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

251–260 of 345 posts

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

#251

Post by chris_wot »

jjav wrote: post #240
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? Yes. That is literally your job as the parent. If there was some teenage trend of injecting heroin, nobody would accept "but my kid's social life might suffer" as a reason to not stop them from doing heroin. It similarly does not suffice as a reason to not stop your kids from usi…

> > by taking away their devices > That is literally your job as the parent. Tell me you're not a parent without telling me you're not a parent! This only works if there is broad support from the entire social group, meaning school and all (or most) of the other parents. If you try this all alone, all you can accomplish is to apply more suffering to your poor child. For us, here in silicon valley, fortunately that br…

I am a parent. That literally is your job.

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

#252

Post by hcfman »

hcfman wrote: post #74
Nasrudith wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many places in the world where there is no law for "contempt of cop" but police find a way to extra-judicially punish anyway. The lack of a law allowing something doesn't stop abuse of power! And Australia is notorious for its raids of journalist's homes and has a court system very disinclined to punish the police for illegal activity.

Yep. The Netherlands is one of those places. They have made extra judicial punishment a way of working. They call it an “intervention”. And they will make use of all the government organisations to do it. those organisations just have to follow orders because the interventions are co-ordinated by an intelligence agency called the RIEC. No evidence is required, there are no bounds as to what they can do and there are…

Around 30 years ago they got caught out with this sort of thing. It resulted in a scanal called "The IRT affaire", it's on netflix I think. They waited 4 years, learnt from their mistakes, now their new way of working is to do all of the work through proxies, orchestrated by an authority structure so it's not possible to take them to court. And all of their really dirty work they do through civilian proxies, the weakest and most easy blackmailed of society.

No one blinks an eye here.

Also, this country which has issue an arrest warrant for the leader of a particular country is at the same time buying hundreds of millions of euros of military equipment from the same country. Such hypocrisy.

Sorry, I got off topic.

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

#253

Post by underwater »

JeremyStinson wrote: post #226

Just so it's clear - this new law will require everyone over 16 to provide proof-of-age, and thus identity, to use the most popular portions of the internet. Saving the children is the voter-acceptable way of getting it past public scrutiny, and paves the way for a national DigitalID that will be required by all citizens.

Where does the legislation say that? My reading is that it specifically says that social networks have to provide an alternative verification mechanism that doesn’t rely on government ID.

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

#254

Post by proteal »

anon373839 wrote: post #242

> The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts Unless the fines accumulate, it seems the law is rather toothless? US $33M is a parking ticket for companies at this scale.

I think you’re right about the relative scale of the fine, but theres a part of me that believes the companies will try to comply with the law, similar to how pornhub is blocked in many US states. They could easily ignore the regulation but choose not to because thats ultimately what Australians want. Companies of this scale by and large try to follow the law, especially when the affected cohort is relatively small.

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

#255

Post by thombles »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #182
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…

> If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? Yes. That is literally your job as the parent. If there was some teenage trend of injecting heroin, nobody would accept "but my kid's social life might suffer" as a reason to not stop them from doing heroin. It similarly does not suffice as a reason to not stop your kids from usi…

According the stats in Haidt's book, between 2010 and 2020 girls in the US saw a 188% increase in emergency room visits for self harm per capita - never mind the less extreme presentations of mental health issues. Imagine you have an anxious, depressed and potentially suicidal child. This is a horrifying situation. How do you feel about being the hard-arse parent knowing that they will be furious? Is that actually your best move in that moment? Wouldn't it be nice if you didn't have to make that kind of choice?

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

#256

Post by ryan-c »

dwattttt wrote: post #206
anal_reactor wrote: post #191

It just hurts me to see what the internet has become, simply because we allowed the general public.

The juxtaposition of this comment and username are sending me, let me tell you.

feels like i'm on reddit circa 2010

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

#257

Post by mastodon_acc »

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…

By that logic expecting citizens to stop at traffic light or expecting them to not violate speed limits is a nanny state act.

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

#258

Post by chris_wot »

wokwokwok wrote: post #248
chris_wot wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it wasn’t up for debate. It was opened for public scrutiny on the 22nd, submissions closed on the 23rd, then it was put through Committee (who asked for only 1 or 2 page submissions because they themselves didn’t have time to review it properly) and was initially put to the House on the 26th and passed on the 29th. The Act has no provisions for checking ID (that will be decided by the eSafety commissioner with…

You’ve taken literally one word from my comment, out of context. Yes, you’re right, they rushed it through. …and that sucks. Now what? Is that really the only meaningful complaint you can come up with about it? I don’t support it because I think it’s overreach by a government that is already trying to make a nanny state. …but I’m not naive enough to think it’s not going to work. It will work. It probably has unintend…

I didn’t take you out of context. You literally say that whether the Act is good or not is up for debate. Before legislation is passed, it needs public consultation and debate. There literally was no public debate and now this is law!

Things like:

1. It will be trivial to bypass the restrictions.

2. The argument given in support of this Act by the OP was that it gives parents an excuse to prevent their kids from using social media. That’s going to work out great.

3. The mechanisms for verifying ID are not defined and will be decided without public debate. Adults will be forced to get a government controlled digital ID, or alternately social media companies will need to collect your official documentation to prove your age. Neither of these are palatable.

None of this has been considered. None of these concerns were allowed to be expressed by interested parties and the general public with sufficient time for comment.

That more than sucks. This is a government who wants to shove badly flawed legislation onto the Australian people because they are immensely unpopular.

I’m a Labor voter. Not next year.

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

#259

Post by JeremyStinson »

neumann wrote: post #230
JeremyStinson wrote: post #226

Just so it's clear - this new law will require everyone over 16 to provide proof-of-age, and thus identity, to use the most popular portions of the internet. Saving the children is the voter-acceptable way of getting it past public scrutiny, and paves the way for a national DigitalID that will be required by all citizens.

Can you elaborate what you mean? We already need identity for ISP access and mobile phones, no?

Only for activation of a service, which has nothing to do with the actual user. Purchase a phone using cash from any store selling mobile phones, and then use free WiFi (however insecure that may be) anywhere you can find it. If you want mobile data, get someone to register a prepaid SIM card, then add money to it using a prepaid debit card from AusPost, which you don't need ID to do.

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

#260

Post by rightbyte »

tene80i wrote: post #207
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you have an addicted/bullied child would you make them a social pariah and create interminable arguments by taking away their devices? Yes. That is literally your job as the parent. If there was some teenage trend of injecting heroin, nobody would accept "but my kid's social life might suffer" as a reason to not stop them from doing heroin. It similarly does not suffice as a reason to not stop your kids from usi…

The point is clearly that you are causing other serious harms by doing so, unlike with the heroin example. You can’t tear kids away from a huge part of their social lives without serious consequences. Coordinated action means it’s not a choice between two terrible options.

Social media is not social anymore. The algorithmic feeds messed up almost all utility.

Facebook was a great platform for local communities and democracy but later turned into a threat to civilization more or less when they introduced the 'algo' 2010 something and wanted to get money for 'promoted posts'.

Post reply on HN