Live data from Hacker News

Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s

apnews.com

281–290 of 345 posts

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

#281

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 is undeniable that big tech has warped the way even adults deal with each other. It warps social norms, social habits, human interactions, perspectives on the world and a lot more, all for the worse than the better. For children, it is very important for them to build their social skills based on interactions with other kids and adults, rather than from social media. They must learn about the world from the world,…

I think it has the potential to basically ruin society as we know it, the amount of hysteria, hype, division, lies, distraction and hate it breeds is enormous.

I look at some of the stuff on Reddit, especially some of the right wing stuff, it's actually alarming the stuff people say, and believe on there. I know they are extreme examples but holy shit.

The ability to amplify falsehoods and certain narratives is ridiculous.

I remember reading 1984, and being terrified, some of the stuff I read in online communities makes me at least that scared and worse.

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

#282
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get your name + address marked off the roll when you go to vote. If you get your name marked off multiple times it would indicate fraud.

So, I can save my neighbors a hassle and a $20 fine by appearing at the polls for them?

Maybe but that would be voter fraud and quite a serious offence, like going to prison for ten years, which is why not many people do that.

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

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The legislation is literally

> A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts with the age-restricted social media platform.

It doesn’t specifically require them to collect IDs. However it does say the opposite and that the site can only collect government ID or a digital ID information if:

> the provider provides alternative means [not involving IDs] for an individual to assure the provider that the individual is not an age-restricted user; and (b) those means are reasonable in the circumstances.

I’m not going to argue that the legislation is perfect. But it doesn’t actually do what most opponents are accusing it of doing.

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

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Me neither, in Qld.

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

#285
post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I’ve seen many people make comparisons between these things and the social media ban, but I actually think they’re quite poor comparisons.

The main concern is around enforcement, which is still TBD for this ban. I assume you mean illicit drugs which are banned for everyone so I’ll skip that as it’s not relevant. For sex/marriage, these are basically not enforced until people notice or they cause a problem so again are not relevant. Driving is an interesting one but I’ll come back to it. The closest comparison here is alcohol and tobacco.

For alcohol and tobacco sales the rule of thumb staff are trained on in Australia is if the customer looks younger than 25 they ask for ID. The customer present their ID, the cashier visually checks the DoB, and the sale goes through. This does not affect the majority of Australians who either do not smoke or drink, or look old enough that no ID check is done. Enforcement for a social media ban would be onerous on all Australians who use social media (I don’t have numbers but I’m sure it’s more more than (smokers ∪ drinkers)) plus the scope for potential abuse or infringement of rights is far greater. Compare this to social media. How would such a ban be enforced? The kids are not stupid, they will find a way around whatever the enforcement mechanism is. So either the enforcement will be a) trivially circumventable to the point where the legislation is completely useless for its ostensible purpose, or b) devolve into an endless cat-and-mouse game trampling Australians’ rights every step of the way. Depending on how eager the Aus gov is to enforce this it could easily extend to VPN bans, destruction of anonymity online, and yet more means to eliminate free speech. These things are all extremely important for a functional society where people, especially vulnerable and marginalised people, can speak up without fear of retaliation. A cashier checking your ID at the shop is nowhere near the top of a slope as steep, nor slippery as this.

Driving is a really interesting comparison here actually. I’m not sure I would be opposed to a social media license. In the same way the purpose of a license is to ensure that road users can do so in a safe manner, maybe something similarly focused on education would be more helpful here than a ban. I’ve actually long blamed a kind of tragedy of the commons for the sorry state of the modern internet. Most users are simply not savvy enough to know better than to use it in all but the dumbest ways, fall for the dumbest scams, and basically allow themselves to be corralled like cattle into the sterile advertiser-friendly pens big tech companies have constructed for them. So in anger I’ve sometime said we should only allow licensed users online. Anyway that’s a bit off topic but a social media license is an interesting concept.

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

#286
post #135
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I might be wrong but I read the OP’s comment as sarcastic.

You are wrong. Banning smoking worked.

How do you know?

At least in the US, smoking rates dropped substantially by the 1980's, long before many anti-smoking laws were in effect (you could still smoke on planes in the 80's!).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/184418/percentage-of-cig...

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

#287
post #148
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Just because an "evil" group used, or even coined, a term doesn't mean it's not a useful term.

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

#288
post #15
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…

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.

Save your breath, Australians don't have the same views on government or individual rights as America (or even Canada!).

I lived in Singapore for a while and it's a "flawed democracy" where the government has stacked the deck against any opposition party to a degree that's breathtaking.

But a poll in Singapore showed that 70% felt that "social harmony is more important than democracy". Even if Singaporeans knew how undemocratic the government was, they wouldn't care.

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

#289
post #60
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curing addictions is very hard and some addictions are very strong. Some addictions are also guarded by business interests leveraging close to a trillion dollars to increase this addiction. We didn't reduce smoking through personal responsibility, stop using "nanny state" tropes. In democracies the government is an imperfect representation of the will of the people and sometimes it decides individuals can't fight som…

Good point bringing up smoking. Why don’t they just make smoking illegal in every country ? Because it’s impractical. Same as this law.

I find it uncomfortable that so many of the arguments focus on practicality and that so few focus on liberty. It almost seems like a forgotten concept.

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

#290

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…

You can cast any regulation as a "nanny state act". Life is more complicated than that. The ability of individuals to be aware and take conscious action against harmful behaviors is clear and should be used when possible. But that ability gets exhausted very fast in a hyperspecialized and complicated world. Most parents are digitally illiterate, can't protect even themselves online, let alone their kids. Delegating t…

Is there a time when you would find "nanny state" to be a useful concept? What would make that situation different to the social media ban?
Post reply on HN