's no real evidence to suggest that looking at a screen is the problem...the much more difficult and interesting problem is what you're doing when you're looking at the screen. There's a similar dynamic in play with social media, I think.

For example, Hacker News is the only social media that I use, and I feel that I use it very differently than folks that use Instagram, for example. Can they be effectively conflated?

lm284695• 2 years ago

I have tried to find good scientific evidence that shows that social media is a net negative for kids and or adults. I have been unable to do so.
For example, Hacker News is the only social media that I use

Try spending an hour a day on tiktok (average tiktok user screen time) and 30 min a day on instagram (average ig user screen time) for a year and report back. This shit is crack cocaine for kids

fsflover5• 2 years ago

I have tried to find good scientific evidence that shows that social media is a net negative for kids and or adults. I have been unable to do so.

Facebook knows Instagram is toxic for teen girls, company documents show (wsj.com)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28523688

Facebook proven to negatively impact mental health (tau.ac.il)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32938622

Testimony to House committee by former Facebook executive Tim Kendall (house.gov)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24579498

nihzm• 2 years ago

I have tried to find good scientific evidence that shows that social media is a net negative for kids and or adults. I have been unable to do so.

The author mentioned by GP is currently working on a similar questions collecting, reviewing and categorizing known literature in these open access documents [1][2]. I suggest you take a look if you are interested in the topic.

For example, Hacker News is the only social media that I use, and I feel that I use it very differently than folks that use Instagram, for example. Can they be effectively conflated?

Well, I would say no. But to have a meaningful discussion we need to first agree on what is meant here with "social media". Clearly, this law has been passed with the intent to affect Meta / ByteDance / Reddit and similar companies with a business model that hinges on capturing as much attention of their users as possible, which is very different from HackerNews. Most accusations to social media begin bad are towards of the former type.

but I would be very curious to see a scientific justification for banning it for kids under 16.

From [1], it seems to me that there is a non-negligible amount of literature that has been accumulating, that could be used to justify the ban. Though, Australia is not a technocracy (I hope), so I would say that there is also a certain degree of "purely social" reasons why they might want to curb the access of social media companies to their youth.

[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w-HOfseF2wF9YIpXwUUtP65-...

[2] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vVAtMCQnz8WVxtSNQev_e1cG...

anneessens2• 2 years ago

In particular, for marginalized teens, social media represents a unique avenue to connect with teens in similar situations, which provides a significant support network.

Thank you for bringing this up. I was one of those 'marginalised' kids who didn't relate to my real life surroundings so much. The internet was like an escape for me, where I was able to meet many close friends with similar interests on social medias like Twitter and Discord. Not to mention, free internet access in general taught so much about the world, developed my passions and helped determine what I'm now studying and planning to pursue as a career.

If social media was banned when I was younger, it would have made me worse off for sure. And if there were internet/device restrictions more broadly, like I'm often seeing suggested, it would have been absolutely devastating for me. My life would have turned out completely different, in a bad way.

On a site like HN, I would have expected there to be much more people who also had the same experience as younger me with the internet and social media. But for some reason, most of the dominant sentiment here seems to consider social media as a cancer, with no nuance. I'm not sure why they do, but I wish that these people would consider the experiences of people like me.

mcdeltat• 2 years ago

It seems plausible that social media is part-cause, part-symptom of a larger shift away from "real" socialisation. I don't have any scientific evidence for it, so feel free to debate. In general in doesn't seem like a controversial opinion to notice that how we are, socially, has changed over time, probably not for the better. It might be that it's hard to pin down one major cause, because the whole system is moving in tandem.

Funes-2• 2 years ago

Parents should be more responsible. That's it. This measure is, potentially, deeply ingraining the (terrible) idea that the State is responsible instead, so when all these young kids have children, they, just as their parents, will lack the ability to take responsibility and make their children more responsible by proxy, and so on, and so forth. It's a never ending cycle that is perpetuated by not tackling the problem at its real source. And let's not forget how measures taken in the name of security are oftentimes actually made to deprive us of our privacy.

xyzzy123• 2 years ago

The difficulty is co-ordination. My job as a "responsible parent" is much more difficult if I have to fight prevailing social norms and my kids perceive they are being excluded from conversations and arbitrarily cut off from their peers.

The social media ban is similar to the logic behind gaming limits in China. The idea is that while the controls themselves are easily circumvented, it gives everyone an excuse to do the right thing.

Parents don't have infinite "control tokens". I only have time & energy to put my foot down about a limited number of things. It is much easier to establish conventions around responsible behaviour if the whole community is behind it.

I am OK with this ban for the same reason I'm OK with tobacco sellers being not allowed to sell to under 18s.

azemetre• 2 years ago

How does a parent compete with trillion dollar corporations that hire psychologist, cognitive scientists, and neuroscientists to make their apps highly addictive?

Being honest here because just telling parents to deal with a societal ill seems very shortsighted and comes from an immense place of priviledge.

gen220• 2 years ago

I’m sure the same argument was made about tobacco? If you want your children to not smoke tobacco, just be a better parent. How dare the state prevent children from purchasing tobacco? The state is not your parent!

For network effect products (social media, drugs, and alcohol), the easiest solution is in fact to use the government to ban the sale of said products to minors. It’s a coordination problem that’s bigger than the family unit.

lopkeny12ko• 2 years ago

"Ban social media for everyone because it might be bad for some kids" is as fragile as an argument as "ban guns for everyone because some bad guy might get his hands on one."

Supernaut• 2 years ago

Well, "ban guns for everyone because some bad guy might get his hands on one" has always been the law in my country, and it has worked out extremely well. There has never been a mass shooting here, ever.

Vegenoid• 2 years ago

Most countries ban guns for everyone, with that being the primary reason. It is not a fragile argument, it is simply a different weighting of values.

When I say “ban”, I mean “heavily restrict and track”, which is how I gather we are using the term “ban” in this context as well.

watwut2• 2 years ago

That book is nice example of a case "if you have a hammer you want to push, everything looks like a nail".

crazygringo• 2 years ago

is a surmountable problem given all the cryptographic technologies at our disposal

I'm genuinely curious, is it? I don't know enough to be sure one way or the other, how you'd do it with some kind of private/public key thing or whatever. Can anyone here provide a quick example?

And I'm assuming it would involve some kind of code generated on the spot just for you, so somebody couldn't just post a code on the internet for all teens to use.

whimsicalism9• 2 years ago

i would prefer if we didn’t decide policy based on pop-sci books.

iamthemonster• 2 years ago

Yeah I don't understand the particular revulsion to showing ID here. The concept of showing your ID to get access to something is very well embedded across alcohol, driving, cigarettes, your myGov account, Medicare, air travel, all sorts.

tootie2• 2 years ago

I know this is targeting social media but just pointing out that there is no evidence screen time is affecting kids development and pretty solid evidence that it doesn't have much effect at all.

https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/news-events/no-evidence-screen-time...

averysmallbird• 2 years ago

There’s a difference between screen time and social media usage.

tootie2• 2 years ago

FTA

"One also suggested we take a look at social media on its own because it’s a source of worry for many and we did not find anything special about this form of online engagement.”

It's a subset of what they studied. Surely a lot of screen time is spent on social media. They did not observe anything special about time spent on social media. A more in-depth study may yield more insight but there is no thread to pull on from this study. Only parents' misgivings.

blackeyeblitzar• 2 years ago

With every passing year I can’t help but think Jonathan Haidt was right all along. I think this will be a very successful law in terms of positive societal impact. But I do worry about the negative repercussions of being able to ban means of practicing free speech. Australia already has a bad track record for that.

BadHumans3• 2 years ago

I'm torn here because I think there is very real harm being done with social media not just to kids but to adults as well but you should look at anything being "to protect the children" with extreme prejudice as it is likely just a power grab and way to reduce privacy. The saying "never let a good tragedy go to waste" comes to mind here.

afavour9• 2 years ago

Like the spirit, dislike the execution.

Passing legislation to “protect the kids” is politically easy. Bans are simple. Much more effective, IMO, would be to legislate the way social networks behave. Stop their most addictive patterns. Adults are just as susceptible as kids in my experience. If there needs to be anything kid specific, perhaps a block on using the service during school hours, or only for X hours a day.

2OEH8eoCRo04• 2 years ago

Well when then fuck are social media companies going to take their responsibility seriously?

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF2• 2 years ago

When it becomes an obligation.

to1y• 2 years ago

What is their responsibility and what are they doing that is so insidiously addictive exactly? Endless shitposts by your friends for you to scroll-through is that the fentanyl of the internet? To me this just seems like they're trying to get some control over what people are exposed to and to find out who's doing what.

slibhb5• 2 years ago

Governments should not be in the business of telling tech companies how to design software.

Honest observers will look back on the anti-social-media movement as a moral panic. It isn't so much that social media is good, it's that the proper attitude toward new, scary things is to integrate them into your life in a healthy way rather than banning them.

And if we should ban anything it's drugs and gambling, not tiktok

lm284695• 2 years ago

it's that the proper attitude toward new, scary things is to integrate them into your life in a healthy way rather than banning them

Exactly, just like we did with DDT, leaded paint, leaded gas, freon in fridges, uranium in lipsticks, PFAS, food additives, &c.

Governments should not be in the business of telling tech companies how to design software.

And tech companies should't be in the business of influencing who will govern you

LightHugger• 2 years ago

Just like how we look at the anti tobacco movement as a moral panic? I think not.

afavour9• 2 years ago

And if we should ban anything it's drugs and gambling, not tiktok

You realise children can legally do neither, right?

Government should be in the business of improving citizens lives. As another commenter said, left to their own devices companies would still be using leaded paint everywhere if it was 1c cheaper per gallon. I’ve grown very tired of this “any regulation is bad regulation” viewpoint, it doesn’t hold up to the slightest bit of scrutiny.

nozzlegear2• 2 years ago

Governments should not be in the business of telling tech companies how to design software.

This sounds a lot like "Governments should not be in the business of telling tobacco companies how to design cigarettes." Social media use is a problem for developing brains. I'm not saying I like Australia's plan, but, like the person you're replying to, I like the spirit of it.

rightbyte2• 2 years ago

Honest observers will look back on the anti-social-media movement as a moral panic.

It is a justified 'moral panic'. The social media companies have way too much power over peoples' conception of reality.

bgun2• 2 years ago

You realize that video slots, financial software, HR software, legal software, educational software and MANY more all have some amount of regulatory compliance, right? Do you think social media is special somehow and should just get a free pass when aspects of it have been shown to be potentially dangerous?

lm284695• 2 years ago

Good luck with that, these companies weight more than most countries. Meta &co won't disclose their secret sauce and/or change their algorithms because a small country asked politely.

Social medias are like petrol, we're addicted and they provide way too much power to the people controlling them, we all know what the right moves are but nobody will pull the trigger.

dyauspitr5• 2 years ago

I think the execution is bad because I don’t know how it’s going to be enforced. It explicitly says you can’t use government ID.

pas6• 2 years ago

Are they going to use some kind of video verification (which is just some AI/ML guessing the age based on the video?) and usual signals (ie. if the user likes too many stuff that kids like they will be flagged, and their account suspended)?

Well, I guess it will lead to kids getting a bit better at asking older folks for help.

brokenmachine4• 2 years ago

It says they can't use government ID exclusively.

They have to also offer an alternative, which is not specified...

Agreed, the execution is bad.

psychoslave• 2 years ago

Much more effective, IMO, would be to legislate the way social networks behave. Stop their most addictive patterns.

We are less likely to change behavioral pattern after that period though, like we probably won’t see someone start to smoke at 45. It doesn’t mean it’s impossible of course, but past that age it looks like brains are already on track to become old reactionaries and generate complaints about how things used to be better before.

LoganDark• 2 years ago

I was already generating complaints about how things used to be better before by the age of, like, 10. Nowadays I have a huge list.

wcarss• 2 years ago

I agree with you that changing the behaviour of the networks would be better, but what actions does a state like Australia really have here?

If they just say, "change", it must be backed up by a threat -- "we will fine you" or "we will ban you" are, I think, the most obvious threats available to a state.

But fines can be tricky to exact across borders, especially with bigger states, and if Australia says "change or we'll ban you later", the networks may play chicken and deal with it later, when the threat is real.

Starting with "you're banned" means it's painful now, and it's on the networks to prove they've changed and win a way back in, if they care. They might suddenly be willing to listen to how they need to change to get back in, and get that work done.

I'm not really in favour of bans on access to information or networks of people communicating, but a(n effective) ban does seem like a potentially effective tool to motivate action, even if it lacks nuance and doesn't solve the real problems.

I say "an effective" ban there because, come on, if it's just an age verifier then teenagers will figure it out and the whole thing is toothless, not ruthless.

cen4• 2 years ago

Easiest way it to limit Ads.

If you are selling more ads than there are minutes in a day * population some large enough group is getting mind fucked.

EduardoBautista• 2 years ago

In my experience, the ads are the _least_ harmful parts of social media. It's the regular accounts that are causing FOMO and mental health issues by displaying unrealistic lifestyles that the majority of people won't ever achieve.

jeffhuys• 2 years ago

Much more effective, if it were ever able to actually pass. Which it won’t within reasonable time.

Time for drastic measures.

Cthulhu_5• 2 years ago

Stop their most addictive patterns.

Which are? While it's easy to say things like "oh, infinite scroll is addictive" or "autoplaying videos are addictive", those are only the most obvious ones; (social) media addiction comes in many forms. Old Reddit didn't have infinite scroll and you had to click to open items, but would you argue it wasn't addictive anyways? IRC style chat, news groups and forums didn't have any of the obvious dark addictive patterns we associate with harmful social media nowadays, but we still whiled away the hours on them regardless.

I don't think it'd be as straightforward as banning certain practices. Besides, it'd be a game of whack-a-mole since for every legislation they'll find a way around it, or make it so that the users clamor to bring it back - take the EU privacy directive, it told companies they needed user permissions first. But they - the companies, not the EU or the laws - implemented it in the most obnoxious and harmful way possible to spite their own users and hopefully annoy them so much that they would either just hit accept, or vote the lawmakers out in favor of more economically liberal people.

whimsicalism9• 2 years ago

i find it unfortunate that just because the ‘masses’ are on the internet now, everyone wants to play nanny and govern exactly how you design your website

roody15• 2 years ago

I wonder if we should even call this social media at this point. More like interactive TV 3.0. All the feeds are heavily ad infested and “promoted” content appears from “infliences” .. some people shadow banned while others artificially boosted up your feed.

All designed to maximize your attention but also sway your opinion.

The social part of social media seems to have gone mostly by the wayside.

“Did you see the new dance this one kid did in Texas” like like, hashtag, loved it , repost, etc … not really building much of a social relationship, or perhaps it is and just seems a bit off to us older folks,

egorfine3• 2 years ago

As a father of 4 ranging from 10 to 30+, I certainly hope the law will not practically work and that kids will find a way to use social media.

kQq9oHeAz6wLLS3• 2 years ago

Interesting. My kids aren't allowed on social media, and they're happier and less moody than their friends who are addicted to it. They see it, and don't even want social media anymore because their friends spend so much time on their phones rather than being present and having real experiences.

I don't think I would wish social media on any child, though I believe it's a problem that can be solved not by more laws, but by better parenting.

egorfine3• 2 years ago

better parenting.

And that's the key point. The crucial one.

nomilk4• 2 years ago

Every single Australian's ID will have to be verified (in order to confirm their age).

Depending on the degree of cooperation (/coercion) the Australian government has with social media companies, the Aus Govt will be able to access citizen social media data with relative ease. So no more pseudo anonymous accounts (or, at least, they'll be made more difficult, especially for non-technical folk).

Reminds of the 'chilling effect' of measures of bygone decades.

My personal hunch is legacy media is largely driving this, due to them seeing the writing on the wall and knowing 'social media' is their biggest threat. If young people get their information from sites like bluesky, twitter, podcasts and reddit, they may never watch a mainstream news program or read an online newspaper. Bad for business. This measure is a great way of eradicating some competition.

pmarreck2• 2 years ago

I would like to see some evidence before I buy this conspiracy theory. If anything, I feel like legacy media is too lazy and entrenched to even consider this

nomilk4• 2 years ago

Legacy media are indeed lazy and stupid, but all that's stopping them is the Australian parliament, who are lazier and stupider.

teitoklien• 2 years ago

So lazy that they successfully lobbied governments to ruin their relation with big tech companies like facebook, google etc

To give newspapers 100s of millions of free money just for the “privilege” of linking to their article, a “link tax”.

They are lazy about reporting news without a bias, but they are perfectly active when it comes to lobbying.

afavour9• 2 years ago

My personal hunch is legacy media is largely driving this

The level of conspiracy theory about the “mainstream media” feels out of control at times. Legacy media’s control over the population is already gone (as you stated), with what leverage would they be forcing this?

Occam’s Razor: voters are genuinely concerned about the effect social media is having on kids. As a parent I hear about these concerns a lot. That is what is driving this, no matter how badly thought out the implementation is.

nomilk4• 2 years ago

Australia doesn't (yet) have a thriving podcast and 'new media' landscape as the US recently discovered it had. Many Australians get their news from one of two large companies (News Corp and Nine Entertainment). Those companies therefore still have massive influence over electorates and therefore over politicians.

From the 2 minute mark in this video explains some of the scheming that had been going on: https://twitter.com/ABCmediawatch/status/1860995847418474952

squigz4• 2 years ago

One thing I don't understand: if you and other parents are so concerned about this... why let your children use those sites?

jedberg• 2 years ago

voters are genuinely concerned about the effect social media is having on kids.

But where are they hearing about these effects that get them so concerned? Is it the Australian news?

Australian news is fairly concentrated and is mostly owned by one family. A family that got a law passed forcing only Google and Facebook to pay pretty much only them.

The conspiracy isn't that far fetched.

grecy2• 2 years ago

My personal hunch is legacy media is largely driving this, due to them seeing the writing on the wall and knowing 'social media' is their biggest threat

For anyone that thinks this is tin foil hat stuff, remember the Australian government passed a law that Facebook and Google MUST pay Rupert Murdoch money everytime someone clicks a link on one of those sites to a Rupert Murdoch owned media company (basically all of them).

Yes, really. It only applies to Google and Facebook, and money must be paid to only Rupert Murdoch.

Utterly lost the plot.

yieldcrv2• 2 years ago

Goals

pimterry2• 2 years ago

Every single Australian's ID will have to be verified (in order to confirm their age). Depending on the degree of cooperation (/coercion) the Australian government has with social media companies, the Aus Govt will be able to access citizen social media data with relative ease. So no more pseudo anonymous accounts (or, at least, they'll be made more difficult, especially for non-technical folk).

This isn't a given. It is quite possible to build a reasonably anonymous system to verify age at signup.

As a simplified model: the government creates a website where with your government id/login, they will give you an age-verification-valid-for-5-minutes token - basically just "holder is 16+" signed with their signature & the current time. Websites request a new valid token at signup. End result is that government only knows you're _maybe_ doing _something_ 16+, and the website doesn't know who you are, just that you're old enough (this is clearly improveable, it's just a basic example).

Whether anything like this will be implemented is a hard question of course. The current alternatives I've seen seem to be a fully privatised version of this, where a private company has a video call where you hold up your ID - that eliminates the government, but seems like a whole bunch of privacy concerns in itself too (not to mention being wildly inefficient & probably not very reliable).

formerly_proven• 2 years ago

This is one of the main motivating examples for attribute-based credentials, which provably only reveal the selected attribute to verifiers.

blackoil4• 2 years ago

Why not lock device/accounts as minor and put onus on school and parents to ensure devices are appropriately tagged? At least for pre-teens I strongly think it shall work.

grahamj• 2 years ago

You’re right that it’s possible, absolutely. The problem is the government would first have to want to do that. If they’re planning to hoover up social media usage data then they probably won’t.

Aurornis• 2 years ago

This comes up on every single HN thread about the topic, but I don’t understand how people aren’t seeing the obvious abuse angle:

Create a market for anonymous age verification tokens. People pay $5 to someone to create an age authorization for them. 17 year old kid (who is old enough under this law) spends all day creating anonymous age auth tokens to sell to people who want them.

Entire system subverted with profit motive.

The next phase of the argument is to argue for rate limiting or extra logging, but the more you force that the more you degrade privacy or introduce unreasonable restrictions. “Sorry, I can’t sign up for the wiki today because I already used my quota of 2 government age checks today”. Still leaves plenty of room for 17 year old kids to earn $10 a day farming out their age checks.

The entire argument that anonymous crypto primitive will solve this problem is tiresome.

raxxorraxor10• 2 years ago

Too complicated and no benefit.

Theoretically these double blind systems could be secure, practically I would never trust any of their systems and will opt out of signing up.

Also this fail to account for obviously visible political motivation and further development. Nope, bad idea.

kylecazar• 2 years ago

Bad for business, and arguably, the world.

mickeyfrac• 2 years ago

How many under 16s read newspapers or watch news anyway?

All you need to do is look up the mental health stats since the iPhone release to see why parents are massively concerned. There has never been a time when an alert parent didn’t have a fair idea of what info a kid was exposed to. This is why going to university is such an awakening.

Now the parents basically need a background in infosec to stop their kids accessing hardcore porn, violence and other mind bending content. That only works in your household. Do you stop play dates? Single your kids out as weird by banning all device use?

Societal norms do not move at the speed of technology, so regulation needs to be applied unless there’s another alternative.

nomilk4• 2 years ago

stop their kids accessing hardcore porn, violence and other mind bending content.

Such sites are not among the social media sites required to verify Australian's ID/ages, which hints that protecting kids is merely a pretence.

cs02rm0• 2 years ago

How many under 16s read newspapers or watch news anyway?

That's exactly why there's a suggestion legacy media are driving this.

arresin2• 2 years ago

I think that’s the cover story (because I agree it’s extremely valid).

dryanau• 2 years ago

How many under 16s read newspapers or watch news anyway?

Adults do, and the OP's argument is that everyone (not just U16's) will be driven away by the changes. Being asked to provide ID may result in some just noping out or not signing up to newer services when they otherwise might have.

raxxorraxor10• 2 years ago

Absolutely nothing you describe will be affected by an internet ID. And it doesn't even "Help a little", it just makes many things much worse.

raxxorraxor10• 2 years ago

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/05/03/hours-after-aussie-govt-...

If 16 year olds do indeed access pornography with such an amount of naiveté, there might really be a problem. But there is no indication of a problem, is there?

bix6• 2 years ago

It doesn’t say that?

“Social media companies also won't be able to force users to provide government identification, including the Digital ID, to assess their age.”

yosame2• 2 years ago

Because they won't be forced to provide identification directly, they'll be forced to provide an age verification token that's linked to government identification. It's the same end result (a way to link your identity to the sites you use), but with extra steps.

And honestly with the government's track record when it comes to privacy and technology, I don't think they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

whiplash4512• 2 years ago

Why would you have to jump to the conclusion that identity verification is required to implement this law? The simple existence of this law:

- Requires social media companies to implement rules to prevent <16 to sign up/sign in -- the onus is on them to find the solution, not on the gvt

- Enables parents to tell their <16 kids that social media is illegal

- Will likely drive a number of <16 kids to sign out (not all of them of course, but a bunch)

BigTech has been slapped in the face enough in EU to take this kind of law seriously.

It baffles me that they've gained so much power in the collective consciousness that any law that restricts their usage would have to be implemented by someone else.

_fat_santa• 2 years ago

My personal hunch is legacy media is largely driving this, due to them seeing the writing on the wall and knowing 'social media' is their biggest threat. If young people get their information from sites like bluesky, twitter, podcasts and reddit, they may never watch a mainstream news program or read an online newspaper. Bad for business. This measure is a great way of eradicating some competition.

I wonder, I often see legacy media companies complain about how "new age" media (podcasts, social media, etc) is taking over. Social media has been prominent for at least a decade now and so have Podcasts. Why have so few legacy media companies looked at the writing on the wall and invest in the "new age" media instead of complaining about how it's eating at their business.

I would say NYT is one of the only media org's I've seen execute on this.

EDIT: I thought about my question a bit more and my answer for why they haven't is a "new age" media org would look very different from a traditional media org. But that just brings me back to: THEY HAD OVER A DECADE TO ADJUST.

bryan_w• 2 years ago

Rupert Murdock probably literally thinks the Internet is a fad and that the ad money will come back Any Day Now (TM).

They saw the Napster/Metallica saga play out 20 years ago and thought that would never happen to their form of media

sprice2• 2 years ago

the Aus Govt will be able to access citizen social media data with relative ease. So no more pseudo anonymous accounts

This isn't necessarily true.

It came as a surprise to me, but many "Government Digital ID" systems use Verifiable Credentials[1][2] and Decentralized Identifiers[3].

I live in BC, Canada. I have installed the BC Wallet app[4] which is open source code[5].

With the BC Wallet app, I can create an account using my BC drivers license.

Then I can interact with any third-party app that uses the BC Wallet as an authentication system. If the only thing this app wants to do is confirm my age, it can ask me to reveal my age. I reveal my age (the only piece of data I am choosing to reveal), and the app now knows and can trust (as long as it trusts the BC Wallet) that this is my age.

And the BC Wallet app servers/government never know when I am using the BC Wallet app.

Turns out the future may not be as dystopian as we once thought it may be.

EDIT:

I see now from the article the following:

Social media companies also won't be able to force users to provide government identification, including the Digital ID, to assess their age.

What could have been privacy preserving seems like it won't be.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verifiable_credentials [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/vc-overview/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_identifier [4] https://digital.gov.bc.ca/digital-trust/digital-credentials/... [5] https://github.com/bcgov/bc-wallet-mobile

idunnoman12223• 2 years ago

Proving identity is a hard problem. What’s to stop a kid from grabbing his father’s drivers license and setting up this wallet because eg his father is never going to do it

Secondarily what’s to stop an 18-year-old having hundreds of tiktok accounts and selling them for a dollar to whatever kid wants at is high school

every social media site is going to have to implement Australia’s 2fa system?

raxxorraxor10• 2 years ago

It will never be privacy preserving. Once established and users a hooked up to the service, they mandate further data sharing. Poof.

CatWChainsaw• 2 years ago

So you think that legacy media is behind this because if they could just get that pesky social media banned, those kids would shell out their allowance money to The Economist or The Washington Post? Do you know what Overwatch is? Minecraft? League of Legends?

Or maybe, just maybe, social media sites will be all too happy to gobble up the sweet sweet DATA available from an ID requirement. In the US, this would give social media access to your full name, DOB, address, height/weight/any medical restrictions, and organ donor status, which social media giants will package with all the other stuff they know about you and sell insights to any advertiser or government that flashes cash.

ruthmarx4• 2 years ago

Australians with dual citizenship have an out at least.

worthless-trash2• 2 years ago

I very much doubt this.

jb1991• 2 years ago

This has nothing to do with legacy media, that's not a threat for this age group.

This has everything to do with the mental damage inflicted by social media on developing minds, many of which end in suicide.

pas6• 2 years ago

That but also privacy too. The damage is real, yes, but the negative effect on privacy will also be. (And the Aus gov is extremely far from any kind of principled actor in this to trust them with this experiment. Though I'm very curious of the results now that the experiment is underway anyway...)

Also, of course, quite ironic how everyone is worried about kids' mental health, while brain rot of the voting age population of "the West" had been ongoing for decades. And now the eggs of neopopulism have hatched. (One more unfortunate but quite interesting experiment.)

grecy2• 2 years ago

Every single Australian's ID will have to be verified

Keep in mind all Australians got those IDs from the government in the first place...

ppp999• 2 years ago

Australia was already fucked more than the U.S. before that regarding Police state status... But all world states are walking toward this

Cthulhu_5• 2 years ago

I don't think you need to express any hunches when some sleuthing will reveal the interest/lobby groups, organizations, and politicians and their connections etc that pushed or advocated for this legislation.

That said, your legacy media hunch also doesn't make any sense because this writing on the wall and social media being a threat has been a thing for over twenty years now; they have fully embraced and integrated social media, and have filed lawsuits to get money from them: [0] says Rupert Murdoch's News Corp will get paid by Facebook for News Corp content, specifically in australia but this goes / went on everywhere.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/mar/16/rupert-murdoch...

INTPenis3• 2 years ago

This is going to be an interesting experiment to watch.

Because if I know kids, they will find any creative way they can to circumvent the ban.

And even worse is if some actor out there starts catering to kids by publishing "proxy services".

My opinion on this is that it's the same as banning drugs. People want to use them, and will find any way to use them.

2OEH8eoCRo04• 2 years ago

Some will but at population scale any barrier will decrease usage.

INTPenis3• 2 years ago

We'll see.

If I think back to my own time in school I foresee kids teaching each other the latest circumvention technique.

It might be as simple as using VPN vouchers. Or sharing VPN accounts, or using someone's public VPN server. This is why it'll be so fun to see what they come up with, the kids that is. They're the true innovators, the hackers. ;)

It might be as simple as use of a certain service exploding, a service that has flown under the government radar. Discord for example might not be considered social media but you can turn it into social media using bots.

BeFlatXIII2• 2 years ago

And even worse is if some actor out there starts catering to kids by publishing "proxy services".

How long until this happens and there's a big paedophilia scare so I can point and laugh at everyone involved?

ruthmarx4• 2 years ago

This is where kids might flock to decentralized options like Mastadon or something.

INTPenis3• 2 years ago

I suspect it'll be even simpler. That some major service like Discord for example will fly under the AU government radar simply because it's chat.

cynicalsecurity2• 2 years ago

This is pure insanity. This ban is something the Soviet Union or China would do, not the free world.

krapp• 2 years ago

It wasn't that long ago that Americans were calling TikTok a "Chinese weapon of war and mass indoctrination" and wanting it banned.

To say nothing of everyone wanting Section 230 repealed and the government to regulate social media, requiring a court order for moderation, banning "algorithms" or making social media entirely illegal. The attitude behind this is absolutely endemic across the "free world." Australia is simply a bit further ahead of the curve as far as turning the moral panic over pedos and groomers and Chinese mind control into authoritarian action. As soon as the new regime gets settled in the US I'm sure we'll see something similar. Musk has already made vague threats along those lines.

rdm_blackhole• 2 years ago

Another privacy killing feature coming from a government who can't help themselves from knowing every little detail about everyone's private life.

bArray3• 2 years ago

I generally think that children's access to the internet needs to be more closely monitored. You wouldn't allow your child to walk up to random strangers in the street without you there, why do we allow it online? I have on a few occasions had to protect a child from an adult in an online group.

What concerns me here is how this will be enforced. The only way to implement this is with IDs to check birth dates, and some method to confirm you are the person on the ID. You could imagine this being consolidated into a government ID system to 'protect your data', and to mean you only have to validate once. These accounts will be permanently attached to real people, and I think it will have a chilling effect on free speech. It's all fun and games until the government of the day considers your speech as a threat.

One can see this being expanded too, so that you would need to provide ID to use the internet more generally. ISPs could be told to selectively deliver web pages from DNS based on your ID, which would be most effective on mobile devices and less so on wired networks. My ISP already blocks websites.

I think a more fundamental question is whether the nanny state should be telling you how to raise your children, what content they can consume and who they can interact with. Suddenly you find your children consuming content only from a Z-wing bias because the government of the day hates Y-wing politics.

cynicalsecurity2• 2 years ago

This is the most horrifying thing in all of this. People with a prison guard mentality are already thinking how to enforce the rules in an even stricter way. Rules that are violating freedom of information, one of the most basics Western freedoms. Yes, there are no repreciations for the violating them at first, the frog is getting boiled slowly, but give it a few years and people who let their child use social media will be treated as criminals and put in prisons. Everything "for the sake of children."

blackoil4• 2 years ago

freedom of information, one of the most basics Western freedoms.

Children's access to info is limited in all societies.

2OEH8eoCRo04• 2 years ago

Back in the 90's we were somewhat supervised when using the internet on the family PC. We were also somewhat supervised while watching the family TV.

bArray3• 2 years ago

Good point. There was a technology shift in portability and cost which meant each individual got a personal computer. They went from the common areas to personal spaces like bedrooms.

Maybe a lot of issue could be resolved by just having a phone that has to be in a common space, using a technology like LiFi [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-Fi

zarzavat• 2 years ago

You wouldn't allow your child to walk up to random strangers in the street without you there

This applies to under 16 year olds though, not little children but adolescents. I would hope that every parent of teenagers allows them to talk to random people on the street.

blackoil4• 2 years ago

Instead of binary it should be tiered, complete monitoring of online activity of child till say age 8, to gradually opening the circle till age 14-16. We do it for movies/games.

Der_Einzige3• 2 years ago

The benefit of allowing one nerdy kid unrestricted access to the internet is often larger than literally hundreds of people “harmed” by that very same access.

Trying to kill the pipeline for creating the “hacker” mentality that folks here are supposed to have is supreme level bootlicking. I hope you eventually find it disgusting.

bArray3• 2 years ago

I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. I'm expressing my concerns with these restrictions.

My bigger concern than the creation of a free-thinking hacker - is the creation of a free-thinking society.

AzzyHN• 2 years ago

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

BSDobelix4• 2 years ago

But talking about "social media":

When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you.

hshshshshsh• 2 years ago

What about Legacy idea? Can they still watch TV and read news papers? Isn't this a form of giving control to legacy media and traditionally powerful especially when in US their influence is decreasing?

wkat4242• 2 years ago

I'm definitely not going to ID myself to go on social media. Then I'll just quit (in fact I've quit most social media already anyway due to the enshittification). Even a parameter linked to my real ID is not acceptable to me. And also, after social media, I'm sure other sites will start demanding more checks as well. It's a slippery slope.

Luckily I don't live in Australia but I find this a troubling development. Anonymity on the internet is necessary. Because it is much more permanent than the real world. Every little misstep can be dissected decades later.

devonsolomon2• 2 years ago

My question is: What behaviors will come sideways out of this prohibition?

My guess: You can’t outwit a digital native generation. Websites with less concern for the rules in general will become digital hangouts.

bloppe2• 2 years ago

I'm excited to see the outcomes. Hats off to Australia for engaging in this experiment.

One unique aspect of social media, as opposed to, say, porn, is it's reliance on network effects. Sure, maybe 25% of kids will use a VPN and log on, but if most of your friends don't care enough to spend their allowance on a VPN, then what's the point?

devonsolomon2• 2 years ago

Ya that’s true. I guess I’m imagining the “25%” being pushed towards 4chan type environments, and perhaps then a subset of that towards more dangerous environments.

ensignavenger2• 2 years ago

'"Messaging apps," "online gaming services" and "services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users" will not fall under the ban, as well as sites like YouTube that do not require users to log in to access the platform.'

So they tell us which social media is excluded, but not the definition of "social media" for what is included? Does anyone know how "social media" is being defined in this law?

'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.'

So how is "reasonable steps" defined? The article claims 'Social media companies also won't be able to force users to provide government identification, including the Digital ID, to assess their age.' So is a checkbox that asks "are you over 16?" 'reasonable'?

A4ET8a8uTh0• 2 years ago

This is a genuinely relevant question given that HN could be easily argued to be social media. For the record, I too am concerned about social media impact and so on ( for good and valid reasons ), but this law does not seem that great at first glance.

ensignavenger2• 2 years ago

Hacker News doesn't require a login to view content, so I guess it is exempt, from this specific law.

bostonwalker• 2 years ago

Predictably, I see a lot of concern being expressed here about how this will be implemented and enforced. There is an underlying assumption, which seems fairly reasonable, that the government is going to use this opportunity (à la Louisiana) to overreach and require people to provide their identity to access these services.

One question I have for other HN commenters though, does it necessarily need to happen this way? Political realities aside, is there a way for the government to set up an age verification service in a way that preserves privacy?

If so, the time is ripe for this community to put forward such a solution and advocate for it loudly. If current sentiment is any indication, social media age restrictions are going to go global and Australia is going to set the precedent for the rest of the world.

raxxorraxor10• 2 years ago

It is not possible aside from getting everyone an internet ID, which most will probably reject for good reason.

Governments should not get this power. This is the basic tenet that separation of powers is based on. The only measure that helps is to just take away the means.

I am uncertain it will go global at all or go very far even in Australia as there are at least some companies that try to benefit their customers. And there still is the private web anyway that isn't affected.

Australia should be made fun off for their attempts, it isn't their first rodeo.

anal_reactor• 2 years ago

"Social media is bad for kids" is the fresh iteration of "video games are bad for kids". Remember the craze?

whiplash4512• 2 years ago

I would rather title it as: Social media companies to be banned from destroying the lives of minors.

Let's not swap the violators and the victims.

xkbarkar• 2 years ago

“services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users" will be excempt.

Sigh. Good luck with that. Not at all vague.

idunnoman12223• 2 years ago

funnelling all the kids to 4chan is maybe not the best idea …

prng2021• 2 years ago

This sounds so useless that it could be an Onion article. What am I missing?

“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.”

Figs• 2 years ago

Does anyone have a link to the actual text of the legislation?

oloila• 2 years ago

Lol, guys. Even in Russia, which is said to have a low level of freedom, the government has not yet decided to introduce identification in social networks by passport.

By the way, some restrictive laws in Russia, for example, blocking websites law, began with the need to protect children from "illegal content".

Australians, don't give up

fldskfjdslkfj• 2 years ago

Why did this disappear from the HN front page so quickly?

smsm42• 2 years ago

What do they mean by social media? Is HN social media? Is Yelp? Is any site that has comments and discussions?

anacrolix• 2 years ago

Putting a positive word like "social" in the app genre name was a great mindfuck. Social breathing could be used to describe smoking. What a crock

t0bia_s• 2 years ago

What is a definition of social media? If there will be another platform, that is not listed on banned platforms, will they add it to regulation later... And later again, another...?

puppycodes3• 2 years ago

lol good luck with that

puppycodes3• 2 years ago

guarenteed to be enforced on the poor and ignored by the rich

knowitnone• 2 years ago

kids under 16 learn that they can break the law easily and not have any consequences

Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws

Related Stories