Technology

Is anyone talking about the fact that it's the predatory, short-term-quarterly-gains oriented behavior of the platforms themselves which is in fact rampaging though democracies, massively affecting and survielling Adult's behaviors on a loop of ragebait-induced dopamine/seratonin manipulation?

Because Kids are going to connect with one another, on whichever the next platform is that's not banned. What's more, the institutions they attend will inevitably ask them to do so as...things like Youtube arent exactly 100% avoidable.

Pretty pathetic to clamp down on Youth Liberty in a society that has basically none, when centrally-hosted platforms owned by corporate behemoths are all-but-physically trampling the landscape like some kind of fucked up gentrification-glorifying-voiceline-repeating Megazord

I feel like every law I see coming out of Australia is just telling their citizens they’re not allowed to do something else mundane. All while the government services get worse, and the corrupt become more entrenched.

What a shithole.

What they consider as "social media"? Is it every site where you can communicate with others?

This seems fucked if its so.

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 ociety. 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.

Pssst! Hey kid, wanna buy some memes?

The fact that people even considered this with a straight face, discussed it and passed it is just indicative how tech illiterate we've become.

Well that's not going to work out.

The second i have to hand over my id to a tech company is the second i leave and never come back.

Also how they gonna manage the fediverse? Can someone get fined for providing social media to themselves if an under 16 sets up their own federated instance?

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.

performative nonsense which does nothing for kids or their mental health and harms queer kids who lose one of the first places they can find community.

This is just abstinence education all over again

Now ban parents posting pictures of their children under 16.

I DGAF about your kids.

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.