21–30 of 498 posts
If this is not enforced properly, it's meaningless. Just like the fight against piracy.
The gov gets at least full legal check of any SNS account.
I think parents and schools need to change the role they play.
OR, everyone in Australia is going to have to prove their age to use social media, and TBH, social media ain't that great. It just may be the cold shower we all need.
From the article:
> "Messaging apps," "online gaming services" and "services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users" will not fall under the ban, as well as sites like YouTube that do not require users to log in to access the platform.
Almost every "social" apps are basically messaging apps these days. What's the differentiating factor between banned and not banned? Having an algorithmic feed? So YouTube is not banned because its doesn't require users to log in to access the plaform? Can Instagram enable browsing without logging in (and disable some features except DM) to avoid the ban then?
Also, now kids can create YouTube accounts to use shorts as Instagram reels, community posts as Instagram Posts and subscribe to each other. But hey, that's not a "Social media" right?
Some notes: * It is illegal for a platform to provide children with a social media account, not for the child to create an account. Circumvention of this by the child is not illegal. * No grandfathering - all accounts under 16 once this takes effect (which won't be until this time next year at earliest) must be deactivated. * Maximum fine (per instance?) is 50 million AUD (about 32 million USD) * The legislation is v…
Leisure Suit Larry was ahead of its time with its age verification system.
My friend is a media lawyer in Australia He can’t even advise if some video game developers he represents’ multiplayer games are exempt from the ban He says the legislation is just an under defined word salad Note this was several days ago and it may have been amended in the mean time
There are a lot of issues with this legislation, but I'm not sure this is one of them. Games like Roblox are so exploitative, they're probably worse for children than most social media.
See, for example: https://www.eurogamer.net/roblox-exploiting-young-game-devel...
I was wondering how "social media" was defined. Anyone got a link to the actual bill? From the article: > "Messaging apps," "online gaming services" and "services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users" will not fall under the ban, as well as sites like YouTube that do not require users to log in to access the platform. Almost every "social" apps are basically messaging apps thes…
(i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users;
(ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users;
(iii) the service allows end-users to post material on the service;
If this is not enforced properly, it's meaningless. Just like the fight against piracy.
The main point here is probably to force ID control and have a constant flux of fully identified users on the networks ? The gov gets at least full legal check of any SNS account.
> Social media companies also won't be able to force users to provide government identification, including the Digital ID, to assess their age.