These could include government IDs, face or voice recognition, or so-called "age inference", which analyses online behaviour and interactions to estimate a person's age.
Surely this won't be used by the government to monitor internet usage!
Australia already has metadata tracking. This law is poorly implemented by a bunch of old fools who don't understand how the internet works. All it will achieve is training a generation to subvert the government's nonsense better.
If you have to use a government ID to access the internet I don't think there'll be a way to subvert it. The tech fixes like face recognition and age inference can probably be spoofed, but IDs seem rock solid unless you steal someone else's ID.
People will bypass any barrier they put in place. Hell, that's how I got into IT.
Somebody's IT department put up barriers, which you bypassed to force your way into the job? Is the willfully incorrect way I chose to read it.
"I hacked their system and put myself on payroll, issued myself an ID, and started showing up to work."
It'd be government ID to access sites hosted in Australia from Australia, but if the internet shows you accessing sites from say Vietnam, or accessing a site not hosted in Australia then what's the government going to do?
They could require an ID to connect to the internet.
That's not how the law is written, onus is on social media sites, they haven't banned under 16s from the internet, just from social media.
And the social media sites, in the interest of complying with the law, might make deals with the internet service providers to actually put an ID check on every internet connection. This isn't impossible.
Even if they don't, once legislators realize their law didn't fix the problem they can always pass new legislations.
My point is that this isn't impossible.
Service providers can't verify individual users, its arguably harder for them to do that than it is for social media site operators
They could, we'd just need to hand over even more of our privacy and rights.
Which was always the plan.
Not really.
This law draws a line in the sand indicating societal expectations.
It empowers parents to set and maintain appropriate boundaries without being influenced by what other parents allow their kids to do. Its a lot easier to maintain a "no social media" rule if other parents are doing the same.
Also I dont really have any faith at all in the young teenagers of today being able to circumvent anything. Sure. A few will... but certainly not most or even a significant portion.
If you cant install it from the app store then its out of reach.
That's not how the law works and it doesn't empower parents to do anything. It just makes social media sites check for age and deny under 16s. It only applies to sites hosted by companies or people with a presence in Australia, and it refers to methods of age verification that don't exist yet even though the law is now in force.
WDYM that's not how the law works? All laws are a statement of societal expectations.
it doesn’t empower parents to do anything
Of course it does. Obviously, it's much easier to tell your kids they're not allowed to use facebook if most of their friends aren't using facebook.
It only applies to sites hosted by companies or people with a presence in Australia
So you mean, the vast majority of platforms on which children congregate?
It sounds like you haven't actually read it.
This law is a series of requirements on social media site operators and the definition of the fines they will receive if they don't comply. It doesn however define the actual methods those operators must use, only who will define them (they are still yet to be defined). They scale of what constitutes a social media site is wild.
Empowering parents would be helping them understand methods for combating toxic social media use or supporting them in improving their internet and cyber safety literacy. Implementing a law and providing limited narrative on its function through traditional mainstream media is not empowering parents. Do you think many parents understand their liability for the Minecraft server their kids will inevitably set up from what's been reported so far?
Circumventing this law is trivial. You wildly underestimate the ability for teenagers to get away with doing things they want.
It sounds like you don't know much about how Australia's legal system works, or parenting for that matter.
Laws are always broad and vague by intention. Courts interpret the law, and regulators investigate contraventions.
Empowering parents would be helping them understand methods for combating toxic social media use or supporting them in improving their internet and cyber safety literacy.
You seem to be wildly overestimating the level of interest most parents have in such things. Social media has become such a problem precisely because parents generally have given up on this particular battleground.
Thank god. They should ban it for those over 16 too
Why not provide parents with routers instead that have easy to set parental controls?
This feels very similar to someone coming into my home and telling me how to raise my own kids.
The government could also create its own curated list of websites that are considered "kid friendly" at different age gaps and have it made available within a routers parental control menu to be turned on/for deviced marked as being used by ones child on your home network.
Also at the same time it's not about protecting children, it's about controlling the general population with the guise of protecting the children. It's like getting searched when walking in and walking out of a store.
Nice but they could make it 18
I know it's not perfect and everyone here is losing their mind, but getting kids off of social media until they're more adultish is good parenting.
There was a good interview in Rolling Stone with Carl Newman of the band The New Pornographers. Last year the band's drummer was arrested and later convicted of sexually pestering children and CSAM possession. (Yes the name is an unfortunate coincidence but was their name for many years before this drummer was a member, and it refers to something else).
Carl talked about how devastated the band is by all of this, and a family member who works in the court system gave him some advice, talking about how pedophiles are always looking for an opportunity, and how you really should not have anything about your children online because they WILL use it no matter how innocent, and how you should watch your kids incredibly carefully online, that it's not just kids from vulnerable families getting trafficked.
I see that it feels intrusive, but I myself read a lot of judicial decisions online, and the pedophile ones are always HORRIFIC. Just because there isn't a physical victim doesn't make it better. One case the police were notified by an ISP about a guy and they went to his house and found a child sized sex doll in his home. One thing leads to another. A lot of the testimony by men who have not committed physical crimes talk about how they were depressed and just began going into more extremes of porn, and just ended up beginning to watch CSAM as an extension of this. They would get phallometric testing which would show they are sexually oriented to children so this isn't always true, but the easy access to literally anything via the Internet sure isn't helping anything.
Right, so shouldn't parents be responsible for that and not the government?
Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, began closing teen accounts from 4 December. It said anyone mistakenly kicked off could use government ID or provide a video selfie to prove their age.
Snapchat has said users can use bank accounts, photo ID or selfies for verification.
In other words, Australia just enforced "internet by passort", right? Very useful if the goal is build a surveillance state. Besides the fact that is required from platforms to store these IDs and in case of any data breach hakers will get not only email addresses, but emails + id.
Also looks as a very cool feature for platforms themselves: match of users data between different systems becomes much easier: no more expensive and complex digital fingerprinting, just direct match by ID.
There's evidently a concerted international effort to end anonymity and privacy on the internet, disguised as protecting children. It would be worrying at any time, but it's particularly alarming when authoritarian fascism is also on the rise pretty much everywhere. ID verification (sold as age verification) is a major step towards making it impossible for political dissidents and victimized groups to organize resistance or read uncensored information without being put on a list, to find, support and defend each other, or to travel freely.
This is the thing I'm most afraid of. It's why I've been moving everything to self hosting and de-googling.
Corporate Internet sucks anyway. I'm fine with ending anonymity in it.
Wild seeing so many nations amassing the tools of surveillance fascism, and repression to little backlash because the leaders aren't as outright fascist as some other countries. This will end poorly.
I'm gonna make a prediction before reading the article: either there isn't an actual plan for how to do this, or it's actually a plan to surveil adults
Woah hey look I was right
The government says firms must take "reasonable steps" to keep kids off their platforms, and should use multiple age assurance technologies.
These could include government IDs, face or voice recognition, or so-called "age inference", which analyses online behaviour and interactions to estimate a person's age.
Platforms cannot rely on users self-certifying or parents vouching for their children.
Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, began closing teen accounts from 4 December. It said anyone mistakenly kicked off could use government ID or provide a video selfie to prove their age.
Snapchat has said users can use bank accounts, photo ID or selfies for verification.
What about people over 16? It’s harmful for them as well.
Well then we would not have Lemmy
I swear every headline about Australia is something like:
"Australia bans the only things you found fun growing up"
Guns? That’s the other thing we’re famous for.
Video game censorship comes to mind, can't say guns are an American's favorite thing growing up...
There’s not really any video game ban legislated in Australia.
You might be thinking of an our stupid classification board who occasionally make weird, inconsistent decisions resulting games being prohibited for sale to certain markets or altogether.
For a long time this was because there was no R 18+ classification, forcing some games to be refused classification. This has been addressed, but the Australian Classification Board aren’t always applying it correctly so there’s reform needed of the ACB to fix this outright (it seems to be gradually improving maybe?)
Hotline Miami 2.
Is a great example of what I’m talking about. This can be given an R18+ rating, ACB appear to be dragging feet on classification because they’re idiot bureaucrats who think it’s their job to apply their own moral standards.
Interesting, maybe I'm remembering older info then. I seem to remember there being some games that had an "Australian" version that removed a lot of the gore/violence.
Yeah there’s been censored versions released to get around ACB being dickheads. It’s silly.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.