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

261–270 of 345 posts

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

#261

Post by attila-lendvai »

fraboniface wrote: post #98
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…

It's very hard for parent to resist the insistent demands of their children to get a smartphone when their classmates all have one, and not having one means being or feeling excluded. This is the kind of coordination problem better solved by regulation.

...and no one talks about a toxic effect of comousory education in this context: your child is locked together with children whose parents you would never be friends with because of conflicting values.

maybe the peer pressure for phones issue would look completely different without compulsory education.

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

#262

Post by JeremyStinson »

underwater wrote: post #253
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.

That's the outcome of the law.

Think of it this way - how will YOU, specifically, prove you are actually over the age of 16 without having some proof of age object that is tied to your device(s) or usage patterns?

If a 15 year old will have to prove they're 16 to use a service, so will a 35 year old. It's not just the kids proving their age.

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

#263

Post by Raz2 »

null0pointer wrote: post #201
pyuser583 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Nanny state” is fine when you’re talking about children.

Did you even read the parent comment? > As a parent, you should be making these decisions for your children - not your government.

Alcohol, tobacco, drugs, sex, driving and many other things are heavily regulated for children. Should a parent be able to allow his 12yo daughter to drink, smoke or marry 40yo guy? We're living in a society. Social media is just another item in the list.

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

#264

Post by contingencies »

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 an Australian parent, congratulations: you are the problem.

I for one was on a public panel with politicians discussing how ridiculous this proposal was, a couple of months ago, before it passed.

The government gives all children email addresses while simultaneously banning them from social media. Only a bureaucracy could do this with a straight face.

IMHO as a technology-engaged parent the answer to complexity online (and in the entire world) for young people is education, not "ask the Nanny state to change the rules".

Timelessly compressed: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin.

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

#265

Post by ghiculescu »

chris_wot wrote: post #258
wokwokwok wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 usin…

Who will you vote for instead? Everyone supported it :(

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

#266

Post by rightbyte »

noufalibrahim wrote: post #150
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…

> Many kids have their own channels which are promoted by parents and their identities are based around them.

What kind of sociatal cast do they belong to? I'd imagine this is mainly a thing among wannabe elite, wannabe 'influencers'? Like failed pro sports parent forcing their children to go for it to.

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

#267

Post by magnetowasright »

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…

> functional democratic government

Wait, where? Not in my Australia. Saying our govt has any competency is also gobsmacking.

Yep, it's better here than other places (for certain groups) but when the notorious hate rag daily mail condemns (literal) neo-nazis marching and saluting in support of transphobe Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull you've really got to question what kind of functional democratic government or expertise leads and legislates this country. Literally the daily mail thinks our neo-nazi problem is a bit much. I genuinely can't wrap my head around that. The daily effing mail. That's the state of this country; what a healthy democracy that literal neo-nazi groups are free to demonstrate against human rights while the police force people doing nothing more for human rights than holding the pathetic signs back from the streets so the frog marching idiots can continue unimpeded. Utterly disgraceful state of affairs. It's so embarrassing.

This legislation isn't going to stop kids accessing social media or prevent any of the related social harms, unfortunately. It's just going to give licence to erode privacy even further. All our pollies are so dangerously incompetent, especially when it comes to anything relating to computers, it's just enraging. It's a disgrace. Our governments don't give a single shit about human rights or the welfare of the people in our country. This law is no different, but it sure is a great distraction.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11879737/Neo-Nazis-...

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

#268

Post by chris_wot »

ghiculescu wrote: post #265
chris_wot wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 usin…

Who will you vote for instead? Everyone supported it :(

An independent. Labor is more worried about the Greens and Independents than they are about the LNP.

Albanese and Co, who I voted for and quite liked, have shown that they need to be forced into a hung parliament to prevent their worst excesses. A huge pity.

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

#269

Post by lysp »

lysp wrote: post #124

The "behind the scenes" of this was a repeated campaign based on News Corp's (ie. Fox News / The Murdoch's) newsrooms (TV, radio + paper). The legislation was primarily based on their campaign - likely as an attack against TikTok and other social media companies, who are taking their viewership and advertising revenue. I believe in the premise of the change (to protect young children), just not the motivation or inte…

Edit:

Quick summary of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8SkLRxFRVM (First 8 minutes)

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

#270

Post by ghiculescu »

chris_wot wrote: post #268
ghiculescu wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who will you vote for instead? Everyone supported it :(

An independent. Labor is more worried about the Greens and Independents than they are about the LNP. Albanese and Co, who I voted for and quite liked, have shown that they need to be forced into a hung parliament to prevent their worst excesses. A huge pity.

They’ve been shockingly bad.
Post reply on HN