Apparently aussie.zone is asking users to DM evidence of being over 16, and the implication is that of those who don't - he'll ban/delete their accounts.
But absurdly enough, 4chan is exempt from this because all activity on there is anonymous. Not through accounts. So if the Fediverse had anonymous, non-account posting on-top of regular account-based posting then people could post anonymously happily, but anyone with an account would have to verify.
Make it make sense.
Oh, apparently their attempt at following the law is pretty ridiculous. https://aussie.zone/post/27246692
I’d say their attempt is actually better than what the government came up with. I also thought the idea of chatting with a bot that guesses your age was pretty funny.
On reddthat, we got this notice in an announcement back in March 2025:
Age Restriction
Effective immediately everyone on Reddthat needs to be 18 years old and futher interaction on the platform confirms you are over the age of 18 and agree with these terms.
If you are under the age of 18 you will need to delete your account under Settings
This has also been outlined in our signup form that has been updated around the start of February.
March? Over 18?
Reddthat presumably was reacting to the Online Safety ACT UK there.
Doesn't there half to be a certain number of users for this to apply to them? I could have sworn I saw it had to be over 50,000.
To my fellow Aussies:
The social media ban works through DNS, just change your DNS to either 8.8.8.8 or 1.1.1.1 in your router settings and browser setting. I've had no problems so far, but if that doesn't work you can always use TOR or another VPN service.
wait, it actually works through dns?
No, it's account based, in a lot of cases changing your DNS won't change the server you end up with at Youtubes or whoever
Age-restricted platforms are expected to take reasonable steps to:
find existing accounts held by under-16s, and deactivate or remove those accounts
prevent under-16s from opening new accounts
prevent workarounds that may allow under-16s to bypass the restrictions
have processes to correct errors if someone is mistakenly missed by or included in the restrictions, so no one’s account is removed unfairly.
Does every Australian now have to prove their age to use social media?
For example, if someone has had an account since Facebook started in Australia in 2006, Meta could reasonably assume they are older than 16 so no further check is needed.
https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions/faqs
Platforms then use a variety of signal's to detect if someone is under 16:
DNS has nothing to do with it
changing the DNS works when the site has been banned for not complying, is how I understood.
there's no banning or blocking of social media sites
Quad9 is also a great provider for privacy: 9.9.9.9 ... In case you want to avoid google and cloudflare.
That's also a good choice, there are others too. I would suggest to everyone look around for a good generic DNS provider.
that is not how the social media ban works…
Then how am I still able to access youtube, facebook and all the others without needing to give them my ID?
Edit: Nice alt accounts, loser.
Then how am I still able to access youtube, facebook and all the others without needing to give them my ID?
DNS translates domains like youtube.com into IP's like 1.1.1.1, this has no bearing when you make a social media account in Australia:
It’s not a ban, it’s a delay to having accounts.
This means there will be no penalties for under-16s who access an age-restricted social media platform, or for their parents or carers. However, age-restricted social media platforms may face penalties if they don’t take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from having accounts.
https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions
As of 10 December 2025, Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube are required to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from having accounts on their platforms.
If you have an australian account registered with those websites and they suspect you are under 16 you will have to verify your id
As explained here the platforms will need to check:
https://aussie.zone/post/27246692/20254931
How can under-16s be stopped from finding a way around the age restrictions?
Platforms may assess age-related signals which can help work out if someone is under 16. These signals can include:
how long an account has been active
whether the account holder interacts with content targeted at children under 16
analysis of the language level and style used by the account holder and the people they interact with
visual checks, such as facial age analysis of the account holder’s photos and videos
audio analysis, such as age estimation of the voice of the account holder
activity patterns consistent with school schedules
connections with other users who appear to be under 16
membership in youth-focused groups, forums or communities.
Platforms may also use location-based signals which can help work out if an account holder usually lives in Australia and could be using a VPN to pretend they don’t. These signals can include:
IP address(es)
GPS or other location services
device language and time settings
a device identifier
an Australian phone number
app store or operating system or account settings
photos, tags, connections, engagement or activity.
Evidence of these age and location signals is expected to trigger the age assurance process, or review of an account if it has already been checked.
https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions/faqs
On top of this there are plenty of services that block VPN's, most famously Netflix.
So yeah, changing one aspect of your account while leaving all the others won't get around the ban
Edit: Nice alt accounts, loser.
This is my primary account and always has been? What's with the loser? Why so cranky?
That's a lot of text just to say "I'm an idiot who loves bending over for the government".
How are they going to enforce any of that on a company with no office in Australia? Answer: They can't.
How are they going to enforce any of that on a company with no office in Australia? Answer: They can’t.
Then how am I still able to access youtube, facebook and all the others without needing to give them my ID?
You think youtube and facebook don't have offices in Australia?
That’s a lot of text just to say “I’m an idiot who loves bending over for the government”.
I'm simply telling you what the government is telling social media companies that allow Australian users to create accounts on their websites
You can change your DNS all you want mate, I'm just saying it won't make a difference
IIRC moving the instance won't be helpful - the issue is the servicing of minors, not where the service is. And while the server being in a different country might be a bit of a roadblock for legalities, the general consensus is, like with GDPR - if you make your service available in Australia you must comply with Australian laws, therefore need to make your instance unavailable to children.
So how is Australia going to make other sites with no footprint in Australia do it then?
National level site blocking, suspension on any future operations, international courts... Corporations are much easier to persecute over borders than private persons.
Why do you think American companies, even ones with no legal presence in Europe, still went along with GDPR? Same principle applies here.
National level site blocking, suspension on any future operations, international courts
Easily circumvented by changing your DNS settings or using TOR or other VPN services
Not when the specific IP addresses of services are blocked on IPS level - which would be mandated by the state.
VPN/Tor, sure, but at that point the service itself can't confirm where the visitor is from, therefore Australian laws wouldn't apply.
The second half of your comment is redundant. Not knowing where the user is from is THE WHOLE POINT of TOR and VPNs in general. It just proves that this whole internet censorship thing is doomed to fail. It just forces people to find a work-around that the government doesn't control.
But hey, if the government wants to waste time and money pissing into the wind they can go for it, let's see where that gets them.
Australia blocking 4chan in Australia doesn't compel 4chan to do anything.
Why do you think American companies, even ones with no legal presence in Europe, still went along with GDPR? Same principle applies here.
They didn't want to lose custom in Europe.
They didn't want to lose custom in Europe.
Yeah sure that's why major news sites "complied" with GDPR by blocking European visitors...
Some didn't mind the loss of service in Europe and just cut Europe off. Some did. Bottom line is that the EU wouldn't have been able to sue them because they had no assets in Europe.
What is it you imagine Australia could do to 4chan, other than blocking 4chan in Australia?
if you make your service available in Australia you must comply with Australian laws,
How does this even work? This is among the stupidest arguments I've ever heard on the internet, at about the same level of flat-earthism.
Are you saying if I am in Italy, selling Italian good on an Italian shop set in an Italian street, and an Australian tourist sends an agent to walk the Italian street and buy a thing for them from my Italian stand, I am somehow beholden to Australian law? This but "oN tHE iNtErNeT"?
selling Italian goods…
A better analogy would be ‘Australian buys Italian goods from online store in Australia’. Under your analogy no, because nothing at all is done in Australia, where your online shop would be, therefore it’d be subject to Australian law.
It’s still not a very effective law, though.
A better analogy would be ‘Australian buys Italian goods from online store in Australia’.
The entire point of the analogy is that we are eschewing "online" stuff so that we can see how "bUt On tHE iNTeRnEt" applies, so "but make it an online store" is literally missing the point.
Better analogy in that sense would be still "Australian sends an agent to buy something from a physical store in Italy after finding a printed catalog that a third party imported into Australia from Italy".
So it looks as if you’ve added ‘this but on the internet’ afterward, is that correct?
Taking that away, no, because my point with using an online store was that some interaction is done in Australia, as is the case with social media sites overseas that Australians interact on, in Australia. Replace online store for ‘mailed catalogue’.
Yeah but the interaction that is done in Australia is not part of the business chain. The catalogue was not mailed by my store. Someone else (an ISP, in this exercise) took it from an available stand in Italy and imported it (on their own) to Australia. (The closest I can think of to the material representation of "mailed catalogue" in this exercise is if I intentionally uploaded a copy of my .it website to an .au hosting)
For another analogy: if I were to post an Italian job offer in Italy, not only I am not subject to Malaysian (or Australian) labour law, but a third party in Malaysia reproducing the job offer there does not change that fact either. It's their copy, and act-of-copy, of the job offer that is subject to Malaysian law, at best. And this should hold true regardless of the nature of the message: mere emission of the message can not be constituted as consecration of a legal responsibility towards any potential listener. If that was the case, it would be impossible to make any political, religious or scientific speech lawfully, as surely a law is being broken sometime, somewhere and a message can by its nature outlast the act of emission.
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, Mbin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)