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.
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
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.
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.
I just wanna say hi, and I remember those days, too.
For a long time, I couldn’t understand people saying they hate the Internet or their phone or anything like that, because I had been having a blast for so long and thought it was one of the most vibrant, fun, educational and useful part of my life that has taught me a lot.
But at some point I found myself scrolling the same site for hours, trying to tear my eyes off screen and telling myself that I wasn’t enjoying myself and that I should stop, but I just couldn’t. That’s when I finally understood.
I try to bring back intention to this. I think what I want to do online first before I do it – what topic to look for when I want to watch a video, what kind of news or discourse I want to read, what’s that on my mind that I want to share. Talking to my peers, I often feel like this kind of approach has long been lost to not thinking for yourself and wanting entertainment to just sort of happen to you, predict what you want, guess.
Big money figuring out the Internet has been a very bad thing.
Preach it.
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.
My greedy motivation is to not interact with children on the Internet. I don’t actually care what other people’s children do on the Internet beyond that.
I think that’s easier said than done. There are a lot of negatives associated with social media and some are easier to put restrictions on (say violent content) but I don’t think we really have a good grasp of all the ways use is associated with depression for example. And wouldn’t some of this still fall back to age restricted areas, kind of like with movies?
But yeah, it would be nice to see more push back on the tech companies instead of the consumers
Its a very simple fix with a few law changes.
-
The act of promoting or curating user submitted data makes the company strictly liable for any damages done by the content.
-
The deliberate spreading of harmful false information makes the hosting company liable for damages.
This would bankrupt Facebook, Twitter, etc within 6 months.
The act of promoting or curating user submitted data makes the company strictly liable for any damages done by the content.
I assume you don’t mean simply providing the platform for the content to be hosted, in that case I agree this would definetly help.
The deliberate spreading of harmful false information makes the hosting company liable for damages.
This one is damn near impossible to enforce for the sole reason of the word “deliberate”, the issue is that I would not support such a law without that part.
This one is damn near impossible to enforce for the sole reason of the word “deliberate”, the issue is that I would not support such a law without that part.
It would also be easily abused, especially since someone would have to take a look and check, which would already put a bottleneck in the system, and the social media site would have to take it down to check, just in case, which gives someone a way to effectively remove posts.
I left out the hosting part for just that reason. The company has to activately do something to gain the liability. Right now the big social media companies are deliberately prioritizing harmful information to maximize engagement and generate money.
As for enforcement hosters have had to develop protocols for removal of illegal content since the very beginning. Its still out there and can be found, but laws and mostly due diligence from hosters, makes it more difficult to find. Its the reason Lemmy is not full of illegal pics etc. The hosters are actively removing it and banning accounts that publish it.
Those protocols could be modified to include obvious misinformation bots etc. Think about the number of studies that have shown that just a few accounts are the source of the majority of harmful misinformation on social media.
Of course any reporting system needs to be protected from abuse. The DMCA takedown abusers are a great example of why this is needed.
That kind of aligns with some actions I would love to see but I don’t really see how it helps in the example I used to highlight some of the harder things to fix, depression. How does that improve the correlation between social media use and depression in teenagers? I can see it will improve from special cases like removing posts pro eating disorder content but I’m pretty confident the depression correlation goes well beyond easy to moderate content.
Also, if we presumed that some amount of horrific violence is okay for adults to choose to see and a population of people thinks its reasonable to restrict this content for people below a certain age (or swap violence for sex / nudity) then do we just decide we know better than that population, that freedom is more important, or does it fall back to age restrictions again (but gated on parts of the site)? I’m avoiding saying “government” here and going with “population of people” to try to decouple a little from some of the negatives people associate with government, especially since COVID
But yeah, holding tech companies accountable like that would be lovely to see. I suspect the cost is so large they couldn’t pay so it would never happen, but I think that’s because society has been ignoring their negative externalities for so long they’re intrenched
-
Oh definitely not easy, my point is that it’s even harder now
Why do you say it’s harder now?
You can’t use the think of the children line
True, but there is momentum. It’s empowering other countries and that could lead to a second pass at legislation in Aus after its not so outlandish or it could lead to another country doing something better and then Aus copying after the costly validation was done by someone else. I think waiting for perfect legislation likely leads to what we’ve had for a while and that’s even less / very little push back on tech companies
It’s a bandaid. And just like previous attempts like this all this will do is make Australian kids better at circumventing the censorship or using an alternative website. Which, honestly, is probably a positive in and of itself. I’d much rather my kid be visiting some random forum type website (like I grew up with) then the absolute brain rot that is social media algorithms.
Seeing “lemon party” posted before the mods removed it definitely fucked me up less than the slop being fed into the brains of teenagers on social media today.
Wow I’m shocked you have no downvotes. I totally agree but Lemmy seems to hate internet restrictions, especially porn. Don’t come for their porn. They’ll destroy you.
There is literally nothing negative about this. Children will be exposed to less internet propaganda, and forums are generally much better with fewer children. Everyone wins.
Let’s legally require social media companies to gather even more sensitive information about their users, making them more vulnerable to identity theft in the process and isolating the most vulnerable in our society from their support networks. There is literally nothing negative about this.
You are a fucking imbecile.
Strangely enough, support networks can exist outside of social media. It’s very possible to directly message friends or neighbors without being subjected to the dregs of public social media. It remains possible to get world/local news without an attached public forum.
If you’re going to make a space that has content for adults and allows for free adult discussions (with all the nuance and complications that entails), then restrict it to adults only.
This is only a problem in conjuction with legislation requiring social media use (ie: as an official broadcast system, payment platform, electoral tool, etc…). If we fight that and force it to remain an opt-in disinformation platform then who cares?
As it currently stands nothing is forcing you on these platforms other than a conditioned familiarity. Even worse, there are no tech or legal protections preventing them uniquely identifying users today. Them getting an official state ID doesn’t change much. More barriers to entry for a shitty surveillance and propoganda platform? Literally no downsides there.
And the suicide rate of queer and other marginalized kids will skyrocket. What’s a few thousand dead kids in the name of protecting the children, right?
Wasn’t aware that social media keeps kids alive?..
I’ve seen enough stories on kids being cyber bullied into suicide that I really doubt there’s enough happy inclusion on these platforms to balance that.
Oh come on use your damn brain you are smarter than this, imagine growing up as a queer kid in the middle of nowhere in a very conservative community, can you really not get it through your head that maybe just maybe then the internet might be a lifeline for kids like that? Yes the internet is toxic, but that doesn’t mean the internet isn’t also a vital lifeline for countless very isolated people… who are isolated against their will.
I’m trying to “use my damn brain”, I want genuine research showing this as a benefit that outweighs the numerous and well documented negatives that social media causes in children and young adults (depression, social isolation, body image issues, extremist and regressive worldviews, sleep and concentration issues, and on and on…).
If you can actually show me that it saves queer kids from oppression in a way that couldn’t be done via other methods (school programs, library funding, safe and child friendly neighborhoods, media representation, etc.) then maybe we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Otherwise this is keeping the baby by voluntarily flooding your house with sewage.
If you can actually show me that it saves queer kids from oppression in a way that couldn’t be done via other methods (school programs, library funding, safe and child friendly neighborhoods, media representation, etc.) then maybe we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
No, the onus is on you to prove your points before you assert something you potentially have no sufficient alternative for should be denied.
Here is a place for you to start educating yourself!
This review identified LGBTQ youths’ uses of social media to connect with like-minded peers, manage their identity, and seek support. In the few studies that considered mental health outcomes (5/26, 19%), the use of social media appeared to be beneficial to the mental health and well-being of this group [11,34,44,55,60]. In this systematic review, we identified the various important beneficial roles of social media, but the findings were limited by weaknesses in the evidence base. This information may be useful for professionals (eg, educators, clinicians, and policy makers) working with LGBTQ youth to consider the appropriate use of social media in interventions as it provides an evidence base for the role of social media in the lives of LGBTQ youths. These findings help further understand how LGBTQ youths use social media and its positive and negative impacts on their mental health and well-being. Further research is required to provide stronger evidence of how social media is used for connectivity, identity, and support and determine causal links to mental health outcomes. We recommend larger, representative, and prospective research, including intervention evaluation, to better understand the potential of social media to support the health and well-being of marginalized LGBTQ young people. It is imperative that social media is understood and its beneficial use is supported to ensure improved outcomes.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9536523/
Edit here is another
Just as the American Academy of Pediatrics has called for rethinking the shame-based narrative of a developmentally appropriate use of social media [33] clinicians might consider both the risks and benefits that social media use can have for youth and adults. Clinicians can work closely with local community organizations and advocate for positive policy change to better support LGBTQ + youth. There is a need for more research on BIPOC LGBTQ + adolescents as the intersectionality of their identities brings nuance to the interactions on social media and the impact this has on those populations [3, 4, 13, 15, 29]. There is also a shortage of research involving LGBTQ + youth of intersectional backgrounds, including rural, racial/ethnic minority, gender minority, and neurodivergent youth. Researchers are developing new tools like the Social Media Benefits Scale (SMBS) that can be used as a clinical tool to help develop and implement a social media strategy to give a new multidimensional way for professional practitioners to develop strategies for interventions [34]. Additionally, there are increasing digital modalities to mitigate the disproportionate high rate of online victimization and suicidal risk for LGBTQ + youth. At the University of Pittsburgh, an app called Flourish is being developed through codesigning to augment schools and mental health services for LGBTQ + youth who face online victimization [35]. Other digital interventions are being designed with LGBTQ + youth feedback, and concluded that tech-based tools, such as apps and chatbots, offer immediate, non-judgmental feedback but can feel impersonal [15]. Understanding informal learning and non-clinical contexts that can help shape the mental wellbeing of LGBTQ + youth will be critical. For instance, virtual camps during the COVID-19 pandemic that celebrated the LGBTQ + identity development and supported social network development reported longitudinally reduced depressive symptoms, friendship formation, and positive changes in self-esteem [36, 37]. This is an initiative that could be specialized to outreach underserved LGBTQ + communities such as rural BIPOC adolescents.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40124-024-00338-2
Edit 2 another
Social media can provide benefits for some youth by providing positive community and connection with others who share identities, abilities, and interests. It can provide access to important information and create a space for self-expression.9 The ability to form and maintain friendships online and develop social connections are among the positive effects of social media use for youth.18, 19 These relationships can afford opportunities to have positive interactions with more diverse peer groups than are available to them offline and can provide important social support to youth.18 The buffering effects against stress that online social support from peers may provide can be especially important for youth who are often marginalized, including racial, ethnic, and sexual and gender minorities.20, 21, 22 For example, studies have shown that social media may support the mental health and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, transgender, queer, intersex and other youths by enabling peer connection, identity development and management, and social support.23 Seven out of ten adolescent girls of color report encountering positive or identity-affirming content related to race across social media platforms.24 A majority of adolescents report that social media helps them feel more accepted (58%), like they have people who can support them through tough times (67%), like they have a place to show their creative side (71%), and more connected to what’s going on in their friends’ lives (80%).25 In addition, research suggests that social media-based and other digitally-based mental health interventions may also be helpful for some children and adolescents by promoting help-seeking behaviors and serving as a gateway to initiating mental health care.8, 26, 27, 28, 29
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK594763/#ch1.s1
This is complicated, you can’t just take away a thing that for many vulnerable people may be a lifeline and just handwave and say “well we should be solving the problem with other methods anyways!”, these are problems now that need addressing now, your dismissal is irrelevant to the people who are isolated and who could find connection through the internet that you are advocating for denying because it isn’t the right way to solve the problem in your opinion.
something you potentially have no sufficient alternative for should be denied.
Not having an obvious alternative ready doesn’t change the cost/benefit weight for society at large. Just because cars are the only way we have to navigate suburban sprawl doesn’t absolve them of being one of the worst modes of transport for safety, the climate, passenger efficiency, etc… We should be talking about radically restricting their use, not shrugging and trying a driver education bandaid.
For a laugh, a scoping review of social media and adolescent risks through 2022. Sure, plenty of questions on causality, but also quantitative articles on direct impacts to physical health and harmful exposure to constant ads. In dozens of articles, just 1 (one) article finding a positive socializing impact… I’m certainly leaning towards denial by default…
I really hope you know we can tell you’re a child
Certainly at heart
No, it’s the lack of self-awareness that’s the giveaway
Honestly it feels like you should regulate how Facebook can interact with children instead of the children’s access to it
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.
Tech giants are well known for lobbying against any legislation that gives them less freedoms to exploit markets and regulations of any kind that impact them - but this legislation that was targeted specifically at regulating them and removes a significant number of users - “this is suspicious, I think they might be the ones pushing it!”
There’s so many people in under this post trying to turn it into anything but what it is - legislation attempting to protect kids from the harms of social media. Which, again - are well documented.
That was my first reaction after processing the news–lets hold them accountable for hate, exploitation, etc.
If they can’t play nice they don’t get to do business at all.
just ban advertisements, it’s that easy
One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media
Have you tried parenting her?
Meh. It’s societal level issue. It should be handled at the societal level
Yah, a lot of people are raging at this but not providing any alternative to a studied and proven problem.
Yes. The societal level solution is the parents of the society choosing to do their jobs.
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.
Parents who were can’t anymore, since there are no longer any parental controls.
“Give me your phone, give me your laptop” works pretty well.
My phone has a giant “setup parental controls” button. You can block specific websites using tools like PiHole that are easy to set up.
Lol ok just ask every parent who already can’t manage their children’s online habits to set up a pihole. I’m sure they won’t have any issues with that.
PiHole is only easy to set up for us becaise we’re a group of giant nerds. The average parent will think you’re talking about their mouth when you say pihole.
Are you insane? That sounds like work LOL.
How dare you imply that a parent should educate their children? Don’t you know how much they have to work hard already every single day to grow up the child no one forced them to have in the first place??
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.
Looks like a great news. Moreover, kids may learn how old school Internet works rather than being stuck in an algorithm bubble
they start making php forums and using IRC, hey i’m all for that.
Typing games about to be fire again
Mumble and Pigdin won’t be banned right? Also, swapping mobile numbers and getting on conference calls… Writing letters and all that. There’s still other ways to communicate.
I’m almost thinking of making a quick phone app to give them options and ideas on how to communicate outside of the big tech bubble.
I wonder if making your own personal website on Neocities/Geocities will come back in vogue again.
YES PLEASE
If enough of it is still around. A lot of the old spaces that used to exist aren’t around any more.
Plus things like YouTube and Discord aren’t banned, do chances are, they would end up there instead.
Github may be, strangely enough.
“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
should be able to
well good luck then :)
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)
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
But how will the sites make money? Will someone please think of the lost profit!!!??
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
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
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.
This is going to be a shit show.
I’m not opposed to the idea that kids shouldn’t have access to social media, but they obviously do. Their social lives are online, and their insecure little brains are going to scream that they’ve been kicked out of the tribe when you cut the link
The ban won’t work, but will also cause a lot of damage
Withdrawal is an unpleasant, but necessary, part of detox.
On the other hand, I 100% agree it’s going to be a shit show. Technological development has outpaced the law as long as I’ve been alive, and the disparity is only growing… Authorities are not equipped to provide solutions to the problems that technology has created, and continues to create.
Withdrawal isn’t what I’m worried about… You can’t cut teens off from their peers and get a good result
Those who can will evade, those who can’t will feel a crippling level of isolation. That doesn’t do good things to a teenage mind
but will also cause a lot of damage
Like what exactly?
Like teenagers, who run off social validation, suddenly feeling like they’re excluded from their society
Kids are going to kill themselves.
And far more kids are going to develop complexes that they’ll never recover from
Social isolation hits the brain like physical pain. We’re hardwired to feel social isolation as trauma, logic can’t save you from feeling like you’ve been cut off from your peers
One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media
Literally the fault of the parent.
Removed by mod
my kid was becoming a piece of shit watching all the YouTube/tiktok bullshit. so, I blocked access to those domains and now limit device access to a couple hours a week.
as a parent it’s my responsibility to protect my children from the dangers of the internet. it’s not the corporations responsibility to ensure the internet is safe for kids. the internet is not a fucking daycare.
since the change they have been far better behaved and respectful. so much so that teachers asked what changed and are currently trialing similar solutions with other parents with success.
you’re just giving excuses and zero solutions, I doubt you even have kids.
That’s something I’ve been telling people for years… Treat the Internet as you would the largest city you know of.
Would you take your kid to Times Square, turn them loose and say “Go have fun!” Of course not, that’s insanity.
No you ass. What do you want, for the parents to hover over their kids 24/7? There’s is no realistic way even the most well-intentioned parent could ever keep their kids off this stuff.
My parents had a two hour per day limit on using the computer. The one exception was if we were using it to do homework.
You’re just not very imaginative.
No you ass. What do you want, for the parents to hover over their kids 24/7? There’s is no realistic way even the most well-intentioned parent could ever keep their kids off this stuff.
Agreed.
The “fault” here are social media companies spending billions to make their products as addictive as possible. And since they refuse to play nice, well, then this needs to happen.
Two for two. With you so far.
Or to put in words that might resonate with you more:
It’s the government’s job to reign [sic] in disobedient companies
I think I like where this is going…
This is good parenting from the government.
What? How did you make that jump??? No, you fucking dolt, this is abysmal. “Good parenting from the government” would be holding said companies accountable to a bare minimum standard of moderation against mis- and disinformation and bullying and harassment on their platforms. Cutting off the most vulnerable people in our society from their support networks is even more damaging than just doing nothing. Make no mistake, this will make it harder for children in abusive situations to find support, and is going to get people killed.
And doing it by requiring social media sites to collect highly sensitive personally identifiable information from all users is leaving pretty much everybody more vulnerable to identity theft.
What’s more is that this isn’t in any way reining in the tech giants. Au contraire, it’s further pushing control of internet communications into their hands because they’re the ones who have the money needed to implement the verification systems in the first place, while independently run sites that can’t afford to implement such systems will either just have to hope they can fly under the regulator’s radar or cease providing service to Australian users. Just look at the floating pile of rubbish off the French coast, just east of Ireland if you really need an example of a precedent.
No wonder we live in such a fucking nanny state.
There is precedence though. We age gate: nicotine, alcohol, gambling etc…
we shouldnt expect parents to be monitoring children 24/7. actually, as children get older they should be given freedoms, parents have the right to expect our society has some guardrails.
The guardrails already exist. Put parental controls on your kid’s devices. Done, solved. Block social media sites, monitor what they’re doing online. Don’t go making it mandatory for everyone to give social media companies more information than they already have.
A better comparison would be “let’s put a government mandated ID scanner on everyone’s liquor cabinet so that their kids can’t access it! Oh you don’t have kids? Too bad, still need that ID scanner!”
Maybe the focus should be on a free (government funded, ideally FOSS) parental controls software suite that makes blocking social media on all major platforms (iOS, Android, Windows, Mac, and Linux) simple and easy. Promote it to parents, and get them to parent, instead of deanonymizing the internet for everyone.
The guardrails already exist. Put parental controls on your kid’s devices. Done, solved.
But nobody does that, and the problem is getting worse.
What’s your answer if you can’t get a population to make better choices and people are being harmed by something?
I’m not saying there’s a right answer here, I am genuinely looking for alternatives on a societal level to address a proven health problem.
The bans are for under 16s, not just 7 year olds. Parents don’t control all internet activity for 15 years, at that age they are going to have some autonomy outside of the house.
I’m not sure there is a direct irl analog when it comes to controlling digital spaces, since they are personal by nature. and I think this is where the debate comes in.
Should parents be following their teenage child into every store to make sure they aren’t buying alcohol?
I get the concern with providing social media companies a government ID, I certainly would never give them one! I would just not use them. But they provide net negative value in my opinion so no loss.
I like the idea of FOSS parental controls.
Linux isn’t close to being a major platform
Not to say it’s never the parents fault…
Parents who were also raised by social media? This isn’t a new problem but it is a problem that’s getting worse, I don’t know if a ban is the answer but so far nobody has even suggested an effective alternative to reducing screen-time for both adults and kids.
This ban isn’t supposed to solve a problem overnight, but it’s supposed to influence some segment of the population to socialize, to form real communities and to hopefully grow up capable of helping their own kids not get addicted.
This is a real problem, it’s widespread across the globe and many, many studies have shown the harm social media has on a huge percentage of teens.
Also, parents work. Parents sleep. You can’t fucking hover over your teen night and day, you would hate that worse.
The solution is education not bans. This is crazy. Regulating social media access has some major privacy concerns, will make parents more complacent and will only cause kids to seek other more dubious means of communicating. It also places a major wall in front of the development of new social media platforms.
The solution is education not bans.
I agree.
But what do we do about the fact that even though our knowledge, research and understanding of the problem has increased, the problem has gotten worse? Is there more that can be done on that front that you think would be effective? Genuinely asking to help me shape my opinion.
It’s blooming into a larger-scale societal problem than just hoping enough people pull through, a lack of stable mental health and attention spans across large swaths of your population start to erode your society.
Of course! We force cigarette manufacturers to put the dangers of smoking on the package.
