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

Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 345 posts

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#141

Post by nxpnsv »

rebuilder wrote: post #110
ehnto wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can opt out, by not participating with the site. No one is mandated to use social media. But I would also want to see things go the other direction anyway, default to non-algorithmic feeds. Those with the awareness to opt-out are not the people at highest risk. I agree with basically everything else you said, and I think social media is generally a blight on society. But we can opt-out already, if you are on soc…

Isn’t this kind of like saying the solution to robocalls is not having a phone?

It works though

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#142

Post by dools »

arlattimore wrote: post #10

While I appreciate the sentiment of this legislation, removing social media access for everyone under 16 years to address the concerns of a few is a nanny state act. As a parent, you should be making these decisions for your children - not your government. Additionally, I would suggest it won't address the actual issue. The named/identified social media companies will comply as required, younger internet users will s…

"to address the concerns of a few"

lol

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#143

Post by dools »

SamPatt wrote: post #23

I don't like nanny state policies like this, but hopefully we'll get some data about social media usage from this after a few years. Prediction: the policy was both difficult to implement and difficult to determine if it made any impact, positive or negative.

I don't like people who refer to government regulation as "nanny state policies".

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#144

Post by 71bw »

lobochrome wrote: post #111
obblekk wrote: post #2

The votes are strong majorities of both houses - great to see a functional democratic government act on such an important issue. They specifically don’t prescribe any particular age verification methods. This would be a great time to follow up with legislation that updates their national IDs to be able to provide cryptographically secure proofs of age without leaking identity. Absent that, I’m sure many of the commen…

Dear god, no. This doesn't need more technology. The whole purpose of this is only to give parents a reason to say no. Often, a single kid in a class with an unrestricted iPhone is enough to poison the well. Now it's much, much simpler. Kids understand when you say it's against the law.

>Kids understand when you say it's against the law.

Jesus, were you born 40? I don't know a single person who didn't willingly pirate media, games and break other laws (usual suspects like trespassing, underage + public drinking...) as kids and teens. They will not care about the law if they want to do something it limits.

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#145

Post by bobnamob »

scripturial wrote: post #92
linuxandrew wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ha! We have compulsory voting but unlike many Anglo countries we don't require voter ID, vote registration etc. In fact you do not need to provide any ID to vote, because voting fraud is so statistically low (see https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/voting-fraud-negli... ). We simply provide a name and address and fill out the ballot. We have so many issues, but compulsory voting is not one of them, in my opinio…

In Australia they ask to see your ID but you can say you don’t have it on you. I think they mostly just ask for ID so it’s easier to look up your name with the correct spelling.

Counter anecdote, I’ve never been asked for id when voting in South Australia or NSW in my 20 year voting history

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#146

Post by lmm »

krisoft wrote: post #137
lmm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the opposite of democracy - a group imposing rules "for their own good" on people it doesn't represent who have no recourse. If they had any integrity they'd be banning it for adults not children.

Does your reasoning also apply for laws which ban underage smoking or underage alcohol consumption? Do you feel the same way about those prohibitions too?

> Does your reasoning also apply for laws which ban underage smoking or underage alcohol consumption?

Up to a point, but AIUI there is credible medical evidence for those being disproportionately harmful (in physical, objectively verifiable ways) to the young. I think setting the same standard of harm and applying it to all ages is reasonable; maybe this law is based on some claim that social media harms children in a way it doesn't harm adults, but bluntly given how much the topic is biased and politicised I just don't trust today's social science establishment enough to justify this kind of law.

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#147

Post by Springtime »

ehnto wrote: post #100
linuxandrew wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They specifically don’t prescribe any particular age verification methods. This would be a great time to follow up with legislation that updates their national IDs to be able to provide cryptographically secure proofs of age without leaking identity. Hard disagree. We do not need an internet driver's license. Australians are supposed to have a right to interact with organisations with privacy protections under the…

They can opt out, by not participating with the site. No one is mandated to use social media. But I would also want to see things go the other direction anyway, default to non-algorithmic feeds. Those with the awareness to opt-out are not the people at highest risk. I agree with basically everything else you said, and I think social media is generally a blight on society. But we can opt-out already, if you are on soc…

Reddit is among the range of sites deemed 'social media' per the article. Reddit is practically a glorified forum where users directly influence which submissions rise above others via personal voting and self-curation of communities to follow. There's no voodoo there forcing non-subscribed things in one's feed unless one is logged out (ie: non-participating anyway).

Given the timeframe to come up with how it's meant to be practically implemented it's not hard to imagine on various services all users of all ages from the region would be required to submit standard ID rather than an idealized age verification the GP suggests that prevents either storing or leaking identity (in either direction). If it went that way it'd be a major blow to user privacy and data security concerns.

Looking at criticism of the legislation there were a range of organizations pointing out such issues, including UNICEF.

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#148

Post by pimeys »

ENGNR wrote: post #3
obblekk wrote: post #2

The votes are strong majorities of both houses - great to see a functional democratic government act on such an important issue. They specifically don’t prescribe any particular age verification methods. This would be a great time to follow up with legislation that updates their national IDs to be able to provide cryptographically secure proofs of age without leaking identity. Absent that, I’m sure many of the commen…

We’re a nanny state, the government is just going to use it to track us

Nanny state is a term coined by tobacco industry in their lobbying against tobacco laws. Is it really a term you want to use here?

https://www.tobaccotactics.org/article/countering-industry-a...

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#149

Post by squigz »

usr1106 wrote: post #104
profsummergig wrote: post #89

I'm thinking about how in France kids are allowed to have wine, and they have fewer alcohol problems when they grow up.

They are not allowed to buy wine themselves. Most parents wouldn't allow them to drink when alone. Drinking small amounts of wine at the family dinner table makes the educational difference. Social media is consumed without any family interaction and can consume all free-time and more.

> Drinking small amounts of wine at the family dinner table makes the educational difference.

So it sounds like responsible parenting is the key there.

> Most parents wouldn't allow them to drink when alone ... Social media is consumed without any family interaction

How do parents stop their kids from drinking alone? Why can't they prevent the overuse of social media in the same way?

Re: Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

#150

Post by noufalibrahim »

thombles wrote: post #139

As an Australian parent this is really pleasing to see. It's clearly inspired heavily by the work of Jon Haidt and Jean Twenge et al. The kids are not okay and the main thing stopping a worried parent from addressing it is that "all the other kids are on it". If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? Collective action is n…

As a non Australian parent, I quite envy you.

Parents are almost as addicted as children and often take dozens of photos of every tiny event and post it on IG without permission of other children who are there in the pictures. Many kids have their own channels which are promoted by parents and their identities are based around them. I do what I can (don't give them devices till they're 18 etc.) but it's hard when the whole society around you is pushing the other way. Some kind of societal regulation like what's happened in Australia will be a good thing. It will add friction to kids getting onto these platforms and that will significantly slow down adoption.

Post reply on HN