Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 580 posts

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#311

Post by quintes »

y1426i wrote: post #121
giantg2 wrote: post #112

Its a little bit of a stretch to call YouTube social media. There are tons of great instructional videos. The real kicker to me is that the government has passed a law restricting access yet they haven't determined how they're going to enforce an age check. It's wild that they passed a law without consideration to it's mechanics or feasibility.

It should at least be possible to ban YouTube shorts. I wish those were served from a separate domain to make it easier to block just those.

I learnt drums for a song I like from shorts. Blanket bans are not a solution

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#312

Post by enobrev »

mrheosuper wrote: post #307
sharperguy wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't tried it myself yet, but I self host my own Jellyfin(1) instance, and I've had it recommended to combine it with pinchflat(2), which will auto download and label entire youtube channels, as they publish new videos. So then you could use it to archive and provide access to the channels you want without worrying about the recommendations and other channels. 1. https://jellyfin.org/ 2. https://github.com/kiera…

Interesting, i have 2 questions: - Can it limit the time range of video to download? Some channels may have ten thousand of video. - Can it auto include the CC to video, that's one of main selling points of youtube to me.

I've just started setting this up for my own family with plex instead of jellyfin, so I don't have a LOT of answers, but...

- yes pinchflat allows you to define the date at which it starts downloading. For a couple channels, I set it to only download the past year's worth of videos and it seems to have respected that properly. It also allows you to set a retention period

- it allows you to download, embed, and use autogenerated subtitles (three separate options)

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#313

Post by abduhl »

shakna wrote: post #304
modeless wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And once your kid hits a certain age, they do not want to be on the kids version. Who's in charge here, you or your kids? Sure, maybe you could imagine a teen YouTube product you might like more, but you can't say the whitelist feature doesn't exist. It's there and it works.

> Who's in charge here, you or your kids? As a parent you're not in charge of a teenager. You're there to guide them, and try to protect them from their bad choices, but they have reached a point where they are beginning to control their self-determinism. They're not a kid anymore. If you just try to act the authority, try to control everything, then well... You'll either end up in abusive land, or trying to control…

You are, in fact, in charge of your teenager as a parent. They are, in fact, still a kid. Controlling your kid’s access to things which you deem harmful is, in fact, not abusive. Setting appropriate boundaries does not, in fact, mean you are not treating your kid as a person who has their own sense of self. Most kids will not, in fact, hate you for setting boundaries and being their parent.

It is quite impressive that nearly everything you’ve typed is incorrect.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#314

Post by stephen_g »

forgotoldacc wrote: post #46

A couple months ago, I saw people everywhere online (including HN) saying they love the idea of social media bans for kids. They love the idea of keeping people under 18 safe from the dangers of porn and mature games and other unclean things as well. Now governments around the world are acting in unison to happily give those people what they want, and people are suddenly confused and pissed that these laws mean you n…

From here in Australia, nobody was really asking for this here.

Best I can tell it came from a single but sustained pressure campaign by one of the Murdoch newspapers.

Then the Government gamed some survey polling to make it look like there was support for it (asking questions that assumed an impossible perfect system that could magically block under-16s with no age verification for adults). Still, over 40% of parents said that 15s and under should be able to access Facebook and Instagram, and over 75% of parents said they should be able to access YouTube, but the Government was acting like 95% of people were for blocking them, when it was closer to 50% of parents.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#315

Post by stephen_g »

exasperaited wrote: post #137
giantg2 wrote: post #112

Its a little bit of a stretch to call YouTube social media. There are tons of great instructional videos. The real kicker to me is that the government has passed a law restricting access yet they haven't determined how they're going to enforce an age check. It's wild that they passed a law without consideration to it's mechanics or feasibility.

> It's wild that they passed a law without consideration to it's mechanics or feasibility. It's not. Much of the world's governments (particularly those that follow the UK system) implement smaller laws and then delegate the implementation to statutory instruments/secondary legislation, written by experts and then adopted by ministers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_and_secondary_legislat... (Australia include…

Except in Australia experts don't come into it, except for sham inquirys that are held as a matter of course.

In this case, basically all the tech experts and child safety experts were saying that a blanket ban is not a workable policy, and could create harms in certain marginalised demographics where teens may rely on social media for support, yet the Government ignored them all and ploughed ahead.

The only changes to the legislation came from some political horse trading with the Opposition to get it through the Senate.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#316

Post by protocolture »

stephen_g wrote: post #314
forgotoldacc wrote: post #46

A couple months ago, I saw people everywhere online (including HN) saying they love the idea of social media bans for kids. They love the idea of keeping people under 18 safe from the dangers of porn and mature games and other unclean things as well. Now governments around the world are acting in unison to happily give those people what they want, and people are suddenly confused and pissed that these laws mean you n…

From here in Australia, nobody was really asking for this here. Best I can tell it came from a single but sustained pressure campaign by one of the Murdoch newspapers. Then the Government gamed some survey polling to make it look like there was support for it (asking questions that assumed an impossible perfect system that could magically block under-16s with no age verification for adults). Still, over 40% of parent…

>From here in Australia, nobody was really asking for this here.

Government in australia is about being seen to be busy. Give them an idea that cant be morally contested, that the media wont contest, and they go about it.

Much like how we got our eSafety commissioner and internet bans. We protested them for years, but then sneaky scomo used Christchurch as wedge and got it through without protest.

And as ever, our minor parties, especially liberty minded ones are more concerned with whats in kids pants than actual liberty.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#317

Post by stephen_g »

__d wrote: post #162
wewewedxfgdf wrote: post #77

The Australian Prime Minister - Anthony Albanese - was once asked by a radio host what he would do if he was dictator - he said he would ban all social media. And lets note that the ALP government is very fast and snappy to ban social media, very slow to do important things like: - ban money laundering in real estate - ban gambling advertising And very quick to: - approve massive new coal mines - approve massive new…

The social media ban is broadly popular. The clear majority of voters support it. It’s a political win for the government to push this through, over the objections from Google, Meta, etc. The fact that social media makes a stack of money in Australia but manages to pay almost no tax absolutely impacts their fate: both with the government and the voters. Some of the popularity of this legislation might even come from…

Hardly. Their survey showed about 55% of parents support for blocking 15s and under from Facebook and a bit less than 60% for Instagram, and less than 25% support for blocking YouTube, yet the Government talks as if support was almost universal.

But, and that's a very important but, this was based on questions that assume that adults would not have to do any kind of age or identity verification.

I expect the Government will be very surprised with the response when this is actually implemented.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#318

Post by Perenti »

quintes wrote: post #309

YouTube is actually useful. How to X, doing x making y learn to play x on the piano/ guitar Keep knowledge away from the children. For their “safety”

Yep, keep how to make PCP in a bathtub away from kids. Keep holocaust deniers away from kids. Keep race-hate videos away from kids.

Keep Hancock and Joe Rogan away from kids.

Keep lies and conspiracy theories away from kids.

You seem to think kids are good at risk analysis and critical thinking. There are exceptions, but most people don't develop these things until their late teens when the pre-frontal cortex is developed.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#319

Post by shakna »

abduhl wrote: post #313
shakna wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who's in charge here, you or your kids? As a parent you're not in charge of a teenager. You're there to guide them, and try to protect them from their bad choices, but they have reached a point where they are beginning to control their self-determinism. They're not a kid anymore. If you just try to act the authority, try to control everything, then well... You'll either end up in abusive land, or trying to control…

You are, in fact, in charge of your teenager as a parent. They are, in fact, still a kid. Controlling your kid’s access to things which you deem harmful is, in fact, not abusive. Setting appropriate boundaries does not, in fact, mean you are not treating your kid as a person who has their own sense of self. Most kids will not, in fact, hate you for setting boundaries and being their parent. It is quite impressive tha…

They're no longer a child. That is why they have a different nomenclature - teenager. They are not "a kid".

Treating an adolescent as a child is damaging to their mental state [0].

I already said boundaries are a thing: You are there to guide them. But you are not there... To control them. Because doing so, is damaging. And as a parent, damaging your family is both heinous, and a crime.

To put it another way: The law sets boundaries on how you can drive. This guides you, to keep you and others safe. It does not however enforce control over you. Your choices are still your own. A parent aims to guide an adolescent, who is no longer a child.

[0] https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002003.htm

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#320

Post by sunaookami »

mschuster91 wrote: post #264
jjangkke wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I mentioned that any attempt at identifying users to access or write content is a trojan horse for a wide surveillance yet HN users downvoted and flagged such comments and were zealously supportive of "prottecct kidz" In the late 90s and early 2000s we as teenagers had access to unfiltered internet and unregulated. The harm to us were largely moral fanaticism, this was when they also tried to ban video games bec…

> In the late 90s and early 2000s we as teenagers had access to unfiltered internet and unregulated. The harm to us were largely moral fanaticism, this was when they also tried to ban video games because of violent content and now we have complete censorship and control over what games can sell or not on steam. I get your point but I don't agree. I mean, politicians back then were actually right in assuming that dang…

Sounds like you just want to censor political views and only be seen content that your government wants you to see.
Post reply on HN