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”.
You must log in or # to comment.
“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
I had this issue with a 15 year old. Phone gone, just an analog flippy, put in parental controls to prevent loading brain rot apps.
He’s happier for it.
Absolutely. My kids are 11 and 9 and some of their friends have phones. I might provide a dumb phone when they’re a bit older, but if they want a smartphone they’ll.have to wait until they get a job and buy one.
This is a solution for people who don’t need a solution because they’re already great parents.
The vast majority of parents aren’t going to take their kids’ phones away.
Get her a dumb phone. Install parental controls.
If this actually worked. I tried it once and it did not work at all. Platforms/apps don’t seem to respect the device settings at all.
You can block apps or give them a time limit
block apps
block all 150000000 apps on the app store?
Yes. You can enable password requirements to install them. iOS at least, don’t know about Android.
can i also block developer options and apk sideloading?
That’s not really a thing on iOS, and if they figure that out anyways then enjoy the arms race
and if they [children] figure that out anyways then enjoy the arms race
yeah that’s what i was talking about in my previous comment. today, there’s no simple way to just enable “parental control” on an android phone.
and i’m not paying these stupid overpriced apple phones, no way.
The way I see it, if my kids start finding ways to circumvent parental controls we should be able to have some frank discussions about what the parental controls would be setup for
deleted by creator
I setup my wife’s old Android phone to be super locked down via parental controls. Only approved apps, no installing apps, time limited etc. set it up so my kids can use it on days when we need them to zombify for a bit in the afternoons
Its kinda mind blowing how YouTube Kids is their go to and they don’t move to any other apps until they’ve run out of time on it (family had already let the cat out of the bag about the existence of YouTube so I had to limit rather than block) and we still have had to block a number of concerning channels they kept watching. Its crazy how they’ll just zombify staring at YouTube but then for the age appropriate games they’re so much more engaged and actually seem to have a healthier interaction. Its also sad how some of the content I see the kids watching on YouTube Kids has writing and direction about on par with Disney’s current crop of age appropriate shoes for 3-6 year olds (and from what I’ve seen Nickelodeon isn’t much better right now). My kids primarily watch PBS Kids and a handful of shows we carefully selected on DVD because we want to minimize the brain rot (as well as minimize annoyance for us)
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)
I agree that the ban is not good regulation. However, that some kind of regulation of those platforms get started is hopefully a milestone which gets the stone rolling. I consider those good news because of that.
I am cynically enough that I doubt that regulators around the world will learn and adapt, like I would wish for, but one can hope.
As I said, we all deserve safe online spaces, especially the youth but not only. I’m failing to see how this is the road to that.
It’s Australia, been heading in a fascist direction for the longest time, and people think it’s fine because it’s institutionalized direction, not a orange clown lead occurrence
Seems like the same story all around the world. Scary shit
But how will the sites make money? Will someone please think of the lost profit!!!??
They enforce laws that would punish the platforms if they dont abide by them. In what way are they not punishing the platform?
There will be other platforms and kids that deserve to be able to communicate will figure it out.
All i have to say about the ban is “fucking finally”. Cant wait for it to be enforced in Europe.
50mil for a company like meta is chump change, and it is not proportional to being a teen in today’s world locked out of all main communication hubs.
Youth are not the ones who need to ‘figure it out’. Massive companies, market leaders and decisions makers should, but they are all trash.
Its a sensationalist solution that will surely backfire, it only address symptoms while ignoring the underlying many many problems.
Very short sighted
It is for the people to understand not to use such garbage, yes. If they cant figure it out, there is always text and phones.
If it’s chump change, then why are they adhering to the new rules? There is something that you seem to have missed. You don’t seem to understand the manipulation that the social media companies are capable of, which is why rules are needed.
It is for the people to understand not to use such garbage, yes. If they cant figure it out, there is always text and phones.
You contradict yourself. So the ban is not needed? You were saying it’s up to the youths to find alternatives.
What I was saying that these platforms are toxic, they have a destructive affect on all, and we all deserve something better.
A government ban never worked on anything and jts the stupidest and laziest of all options.
If they cant figure out how to use other communication alternatives, they don’t deserve to use them. I can see how i fudged my words.
Discord isn’t covered by the ban surprisingly enough despite being one of the platform more ripe for exploitation. I get that you’d want kids to be able to DM each other and voice chat but Discord is closer to a forum than it is to say, Signal.
Wouldn’t be surprised if it ended up on the ban list later on.
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.
That’s not how the law is structured.
Sites are required to implement reasonable measures.
If kids are being evaluated as 18, with no additional checks, that’s not reasonable and they’re risking the penalties.
We’re going to find out whether the regulator has much appetite to issue those penalties, but we will see I guess.
but no problem if they fail to identify minors as such?
it’s a new technology. it will probably take years to figure out how to do age-verification properly.
Or, hear me out, let’s not waste time developing useless and harmful surveillance technology.
None of this is required to safeguard children, and it does a bad job in its attempt - while doing a great job of scanning every user’s face and documents.
Parents should be responsible, educated and empowered with tools to control their kids’ activities online. Networks and mobile devices can relatively easily be configured to restrict and monitor activity, especially for young children where you might want to choose what to allow, rather than to block. There will be ways around them, but if that 1% is motivated enough and knows they shouldn’t, I think that’s fine.
it will probably take years to figure out how to do age-verification properly.
yeah, what i actually meant with this was that it will take years for platforms to figure out how to do age-verification properly without infringing on the privacy of its users.
not because it is complicated, but because it is a societal process and these are always slow as hell.
As long as social media’s goals are commercial and have the effect of “digital cocaine”, keeping kids and adolescents out of it should be the default, worldwide.
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.
The ban also affects everyone handing over their ID to websites. Now your personal info can get more easily stolen and you can also be tracked better.
This is the whole point, kids are an excuse as always.
The Fediverse is social media. Wouldn’t instances be required to do age verification? I mean, I guess that’d only be enforceable on Australian instances, but it seems like the whole world is going in that direction.
Exactly, people keep talking about VPNs, but where will we connect to if the whole world goes to shit?
Canada is trying pass this nonsense.
Kill bill s-209
Maybe just live a happy life instead? Lemmy is an ok place, but even this is just completely unnecessary. Mankind isn’t cut out for so much information and communication.
Mankind isn’t cut out for so much information and communication.
You don’t get to decide that for other people
Lemmy requires you to be over 18 to open an account in Australia now.
It’s not designed to be perfect, it’s designed to influence a population towards better practices. If it even makes just 10% of young people grow up a little less alone and less asocial, it will be a success. That success can be built on and maybe in time we can push cultures in regions to not want to use social media as a substitute all the time. There is a very real effect how laws influence the attitudes of people.
It’s not designed at all. Some pearl-clutches said “won’t somebody think of the children”, and then made the social media companies figure out how to implement the ban.
The social media companies all looked at the free, government mandated access to user biometrics and complied.
Do I think that social media should be restricted for children and teens? Sure. Do I think this if going to go about as well as the 2007 porn filter that the government tried to implement? Absolutely.
Some pearl-clutches said “won’t somebody think of the children”, and then made the social media companies figure out how to implement the ban.
Bingo.
It’s never about “the children.” It’s a way to normalize handing over biometrics and anonymity to an assumed authority to use the internet.
It’s always about control, control, control. It’s about tying real identities to online activity, then it’s about wholesale harvesting your secrets you didn’t even know you were keeping.
Then it’s yet another instrument to make sure you shut up and don’t step out of line or else.
First they take us away from our kids by necessitating that entire households need full time careers to survive.
Then as a substitute for education and actual parenting we’re so eager to offer up our childrens’ futures in the name of “protecting” them from the inevitable consequences of parentless households.
people show ID to get into a bar, doesn’t feel that far away from this. its not a substitute for parenting , though it is another layer
The bar’s not storing your information. If this was just age verification on entry, that would be similar.
yeah understood. the intention is good but concerns exist re implementation. what are some other approaches that could he used?
Beforehand the user gets a personal key from the government, then when a site asks for proof of age, the user signs a token which the site sends to the government server with a query “Is this user over 16?”. Then the government server identifies the user with the token, and responds to the site “Yes” or “No”.
The site cannot see any of your personal information, just that you are over 16.
I’m surprised the government isn’t doing the verification themselves as it has a huge information/tracking incentive to do so.
Bars are required by law to store the identification documents of patrons in Australia.
Like the other reply said, when you go to a bar you’re just showing your birthdate to some guy at the front for a few seconds.
Now, if the bar demanded to make a scan of my ID and uploaded it to some server, and reported my entry to said bar to the government or some privatized authority, then handed that data to some algorithm to cross reference everywhere else I’ve been to build a profile on my behavior, then established various metrics based on who I was seen hanging around…then probably sold all of that to a bunch of marketing firms…
And on and on. Now imagine it’s been doing this since you were like 16.
If this sounds far fetched and overblown, I invite you to look at how US law enforcement uses dragnet surveillance like “stingray towers” to hand information to ICE, then make a decision as to whether “The Good Guys” or anybody else should be allowed to follow your footsteps across the Web.
Edit: quick side tangent:
The hilarious part is how the parties pushing for this “fOr ThE ChiLdReN” surveillance capitalism will also be the first to cry “Leftist Nanny State tho! Muh personal responsibility!” When people want something like universal healthcare.
agree, so the idea is ok but the way they are going about it sucks. what are some fixes?
Now, if the bar demanded to make a scan of my ID and uploaded it to some server, and reported my entry to said bar to the government or some privatized authority, then handed that data to some algorithm to cross reference everywhere else I’ve been to build a profile on my behavior, then established various metrics based on who I was seen hanging around…then probably sold all of that to a bunch of marketing firms…
That is in fact a requirement for bars in Australia.
It’s been that way for a while with clubs and some designated bars, but when did this happen with all bars?
Do I think that social media should be restricted for children and teens? Sure.
Okay, I agree and I am not exactly cheering for government telling anyone what they can and can’t look at… but what’s the alternative here? I am cautiously siding with the idea behind the regulation if not the execution, but so far nobody has suggested what we do about a problem that is real, proven and studied and is leading to a worse world.
I’m being serious here and in good faith. Should we do anything?
Am I in the wrong here for thinking we need to do something about this? Or is everyone just okay with whatever the end-result will be from subsequent generations of people growing up anxious, depressed, lacking social skills, without relationship partners? We already have “loneliness” being considered a global health risk, and it’s tied directly to digital communication habits. I would ask you or anyone here to just type “research on health social media teens” in google. Just try it and see how much work has gone into studying this problem.
yeah we need to do something about it, and people seem to be trying their best to come up with bullshit arguments against it. “people will find ways around it” and then saying not to bother etc i mean, people under 18 sneak into clubs and get beer… or maybe fake an ID and hit a pub… or get an older friend to do something for them… it doesnt stop us as a society holding a view that under age drinking isnt great, and we make some effort to enforce that even if its not perfect.
Wait, do you honestly believe that drinking age laws like the US has leads to less alcoholism, less underage drinking and less deaths from teenagers overdosing on alcohol?
Are you out of your mind?
do i think that drinking age laws restrict access to drinking? well, yes, i do. if i consider the impact of going from “drinking age laws existing” to “no laws existing at all”… would i be surprised to see a surge in drinking sales for minors? no. its not magic, and it doesn’t fix society issues, but that doesn’t make drinking age laws wrong either.
if i consider the impact of going from “drinking age laws existing” to “no laws existing at all”… would i be surprised to see a surge in drinking sales for minors? no.
If that occurred that would only conclusively prove an abrupt non-linear change may be bad with a law that impacts so many people and aspects of society…?
Some pearl-clutches said “won’t somebody think of the children”, and then made the social media companies figure out how to implement the ban.
It’s more than pearl-clutching though.
Kids dependency on social is a genuine social problem. Any parent that cares about their kids is deeply concerned about this.
I don’t really buy the “govt access to biometrics” angle. These companies have all the biometrics they could ever want.
The ban is going to be easy to circumvent technologically, but not so much socially. At this very moment, being the evening of 10 December, families around Australia are having conversations about social media and the problems it can cause.
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.
no social media.
less harmful.
addictive.
Australia.
I’ve seen this before
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?
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
hmm I thikk a lot of the apathy you speak of comes from social media influencing youth
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.
deleted by creator
Just going to teach those kids its okay to break the law.
A lesson that is not incorrect. Depends on the law.
No offence, children, but this is great news.
Props to Australia for creating a generation of kids with above average tech skills.
Not sure that’s a valid argument. Accessing social media is not a prerequisite to installing Linux on half-broken hardware
Make it a world wide ban to the age of 80
That’d be an effective total ban, because noone would want to be on a social media platform with entierly 80+ year olds. It’d be all corny minion memes.
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??Social media use by kids and teens has been demonstrated factually to cause harm to people’s mental health and social lives. The sources are plenty and widespread.
I still don’t know if a ban is the answer, but at least it’s an attempt to address a problem. I’m curious what your answer would be to this growing problem?
I figure holding tech giants directly accountable for the specific harms they’ve caused would be better than punishing an entire population but unfortunately our politicians are mostly either invertebrates who are too cowardly to pick fights with foreign corporate entities (so they’re useless drains of political will) or they’re actively supportive of them on the grounds of being ideologically pro-business (so, evil).
They feed us their poisons (surveillance capitalism and an unhealthy information ecosystem driven by algorithmic optimisation for advertising revenue) so they can sell us their “medicines” (age gating and mandatory identification online—more data harvesting as a selling point to advertisers) while they suppress our cure (an internet by independent creators as opposed to capitalist brands)
I figure holding tech giants directly accountable for the specific harms they’ve caused
What if; the social media giants are in another country. Your country doesn’t have jurisdiction there and can do fuck all in reality.
Maybe fine them??? Sure, which they will fight in court until the end of time; all the while the harm continues.
I don’t know if a ban will work, or what extra harms it will cause. But there are no good options to tackle this on the large scales of whole countries.
Algorithmic social media is mind cancer; if you have a better suggestion for tackling this issue. Let us know.
Lemmy is social media; but there is no algorithmic feed, my views are not being manipulated by some engagement maximizing machine.
What if; the social media giants are in another country. Your country doesn’t have jurisdiction there and can do fuck all in reality.Maybe fine them??? Sure, which they will fight in court until the end of time; all the while the harm continues.
The ban proves it’s possible to legislate, so maybe they should just legislate something better lol? Holding platforms accountable to a bare minimum standard of moderation against misinformation, bullying and harassment might be a starting point. And hey, if socmed’s really that bad for you, then us adults could benefit from this alternative, too! In any case, this ban is literally worse than just leaving the problem be.
In any case, this ban is literally worse than just leaving the problem be.
I don’t really agree; the ban will do two things.
1/ it will show the social media companies that, Australia at least; has tools that they can use to reduce their power.
2/ show kids that this is really serious; it is not just your parents saying shit you can ignore.
Will some kids work out how to get around it; yep, 100%. Will it be a big portion; maybe, tech literacy is not as high as it could/should be.
Holding platforms accountable to a bare minimum standard of moderation against misinformation, bullying and harassment might be a starting point.
This would be great; but it is also too little too late. They have tried, and failed at exactly this for years.
And hey, if socmed’s really that bad for you, then us adults could benefit from this alternative, too!
It is that bad for you! Algorithmic social media is doing you harm.
Wall of text incoming.
1/ it will show the social media companies that, Australia at least; has tools that they can use to reduce their power.
Holding platforms accountable to a bare minimum standard of moderation against misinformation, bullying and harassment might be a starting point.
This would be great; but it is also too little too late. They have tried, and failed at exactly this for years.
I don’t see how both these claims can simultaneously be true. Either Australia has tools to hold these companies to account, in which case, how would they have previously failed if they’d already tried? Or it doesn’t, and this is just one more completely futile policy that won’t give companies any more than the usual slap on the wrist if it ever goes to court.
I argue that they didn’t try, because they never actually cared about children’s wellbeing, because if they did they’d have done better than this, ergo this policy isn’t really about that and is actually about making citizens more easily identifiable online.
Additionally, it does nothing to reduce the power of seppo tech giants. On the contrary, they’ve got money, they’ll be fine. Independent social media sites however, don’t all have the resources to implement verification systems, so some will feel the financial burden of compliance a lot harder, and others will simply cease serving Australian users, further strengthening Silicon Valley’s hold over the internet.
As I have said over and over again in this thread, what the ban will do is cut children suffering domestic abuse (a problem that is absolutely rife in this country) off from their support networks. It’ll cut minority kids that’re subjected to bullying by their peers off from their communities. It’ll drive more kids to shadier corners of the internet where they’re at greater risk of predation. I’m not being hyperbolic when I say this is going to get children killed.
Furthermore—and again, as I’ve been repeating all over this thread—everyone—yes, that includes adults—will be required to submit personally identifiable information to private organisations just to communicate with other people online, making anyone in this country who uses social media a potential victim of identity theft the moment a data breach happens. And happen it will. It’s happened before, and it’ll happen again.
What’s more, knowing that the platforms they’re using have their identities will make a great many people more hesitant to speak critically about existing power structures, especially the government. This is bad.I stand by my previously stated opinion that all this is worse than the status quo, but even if it weren’t you should be asking why this is the solution that the government came up with.
I don’t see how both these claims can simultaneously be true.
Sorry, my poor communications…I was referring to the social media companies, when I said they had been trying and failing for years. Not trying that hard mind you; moderation is a very expensive problem to solve, and they don’t want to spend money they don’t explicitly have to.
(it’s) actually about making citizens more easily identifiable online.
Maybe. That is speculation, probably a nice little side effect. But not the primary goal.
Independent social media sites however, don’t all have the resources to implement verification systems, so some will feel the financial burden of compliance a lot harder, and others
This is a great point; and there is an easy way to solve this problem. Not that the govt will care that a simple solution exists. If you don’t have an algorithmic feed a lot of the spread of misinformation is curtailed. If you are not allowed to host images/video etc directly than the moderation of them can be off loaded to 3rd parties.
What’s more, knowing that the platforms they’re using have their identities will make a great many people more hesitant to speak critically about existing power structures.
Another great point. I don’t have a good answer to this one, but there are anonymous leak avenues etc for serious stuff.
figure holding tech giants directly accountable for the specific harms they’ve caused
I don’t disagree that the entire institution is rotten and causing harm, but in terms of just socializing online, just the act of forming communities and forums and discussion groups and sharing content, the essence of what’s becoming harmful, what is the right answer here? The stuff that causes a lot of the harm is just what people tend to do online, because humans broadly are not meant to substitute real social connections for whatever is happening when we scroll and type and read other people’s thoughts and fantasies and depressed manifestos of strangers every day.
Even now, you’re reading my text inside your head in your own voice. The act alone of having this discussion is creating an entirely new kind of information pattern in your brain that we haven’t had in the last half-million years or so since our brains evolved. Do you know what this new kind of information processing is doing to your view of the world? Do any of us?
I know if you type “research teens social media health” into google you will have days of reading material about the research done and how harmful these practices are. But I’m not sensing that anyone even cares honestly. Is it better that we let whatever happens happen? I’m not being facetious, I want to know if people genuinely think that this isn’t a problem worth fighting.
The stuff that causes a lot of the harm is just what people tend to do online…
The online harms I’m concerned with are bullying, harassment and misinformation. Platforms should be required by society to moderate against these, or face penalties proportionate to revenue. Instead just banning under 16s, even if it could be done in a way that is both effective and respectful of everyone’s privacy (I’m not convinced that it can) would still be a lazy abrogation of this responsibility, still leaving kids vulnerable to the same behaviours in offline spaces and everyone else vulnerable to the harms purportedly being caused among the youth online currently.
But the government isn’t interested in this because these behaviours serve to entrench existing social hierarchies, and the government—being in charge of the nation-state—likes existing social hierarchies.The stuff that causes a lot of the harm is just what people tend to do online, because humans broadly are not meant to substitute real social connections for whatever is happening when we scroll and type and read other people’s thoughts and fantasies and depressed manifestos of strangers every day.
Where is your hard evidence of this? Can you not make the same argument about a book? A TV? You cannot assert a statement like this as if it was indisputable fact.
I know parents who successfully regulate their kids access to social media, games, tv, movies. Pushing this regulation is not the solution. Does more damage and will only make parents more complacent.
I don’t disagree with any of that.
I am mostly asking people here what they think the alternative should be. Like you say, parents who manage and monitor this are going have better outcomes… but that’s not the norm, and the problem is getting worse despite all of us having more knowledge and proof how vital it is for their kids to have their internet use managed. So I am not convinced any kind of education campaign is going to do much. Most parents are just as addicted to their phones and rather scroll than parent. This is a societal problem with many intersecting problems.
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
Yeah, they should have banned social media completely instead.
social media does have its benefits though, like the democratisation of the press.
I’m of the opinion that simply banning advertisements outright destroys the incentive structure that exists to keep social media bad
Banning advertisements to kids is the correct approach. I’ve observed with my own kids, they genuinely don’t yet have the mental faculties to be critical of advertisements. They see something advertised, they want it, simple as that. Their brains aren’t developed enough for content with advertising nor product placement.
Maybe there’s a sweet spot in limiting it to toy ads and ads for other content on the same platform that they’re watching. I’m not sure, I’m not a child psychologist, but kids should not be presented ads for energy drinks/drink supplements (I wish I was kidding but I’ve specifically had to have a conversation with my daughter about why we’re not buying the drink band owned by a certain YouTube celebrity who got himself banned from returning to Japan) nor for restaurants (especially not fast food!) nor for sketchy paid mod launchers for games (fuck you to the like only YouTuber who focuses entirely on Wobbly Life and is constantly advertising that!), nor most of the other things I’ve seen advertised to the kids recently
This is a wildly popular measure in Australia.
Popular doesn’t mean just.
This adds an extra layer of entry into the competition and ensures the big boys stay on top.
On the contrary.
Loads of new platforms have sprung up with are not listed amongst those required to implement age verification.
Yes, any which become successful will be required to implement age verification but… they will already be successful.
AFAIK only big platforms are required to take measures, so it’s actually the opposite of what you said. it shifts power to smaller platforms who don’t have to comply with these rules.
I do agree with you… for now. But this is just the beginning.
And to be fair, I do believe something has to change. However, we’ll find out in 10 years if this is the can of worms we really wanted to open.
Hopefully, the open source community and the “competitive commons” will make strides faster than the oligarchs can suffocate it.
not around me
Are you 12?
are you 11?
No.
Ban it all, its a plague on civilization!
Ham Radio Time
Damn kids with their hunky dory gadgetry them should touch grass and live outdoors like good ol days /s
