Obviously there are workarounds, but I suppose it provides a good justification for parents to deny their kids access to social media.
why would parents need a justification to parent?
Peer pressure is real. Kids get social media accounts way too early because it's difficult to justify holding off when all of their classmates have them. It causes actual social issues for kids when they are the only one without something. They get bullied etc, so parents are effectively forced to accede. Making it illegal gives parents a reason to say no, which might slow down the uptake.
What the government should be doing is mandating that a social media/drugs literacy course is taught in schools. Kids should fundamentally understand that things are not black or white, good or bad; things are grey. They have upsides and downsides; risks and rewards. Kids should be taught that Social media is a great way to connect with your friends, but you are also susceptible to being influenced/manipulated/addicted in X, Y, Z ways.
100% agree. I think it's a good space for libraries to enter too. Internet literacy, media literacy and critical thinking skills are sorely needed to be taught today.
The ban and age verification requirements apply to pretty much all services which allow communication of information between people, unless an exemption is granted by the minister.
There is no legislated exemption for instant messaging, SMS, email, email lists, chat rooms, forums, blogs, voice calls, etc.
It's a wildly broadly applicable piece of legislation that seems ripe to be abused in the future, just like we've seen with anti-terror and anti-hate-symbol legislation.
From 63C (1) of the legislation:
For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted social media platform means:
- a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:
- 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;
- 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 a service mentioned in subsection (6).
Here's all the detail of what the bill is and the concerns raised in parliament.
Probably going to get downvoted for this, but this just makes kids look for VPN's and other ways to skirt this restriction. It may make VPN's less useful for the rest of us as a result when certain services are forced to comply with the law, breaking those services for those of us using VPN's. It sounds like a great idea but I don't know that the implementation will make a noticeable or effective difference.
Most kids are not going to pay a subscription for a VPN, I don't think that would be as big of an issue as you think.
Just because it isn't perfect it doesn't mean it's useless.
Just because there is no way to stop 100% of all crime it doesn't mean taking measures to reduce crime is futile.
There is a lot more to this than just blocking the site. It will also change social norms. Right now, if a 14 year old as social media, nobody bats an eye; but with the 16 year requirement, through all the sudden, parents aren't too comfortable with letting their 14 year old have social media. So not only will they need to find some free VPN totally not spyware to use (and even know that that exists and how to use), they will also have to hide it from their parents, as it is no longer socially acceptable for 14 year olds to have social media.
And before you say "Kids can easily get a free VPN and hide it." Never underestimate tech illiteracy.
This is technically feasible, and bussiness don't need to know your id. If anonymous government certificates are issued.
But I'm morally against it. We need to both educate on the dangers of internet and truly control harmful platforms.
But just locking it is bad for society. What happens with kids in shitty families that find in social media (not Facebook, think prime time Tumblr) a way to scape and find that there are people out there not as shitty as their family. Now they are just completely locked to their shitty family until it's too late.
I support this move. Some here are delusionally arguing that this impacts privacy - the sort of data social media firms collect on teenagers is egregiously extensive regardless. This is good support for their mental health and development.
This is good support for their mental health and development.
This is good pseudo-science.
How can you look at the state of things pretty much everywhere since social media has become so ubiquitous and think that it has no effect on people, young people especially? It's full of hate, envy, propaganda, and brainwashing
Strange that the adults don't want those benefits for themselves also.
Now ban it for over 16s
What I find intriguing is the potential for fediverse/decentralized service uptake amongst Australians, should the corporate providers decide it's too much bother implementing an identity solution for 26m people and simply rangebans them.
In an alternate universe, parents are devoting 10 per cent of their doomscrolling time to studying their router manuals and determining access windows for social media on their LAN. But why obtain a gram of education to address a serious parenting issue when a ton of democracy-threatening legislation driven by politics will achieve a quarter of the same thing?
I'd assume the law would include federated social media. And while that wouldn't prevent underage Australians to sign up with instances hosted elsewhere, it will impose restrictions on local ones, thus hurting the federation effort.
Take this social media law, plus the software backdoor nonsense from a few years ago, and I can't help but see a clear message emerging from legislators to Australian developers who'd seek to build great digital spaces and tools: Do not domicile anything in this country. Do not host anything on servers in this country. Expect hostility from authorities toward the anonymity, security, and privacy of the people using your code.
I hope you're wrong, and they're going to arbitarily apply the law to King Doge and Zuck, with everyone else getting ignored.
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
