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

311–320 of 345 posts

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

#311

Post by t0bia_s »

sandos wrote: post #272
pulse7 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a parent I literally support bans of social media for under-16s AND I also do my job as a parent: my kids get a smart phone at 16, until then they have a feature/dummy phone (which they hide from peers because they are ashamed to show it).

Not having a smartphone would make my kids "social pariahs" for sure. We gave them phones fairly early, but locked down. It was not really a huge problem when they were younger, but social media (no, we shouldnt even call it is, its is 110% ADS FOR CHILREN!) is getting to be a real problem now I feel.

Why dont you use any kind of adblock? Why don't you speak with them about harmful consequences of algorithms? Instead of ban that noone learn from, communicate issues.

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

#313

Post by t0bia_s »

matwood wrote: post #203
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…

If every kid was injecting heroin we would not just expect, but demand the government step in. This is in addition to whatever parents are doing.

Wouldn't be better to educate children about deadly consequences of using heroin and what does it makes to your body? Noone is learn from ban, and enforcement of regulation also cost much more money.

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

#314

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

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…

There are some ads targeting parents running on TV in the US about special accounts for under 16-yr-olds on Instagram.

It appears Big Tech has reason for concern when anyone interferes with their efforts to indoctrinate young people into their total takeover of the www.

Expecting an aggressive PR counteroffensive from Big Tech in response to experiments like Australia.

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

#315

Post by thaumasiotes »

linuxandrew wrote: post #282
thaumasiotes wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Given that there are no identity checks and I'm doing people a favor, how would I be caught?

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

#316

Post by JeremyStinson »

bongodongobob wrote: post #293
underwater wrote: post #253

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.

So a burner email account? How do you think this is going to work?

You're either going to need to have a Digital Id, such as the Australian Govt myID, or something else to prove you're over 16. A burner email doesn't prove age, and that's what AusGov says they want to do.

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

#318

Post by JeremyStinson »

underwater wrote: post #283
JeremyStinson wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To keep under 16s out, everyone over 16 needs to prove they are indeed over 16. It's like a nightclub/pub/bar - to get in, EVERYONE needs to prove their age, either with a real or fake ID.

IDs don't need to be collected and stored, but "reasonable steps" could mean that Meta, for example, may use services to verify a Driver's License or Passport number, or obtain a myID token that proves age.

How else do you keep kids out for their own safety?

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

#319

Post by ehnto »

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?

I am not sure, phones are a device on a network, and robocalls are an abuse of the network to get to your device. It's an intrusion made by someone else. Social media seems to think it's a network, but it's more like a bar or club with a TV in it. You choose to show up each day and watch the TV.

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

#320

Post by ehnto »

linuxandrew wrote: post #280
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…

> They can opt out, by not participating with the site The definition of social media under the legislation is essentially any form of digital communication that allows two or more people to communicate, as decided by the minister. > No one is mandated to use social media OK, I'll bite. What if you want to join an interest group (crafts, technical, political etc) that organises meetings digitally on a social media si…

I don't think we disagree, perhaps even on the point of responsibility for how we got here. I do certainly blame the social media companies for the software they built. I guess my only point is that the personal responsibility shouldn't be understated, as we all have agency over the issue, but it is too tough to rip the bandaid off for most which I understand.

I will say there are many ways to mitigate without leaving entirely, but it will be up to one's own discipline to disengage from the platform and manage your own behaviour while you visit.

Post reply on HN