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

321–330 of 345 posts

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

#321

Post by throwawaythekey »

openrisk wrote: post #298
throwawaythekey wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think the answer in implicit in my comment: When all the affected individuals can readily make their own judgement about the risks and benefits of their choices (1) they have all the relevant information, (2) they are able to comprehend it and (3) they can act on it using a menu of options. 99% of people are entirely clueless as to what happens behind the scenes in social media platforms because the information is…

If TV were to be banned under similar reasoning would you believe that to be justified? TV programming is similarly opaque to the social media algorithms.

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

#322

Post by throwawaythekey »

magnetowasright wrote: post #267
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 l…

Call me oldschool but to me a functioning democracy is where anyone can express their opinions. Neo nazis, zionists, anti zionists, jews, palestinians, socialists, globalists, communists, libertarians etc.

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

#323

Post by llm_trw »

globalnode wrote: post #94
vermilingua wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> great to see the government act with expertise I’ve seen the Australian government accused of many things, but that’s certainly a first. This is the same country whose prime minister once said “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia”.

That was back in 2017 when the govts were all up in arms over encryption. Apparently they don't mind it too much now, which means it all must be back door'able for them.

This government also agrees on the topic.

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

#324

Post by gloosx »

oblio wrote: post #135
Timwi wrote: 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.

Only worked for Australian politicians to pat themselves on the head. They are still getting money from tobacco companies, and they know where it is coming from. Kids in Australia still smoke a lot, exploring other ways of inhaling addictive substance, and no ban can really solve this problem

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

#325

Post by oblio »

refurb wrote: post #286
oblio wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> In 1970, Congress took their anti-smoking initiative one step further and passed the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act, banning the advertising of cigarettes on television and radio starting on 2 January 1971. In April 1970, President Nixon signed it into law.

Can you guys research this stuff before posting, please?

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

#326

Post by threeseed »

throwawaythekey wrote: post #193
threeseed wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australia is one of the freest countries in the world: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/freest-co... Higher than UK and the US.

In day to day life we are fairly free but for example we have much weaker freedom of speech/opinion than the USA. For example if you raise your arm at a particular angle you can now be sent to jail [1]. We also had some of the longest/harshet COVID lockdowns in the world in my state. [1] - https://www.dw.com/en/australia-man-convicted-for-performing...

> if you raise your arm at a particular angle you can now be sent to jail

Also known as doing a Nazi salute.

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

#327

Post by openrisk »

throwawaythekey wrote: post #321
openrisk wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the answer in implicit in my comment: When all the affected individuals can readily make their own judgement about the risks and benefits of their choices (1) they have all the relevant information, (2) they are able to comprehend it and (3) they can act on it using a menu of options. 99% of people are entirely clueless as to what happens behind the scenes in social media platforms because the information is…

If TV were to be banned under similar reasoning would you believe that to be justified? TV programming is similarly opaque to the social media algorithms.

There are many TV channel alternatives, public TV is pretty transparent and there are regulations around when various programs would air, obligatory reporting of age suitability etc.

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

#328

Post by linuxandrew »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #315
linuxandrew wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You wouldn't be doing anyone a favour by committing electoral fraud.

But that aside, although Australia doesn't require any ID on election day, Australians do register with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) with their name, address and date of birth. AEC workers have a printed copy of these records on election day. Obvious anomalies like someone with a different age can be reported. Otherwise anomalies like multiple votes from the same address are investigated, I imagine by interviewing the person at that address.

The AEC provides transparency about how it detects fraud and the penalties that can be imposed for people who are caught doing it. The point is that this is quite rare. The AEC's aim is to lower barriers to voting in the first place so that all people can. By detecting anomalies and using tipoffs the AEC estimates the impact of voter fraud and takes a scientific approach to recommend against raising barriers to vote.

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

#329

Post by underwater »

JeremyStinson wrote: post #318
underwater wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 kid…

The legislation for social media and alcohol sales are completely different.

There is no expectation of “reasonable effort” to not selling alcohol to minors. It’s flat out illegal and heavily penalised. Nor is there a requirement for companies to find a way to sell alcohol to adults without asking for ID.

I get the concern you have, but you’re arguing against a scarecrow version of the legislation.

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

#330

Post by throwawaythekey »

openrisk wrote: post #327
throwawaythekey wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If TV were to be banned under similar reasoning would you believe that to be justified? TV programming is similarly opaque to the social media algorithms.

There are many TV channel alternatives, public TV is pretty transparent and there are regulations around when various programs would air, obligatory reporting of age suitability etc.

> There are many TV channel alternatives

There are many social medias

> public TV is pretty transparent

In what manner? As a kid I didn't know that the pokemon cartoon existed in order to make me buy trading cards.

Even in news there is an army of editors and producers making decisions all of the time. This leads to things like the state media adding sound effects to footage to make it more sensational and then after losing in court investigating themselves and finding no intentional wrongdoing [1]!

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/05/abc-editorial-...

Post reply on HN