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

Australia's social media ban has failed

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 134 posts

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#101

Post by defrost »

Skyy93 wrote: post #95
defrost wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you think we don't do the same in Germany? My apologies, I was unaware that Germany had a Washminister system with mandatory proportional voting. > I would appreciate if you would not treat me as if I don't know anything about democracy. My assumption was that the implementation of democracy varies by country. It was foolish of me not to know that you know everything about every democratic system on the planet a…

Do you read what I wrote? >Might be a bit different system, but I specifically said that we have different systems. However, the overall process does not differ so significantly that we would not be able to vote people out of power if we want to, which was your original point where you argued about systems. >that Germans are stupid and easily led by media? Not everyone, but enough are such that similar to the america…

Yes I did indeed read what you wrote, and the tone- you noticed I matched the tone? Probably best we both drop that, 'eh? I'm enjoying the general exchange.

> Australians have the same issue with "One Nation".

Hell yeah - they had no real public traction other than a proportional representation in government (enough to show up as a body, not enough to carry any real weight in big decisions) until external agents of chaos decided to boost them via social media for the fracture value (divide, conquer).

The EU has economic weight on par with the US, neither Australia nor Germany alone have that.

Mayhap we should pull a political Eurovision* and join the EU to fill that UK shaped void?

I agree that a US Billionaire can do whatever they want in a country as long as its legal, unfortunately that includes drawing things out for a very long time, folding and reforming under another business name, etc.

Making laws stick for those with the resources to dodge is akin to nailing jelly to the wall.

Returning to thread topic, Australia's social media teen and preteen ban, that's got a long way to go before it sticks, if at all - it's a law that asks US billionaires to not treat children as future product to be groomed and exploited.

As a citizen I'm more than open to other approaches.

* Australia | Grand Final | Eurovision 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo5H62mCIsg

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#102

Post by astrobe_ »

flowerbreeze wrote: post #71
astrobe_ wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here some types of small motorize vehicles can be used by persons under 16. Of course, they have built-in speed limiters. What if we had this kind of distinction for mobile devices with Internet access? Adult's smartphone vs kid's smartphone? It could be some sort of combo of a specific "for kids" SIM card (with, say, DNS blocking at ISP level and/or date of birth of the user) and a "kids hardened" OS that prevent by…

It'd be the sensible non-surveillance option. All that would be required is that the OS or SIM sold is a tiny bit different with a flag that the browsers/apps respect and that each website that accepts underage users sends a header that browsers can check and allow/disallow access. Compliance with child friendly legal requirements would still be with the company owning the website. Of course it's not as attractive to…

Well if one assumes "Never attribute to malice..." for a moment here, it's quite understandable that they'd like to kill 3 birds with one stone, and one would agree that having ways to fight against pedos and mafias is actually helping with one of the "mission statements" of most states.

However, laws are a delicate matter, especially those that have to limit some rights to guarantee others (here privacy and security). Making distinct laws for children protection and against online activities related to crime certainly should allow more fine tuning of each framework.

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#103

Post by croes »

sermah wrote: post #99
croes wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So banning CFCs didn’t work? What about the FDA‘s bans on food ingredients? They don’t work, companies just become more secretive?

These things you can check and penalize companies for violations. As I said in the sibling comment, I’m talking about people’s own will. You can’t say “Ban smoking” and expect that all smokers quit.

You can ban smoking but you also have to fine the tobacco companies and smoking will drastically reduce.

You can’t ban something without severe consequences for the producers and just hope the consumer will follow the ban.

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#104

Post by sermah »

croes wrote: post #103
sermah wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These things you can check and penalize companies for violations. As I said in the sibling comment, I’m talking about people’s own will. You can’t say “Ban smoking” and expect that all smokers quit.

You can ban smoking but you also have to fine the tobacco companies and smoking will drastically reduce. You can’t ban something without severe consequences for the producers and just hope the consumer will follow the ban.

This. I should’ve clarified that

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#105

Post by Skyy93 »

defrost wrote: post #101
Skyy93 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you read what I wrote? >Might be a bit different system, but I specifically said that we have different systems. However, the overall process does not differ so significantly that we would not be able to vote people out of power if we want to, which was your original point where you argued about systems. >that Germans are stupid and easily led by media? Not everyone, but enough are such that similar to the america…

Yes I did indeed read what you wrote, and the tone- you noticed I matched the tone? Probably best we both drop that, 'eh? I'm enjoying the general exchange. > Australians have the same issue with "One Nation". Hell yeah - they had no real public traction other than a proportional representation in government (enough to show up as a body, not enough to carry any real weight in big decisions) until external agents of c…

>Probably best we both drop that, 'eh?

Agreed.

One thing I like to ask ... compared to EU and Germany Australia has already a very strict (from our point of view) system for immigration. What is then the point of One Nation? Since you are already so demanding in what a foreign has to bring with them, like education, money, not being to old. What else do they really want?

Australia and Germany itself are not a match to the US or China. This is why we have to unite to larger organisations like the EU. And from my perspective Australia SHOULD fill the UK void. I liked the Australians always more than the British ;).

The next problems about the billionaire's is that they lobby very long and institutions are very slow. For example this Google Lawsuit took over 10 years ... we can not wait this long when we are talking about controlling social media. Yeah I think in general we agree on the overall topic, but have a bit different ideas how to achieve it.

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#106

Post by toofy »

Skyy93 wrote: post #19
grebc wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally, all the parents I know and have discussed this with are desperate for this to work. How it should work I'm unsure in the big scheme of it, but we limit access to various things until age 18 here in Australia, and I think this is one long term battle that I believe the tech sector will lose.

Rather than applying more bans, perhaps we should consider ways of living that allow parents to spend time talking to their children. Understanding what their days are like and the problems they face. For me much of this discussion and the excessive demand it takes from parents sounds more like a problem of the society as whole. That we are not having enough time to raise children since both parents are forced to wor…

if i’m understanding what you’re saying correctly, it sounds like you think parental involvement is a) lacking, and b) would be effective in its own. i’m not sure either of those holds true.

it takes a village, even with fantastic family life, and these companies are trying to tell us they’re exempt from the village yet they still want to be part of it. this is how we got here to the government (us, the people) taking it to the next step.

had these companies done the correct thing and acknowledged their responsibilities as members of the village, other solutions may have been found. they have no one but themselves (and their cultists incessant defense of them) to blame.

in the real world, good kids from good families in good areas fall too. it’s naive to an extreme to believe those alone are enough.

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#107

Post by halJordan »

dalemhurley wrote: post #73
teruakohatu wrote: post #11

It has been banned for a few months. Hardly a failure. It will be a failure if 10 year olds continue to join social media at the rate they have done so in the past. It’s not likely to get 15 year olds who have been addicted for 5 years off it, anymore than smoking bans have any impact on teens who have been smoking or vaping for years.

Exactly. This is a pathetic excuse of “journalism”

That goes too far in the opposite direction.

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#108

Post by ShinyLeftPad »

Skyy93 wrote: post #83
ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not whataboutism, it's pointing out that your idea how parents should have more time and energy to make sure their children aren't badly affected by social media, instead of just banning it, is rosy-eyed when you consider reality. We are heading in the opposite direction.

This is a different problem, and law makers are in charge to change this direction.

How is it a different problem if your argument against the ban needs it to be true

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#109

Post by ShinyLeftPad »

djc404 wrote: post #91
ShinyLeftPad wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The media is predictably unhappy this is an article by reuters, they are not affected by the ban.

Haha. I clicked the link and they wouldn’t show me the article until I disabled my ad blocker.

worked for me

Re: Australia's social media ban has failed

#110

Post by anenefan »

intothemild wrote: post #97
dalemhurley wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. This is a propaganda piece from the social media platforms

Except, the report they are quoting is from the Aus government tasked with this. https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-07/Early...

There's been a few surveys, some better than others ... but the reality is they don't matter that much. The ban was just another way to skin a cat - that cat in particular were the algorithms that were targeting specifically young kids which the public became alarmed about - iirc making the news on and off late 10s.

Social media needs not strive to ban every under 16 child ... but they surely will now be careful not to deploy those specific algorithms the public had complained about especially in regard to some of the harms it was said to be doing.

Using social media under 16 could be considered like driving without a licence ... and not too many under 16 children in Australia have a licence to drive on the roads - but in rural and remote areas, on those that are relatively safe roads, a number do, with or without their parents knowledge. Many years prior to the ban, social media could be considered to be vehicle rental companies which never saw any issue with hiring out faster and faster racing stock cars and motorbikes to kids ... and later when accidents happened, asked to perhaps be more mindful. Social media companies shrugged and said too hard. Now there is a ban [1] for under 16s, yes many children are going to still do it, but now, though it's technically against the law, some parents will evaluate their child is capable enough. The ban effectively ensures social media will need to be sure to rent out safe vehicles just in case because if there is a bad accident that an under 16 wouldn't be expected to avoid, mandatory consequences now apply. Social media companies are very well aware of this fact. They don't like it and as such running numerous campaigns - more often threatening in a roundabout between the lines manner that the only way for them to enforce a ban is to go down the road many folks fear, being all out full identification required to create / keep an account with them.

[1] Those parents who've wanted to pry their kids fingers from the phone that only visits social media areas, can finally put their foot down hard telling their kids no way until they are older when it's legal, and not have to put up with any bargaining when they lock down the wifi.

Post reply on HN