69
submitted 2 months ago by SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Australia has enacted a world-first ban on social media for users aged under 16, causing millions of children and teenagers to lose access to their accounts.

Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Kick, Twitch and TikTok are expected to have taken steps from Wednesday to remove accounts held by users under 16 years of age in Australia, and prevent those teens from registering new accounts.

Platforms that do not comply risk fines of up to $49.5m.

There have been some teething problems with the ban’s implementation. Guardian Australia has received several reports of those under 16 passing the facial age assurance tests, but the government has flagged it is not expecting the ban will be perfect from day one.

All listed platforms apart from X had confirmed by Tuesday they would comply with the ban. The eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, said it had recently had a conversation with X about how it would comply, but the company had not communicated its policy to users.

Bluesky, an X alternative, announced on Tuesday it would also ban under-16s, despite eSafety assessing the platform as “low risk” due to its small user base of 50,000 in Australia.

Parents of children affected by the ban shared a spectrum of views on the policy. One parent told the Guardian their 15-year-old daughter was “very distressed” because “all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat”. Since she had been identified as under 16, they feared “her friends will keep using Snapchat to talk and organise social events and she will be left out”.

Others said the ban “can’t come quickly enough”. One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media and the ban “provides us with a support framework to keep her off these platforms”.

“The fact that teenagers occasionally find a way to have a drink doesn’t diminish the value of having a clear, ­national standard.”

Polling has consistently shown that two-thirds of voters support raising the minimum age for social media to 16. The opposition, including leader Sussan Ley, have recently voiced alarm about the ban, despite waving the legislation through parliament and the former Liberal leader Peter Dutton championing it.

The ban has garnered worldwide attention, with several nations indicating they will adopt a ban of their own, including Malaysia, Denmark and Norway. The European Union passed a resolution to adopt similar restrictions, while a spokesperson for the British government told Reuters it was “closely monitoring Australia’s approach to age restrictions”.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Some good silver linings here, but what everyone needs to remember here is that nobody would be supporting this at all if facebook wasn’t intentionally predatory and bad for (all) people’s brains.

If regulators in Australia had a spine they would call for an end to those practices, and now that’s infinitely harder to do

[-] ms_lane@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Some good silver linings here

Where?

The kids will move to less monitored platforms and even on things like YouTube, parental controls are now gone.

You need to have an account for parental controls to be applied to, kids aren't allowed an account, vis-a-vis, no more parental controls or monitoring for problem content.

[-] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 3 points 1 month ago

You need to have an account for parental controls to be applied to, kids aren’t allowed an account, vis-a-vis, no more parental controls or monitoring for problem content.

Except that YT hides pretty much everything interesting behind a login wall these days.

I tried to listen to a Daft Punk song yesterday in a private tab and was blocked.

[-] wheezy@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

As someone that grew up with an "unmonitored" internet. I can say that it was significantly more healthy than the profit driven "keep watching" algorithm that is all of social media today.

Yeah. I saw "two girls one cup" and "lemon party". But, did I slowly have my perspective of reality changed by the 30 second videos I swiped on for hours at a time for days on end?

No, most of my time was spent learning about computers, "stealing" music, and chatting with my real life friends.

I don't think a kid today can experience that internet anymore. It's gone. But acting like "unmonitored" internet access is worse is pearl clutching and ignoring the fundamental problems the profit driven internet has created at the expense of societies mental health.

Kids will absolutely find another place to connect online in Australia. But, honestly, I think whatever that is will be healthier than the absolute brain rot that is profit driven social media.

We got to this point because parents think that kids need a monitored internet. Afraid of online predators. So it was passed off to corporations that learned how to systematically institute mental abuse in order to keep their apps open longer.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Walk_blesseD@piefed.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 months ago

Fuck this Helen Lovejoy-arse shithole country. I wonder how many abused youth, marginalised teens and kids who made the mistake of being born to parents living in remote areas just lost access to their support networks. I wonder how many people are gonna have their identities stolen because of data breaches containing either documents or biometrics necessary to enforce this.
And for what? So boomer politicians and their constituents aren't challenged by their well-informed children about the genocides they're facilitating at home and abroad? So the pigs in this police state have an even easier time surveiling citizens with all the identifying info websites are gathering??

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] Michal@programming.dev 11 points 2 months ago

The ban also affects everyone who isn't willing to undergo the age check.

Kids will find a way around is. They'll move to fediverse, and the cooler kids will still hang around the mainstream platforms thanks to their older friend, sibling or cool uncle.

load more comments (18 replies)
[-] cv_octavio@piefed.ca 9 points 1 month ago

I mean, I am 100% pro-freedom of access and speech and all, but tbf anything that super murders social media is a net positive to the world at this point, until it's less harmful and addictive.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] CaptainPedantic@lemmy.world 8 points 2 months ago

One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media

Have you tried parenting her?

[-] tdawg@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago

Meh. It's societal level issue. It should be handled at the societal level

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] davad@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

True, but there's also a little more nuance.

For a social media ban to be effective without ostracizing individuals, it has to include the entire friend group.

As an analogy, if the kid's friends all text each other, but your kid doesn't have a phone, they miss out socially. They miss out on organized and impromptu hangouts. And they miss out on inside jokes that develop in the group chat. Over time they feel like more and more of an outsider even if the ready of the group actively tries to include them.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] CaptainBlinky@lemmy.myserv.one 6 points 1 month ago

in 20 years Australia will be the source of all nobel prize winners :D

[-] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 months ago

Honestly it feels like you should regulate how Facebook can interact with children instead of the children's access to it

[-] Jajcus@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

That is why I think FB and others might been quietly lobbying for this solution. This way they can stll be predatory, as long as the kids pretend to be adult. Or just abuse adult users. The alternative, of not being evil, is not compatible with their business model. But it is the business model that should be banned, not socializing online by teenagers.

[-] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

just ban advertisements, it's that easy

[-] chunes@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago

Props to Australia for creating a generation of kids with above average tech skills.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] wondrous_strange@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Instead of punishing these cancerous cess pool manipulative platforms, they punish the kids.

The youth deserves to be able to communicate and use the web the same as the rest of the population.

Regulations should be such that these platforms are neutral, non manipulative safe spaces where people can come together share content and discussions.

The overall stupidity of decision makers is incomprehensible to me. Literal shit sacks politicians that should all be thrown into a hole.

Beat of luck youth, my heart is with you. Hope Lemmy will be the answer(or some other decentralized platform)

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] lunelovegood@ttrpg.network 4 points 2 months ago

One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media

Literally the fault of the parent.

[-] palordrolap@fedia.io 4 points 2 months ago

Who's next to be blocked?

I mean, now that the infrastructure and policies are in place, it's only a matter of time.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Montreal_Metro@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

Good. Time to consume quality media.

[-] comalnik@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

"One parent said their daughter was completely addicted to social media" Well then fucking take away her phone. Get her a dumb phone. Install parental controls. Go to a therapist if yo have to. But nooooo the government has got to do everything for us incompetent fucks

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago

all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat

I love how this sentence is just casually sprinkled there. So platforms are getting $50m fines if they do not implement "age verification", but no problem if they fail to identify minors as such? Tells you everything about how they really care about protecting children.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] ABetterTomorrow@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago
[-] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 2 points 2 months ago

So Australia is using facial scanning to verify age, allowing everyone else to remain anonymous? That's how it should be done.

Here in Florida MAGA HQ, I'm hearing calls to verify the identity of EVERYONE on the Internet, because that's the ONLY way they can keep the kids off. I even heard one MAGA state legislator say that it's no difference then carding people for buying alcohol. That's how we keep booze out of the hands of kids, so it will work to keep the Internet out of their hands, too.

They want to kill Internet anonymity, just as a report comes out that the DoJ wants to pay bounties to people who report "anti-Trump behavior."

This will go to the Supreme Court before we're finished.

[-] 0x0@infosec.pub 5 points 2 months ago

This comment reads like you believe only people under age 16 will be required to verify and anyone above won't.

[-] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 3 points 1 month ago

Yeah, I assumed. Are they verifying EVERY adult who wants to get on the Internet? That's a problem.

[-] nickyEtch@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

How else will they know if the person is over 16, or just pretending to be over 16?

Gotta verify everyone, scan all of their faces.

[-] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Here in America, they want Driver's Licenses, with names and addresses. There is no good faith in this effort. They want to tie every person to their online activity, and protecting kids is just an excuse, as usual.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MehBlah@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Just going to teach those kids its okay to break the law.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I wonder if after a few years we can stop pretending like social media caused every bad problem in society and instead we can focus on the wealth inequality and climate change apathy that is causing people to no longer want to support our broken society?

[-] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

We're not pretending, this is an asinine view.

Two things can be true at once. It's surprising how difficult a concept this is to grasp.

Social media accelerated this, it provides the vehicle in which to make culture wars the only thing at the front of people's minds. It accelerated division and hate, as these improve platform attention.

Let's not even talk about the death of critical thinking which just allows this to happen to greater effect.

Rising wealth inequality because a side effect of us not fighting a class war which is a side effect of us being completely focused on culture wars which is a side effect of social media.

There's an entire chain here and social media underpins most of it's acceleration

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] teuniac_@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Populism increases where people get better access to the internet. This is surprisingly well established because it's easy to measure.

Of course wealth inequality and climate change are the bigger issues, but social media gets people to believe it's actually minority groups behind the effects of these issues.

[-] Jhex@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

hmm I thikk a lot of the apathy you speak of comes from social media influencing youth

[-] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

have a look at who proposed this change and you'll see why it's being done. it's clear as day that this isn't a win for anyone on the internet in Australia

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 month ago

Maybe (OK, this won't happen, but I like to imagine it would), someone will figure out how to use one of the hundreds of chat programs that are out there, github or wherever, and get that going. Still able to be social with their group, without having all the bullshit social decline that comes from using the big chat platforms.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2025
69 points (100.0% liked)

World News

53526 readers
491 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS