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

441–450 of 580 posts

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

#441

Post by watwut »

kdamica wrote: post #425
ElCapitanMarkla wrote: post #133

I don't really understand why Youtube won't let me create a profile, on my paid family account that I'm paying $29 NZD a month for, which lets me whitelist channels. I'm happy for my kids to have free access to certain channels on youtube, but the mind numbing shorts, and shit they find on random channels just does my head in. And it seems to be getting worse, I'm not sure if its that they are getting older and able…

Have you tried creating a YouTube Kids profile? What you’re describing sounds like what they already have. It is not the default but there is a setting that allows you to create a list of allowed channels. The setting is called “Approved Content Only”.

YouTube kids is a wasteland for non English content. And also, there is whole world of content I would be more then happy to encourage my kids to watch that is unavailable there.

While also containing huge amount of unboxing toys crap I would not give to my kids in my own watchiles.

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

#443

Post by watwut »

opan wrote: post #295
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…

The simple answer to these situations is usually that it's not the same people complaining in both instances. I see similar things in places with anonymous posting where people assume everyone was in agreement on x, then later they hear something different and try to frame it like a flip-flop or a gotcha. People are never all in agreement. To add to that, often no news is good news, or rather people won't bother post…

Someone the two groups never meet in one thread. Somehow they are all afraid to voice their points when the other group is speaking.

It is something worth pointing out.

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

#444

Post by qcnguy »

uyzstvqs wrote: post #434
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…

That opinion still stands. But I believe that we should regulate children's access to the internet, and not the internet's access to children. As the prior does not affect adults and their free, open and private internet, while the latter absolutely does. I believe that there should be a standard, open framework for parental control at the OS level, where parents can see a timeline of actions, and need to whitelist e…

Why do you need regulation for any of that? Devices with parental controls exist already. Special browsers with parental controls exist, just for kids. Do you think Jane Smith, L3 civil servant, will do a great job of taking over product management for the entire software industry despite having a BA in English Lit and having never heard of JIRA?

There's no need for any regulations here and never was. It was always a power grab by governments and now the people who trusted the state are making surprised pikachu faces. "We didn't mean like this", they cry, whilst studiously ignoring all the people who predicted exactly this outcome.

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

#445

Post by viraptor »

Aerroon wrote: post #381
conradludgate wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signature schemes can be validated without the signers involvement. No tokens need to go back to the government

And they do this over a network we know governments are constantly spying on?

This scenario doesn't make sense. Either govs can spy on your traffic and see everything (and don't need tokens for spying), or they can't and wouldn't be able to see the token. There's no scenario for: they can only spy on their tokens in your traffic.

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

#446

Post by b112 »

exe34 wrote: post #403
Aurornis wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We should be allowed to create and use whatever UI we want for the public endpoints that are exposed Having been at a company that tried this: The number of poorly-behaved or outright abusive clients is a huge problem. Having a client become popular with a small group of people and then receive some update that turned it into a DDoS machine because someone made a mistake in a loop or forgot to sleep after an error…

> The volume of support requests due to third party clients It's not like Google provides any support to their consumers though. They barely provide any to their customers.

But it would mean they'd have to scale up from one, to two support staff.

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

#447

Post by quintes »

quintes wrote: post #311
y1426i wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why do I get down voted for this?

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

#448

Post by prmoustache »

uyzstvqs wrote: post #434
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…

That opinion still stands. But I believe that we should regulate children's access to the internet, and not the internet's access to children. As the prior does not affect adults and their free, open and private internet, while the latter absolutely does. I believe that there should be a standard, open framework for parental control at the OS level, where parents can see a timeline of actions, and need to whitelist e…

An easy solution is to limit their access to the device. If they can only use the devices in your living room when you are sitting next to them you keep full control.

Admitedly at some point they are reaching teenage years and they should have a right to privacy so even having access to a timeline of actions seems like a no go to me. The same way they can wander off in the street on their own, write private letters to people or have private calls with friends.

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

#449

Post by watwut »

curiousgal wrote: post #199
OhioMan2943 wrote: post #191

Adding some context which is sorely missing: Our government intends to spruik this at the UN and get other countries on board. Our government has said there will always be a non id method Youtube will still be accessible it is just the account making/usership which will be banned Posting my threaded comment higher up: I'm an australian who completed the esafety survey which helped guide this policy. I pushed for anon…

Last I checked it was the parents' primary job to protect a child's emotional development. And yes some kids might not be fortunate enough to have caring parents but I'm pretty sure that alone would fuck them up more than social media. But hey let us continue to make the world a safe space lest Western parents actually parent their children.

Western parents currently spend way more time and effort directly "parenting" then used to be a historical standard. This jab is completely ridiculous.

Also, relatedly, it is uniquely modern western idea that parent has to control everything alone by himself and have the kid under perfect control every moment.

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

#450

Post by defrost »

lesuorac wrote: post #431
defrost wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's already Australian High Court precedent establishing that Australian ISP's are blind providers of data with no obligation to spy on their users for the benefit of third parties wanting user intel to connect the dots. That was WRT torrenting, but it's a case that'd serve as a foundation for any push back in other related claims. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadshow_Films_Pty_Ltd_v_iiNet... This case is imp…

The ISP doesn't need to know what the content is or be pro-actively looking for content. The rightsholder would look at the connecting IP and then contact the owner of that IP for if that IP was allowed to view age-restricted content.

> The ISP doesn't need to know what the content is or be pro-actively looking for content.

Sure, be it a torrent or pornography, the ISP doesn't have to care in Australia.

> The rightsholder would look at the connecting IP and then contact the owner of that IP for if that IP was allowed to view age-restricted content.

eg: Hollywood Inc. would contact the ISP to ask for details about the customer using that IP address at a particular time.

The existing court ruling establishes that the ISP has no obligation to provide customer details to Hollywood Inc. or to any third party provider of (say) pornography.

Also, typically an ISP customer is a household that contains adults, children, relatives, boarders, passerby's that use the router Guest account, etc.

So, not only is the ISP not obligated to provide customer details, those details are most likely those of an adult over the age of 18 as 12 year olds rarely have an account with an Australian ISP provider.

Post reply on HN