76
Reddit files legal challenge against social media ban for under-16s
(www.abc.net.au)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2025
76 points (100.0% liked)
Australia
4706 readers
143 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
from my pov if being a nanny state lets kids be more like kids and less like little phone addicts having their dopamines blown I don't mind it
there are other countries looking at doing the same
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAzFCwCkAgI
You can regulate big tech without banning support groups.
tbf i'd go even further, I'd ban over 65's as well 😶🌫️
I'd ban you, because you're silly.
tbf that wouldn't realllly impact me that much, it's just reddit and youtube that I use, and the social media 'ban' doesn't block you from accessing reddit or youtube, it's not like you get a big "BLOCKED! UR UNDER 16!" page come up, you just can't sign up for an account, so reddit and youtube still work I'd just not be able to see adult content on those sites
Uhh, this is Lemmy.
Reddit has support subreddits for people struggling with mental illness or minority struggles. These are issues kids face, and the government is denying their access, while giving big tech companies excuses to spy on adults.
can you access those subreddits without an account?
If by "access" you mean "talk to fellow survivors" and "ask for advice or support", no.
~~Parents should be doing a better job parenting, rather than relying on the state to do it for them.~~
Also, when has banning kids from doing something actually stopped them from doing it? Even "back in my day", using a proxy to bypass blocked sites was common knowledge amongst the smarter kids. The tech savvy kids would host their own proxies using a free web hosting service and PHProxy (or similar software). These days, it's much easier to use a VPN or proxy.
Parents can compete against teams of people whose goal is to make their platform as addictive as possible? Nah, it's a systemic problem and it won't be solved by some parents sometimes doing something of limited effectiveness. Nor will it be solved by blanket bans.
Ugh "parents should do better parenting" is such neo lib individualist bullshit
Maybe I shouldn't have included that in my comment, but my point about trying to ban kids from doing stuff being ineffective still stands.
It’s hard already when parents are overburdened with trying to pay the bills.
so you're in favour of it then? less need for parents to worry about what misinformation and disinformation is being supplied by paid actors on facebook, win/win ?
No, having parents mailed social media dangers brochures instead would be a better idea.
I don't disagree, but this law could have been an opportunity to give parents better tools with which to parent.
It is far, far too difficult for any parent today to impose parental controls on their kids' devices. Parental controls are an afterthought, put in place barely enough to tick the box saying "we have parental controls", and not effectively doing much of anything. The law could have forced tech companies to do better and make it easy for parents to use effectively.
What else should people be allowed to do to children just because the parents aren't "vigilant" enough?
Hey both of these are covered on the FAQ
It's not a technological block, the social media sites will rely on a variety of signals, for example if you sign up for a facebook account in USA, but take a selfie geolocating you in australia and image scan picks up that you might be under 16, you'll still get pinged for id check
They are targeting all under 16's, and this is mentioned as well, even if 10% of kids get around the ban somehow, the fact that 90% don't removes a huge part of the social in social network
The kids that get around the ban will spread that knowledge to others. That's what happened when I went to school, and I don't think it's any different today.
good luck to them