Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 580 posts

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#431

Post by lesuorac »

defrost wrote: post #399
lesuorac wrote: post #398

I'm kinda surprised that the rightsholders don't try to push the accountability onto the ISPs. The ISPs are giving the individuals their licence plates (IP Addresses) so are in a good spot to say this IP is allowed to access X content. For devices being a NAT then the local router can provide that information to the ISP to forward to the service.

There's already Australian High Court precedent establishing that Australian ISP's are blind providers of data with no obligation to spy on their users for the benefit of third parties wanting user intel to connect the dots. That was WRT torrenting, but it's a case that'd serve as a foundation for any push back in other related claims. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadshow_Films_Pty_Ltd_v_iiNet... This case is imp…

The ISP doesn't need to know what the content is or be pro-actively looking for content.

The rightsholder would look at the connecting IP and then contact the owner of that IP for if that IP was allowed to view age-restricted content.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#432

Post by jay_kyburz »

j1elo wrote: post #164
forgotoldacc wrote: post #46

A couple months ago, I saw people everywhere online (including HN) saying they love the idea of social media bans for kids. They love the idea of keeping people under 18 safe from the dangers of porn and mature games and other unclean things as well. Now governments around the world are acting in unison to happily give those people what they want, and people are suddenly confused and pissed that these laws mean you n…

> it's needing to submit a selfie and ID photo to be verified, saved, and permanently bound to your every single action online. And leaked every 6 months, now including your ID photos and real name instead of an internet pseudonym, and lots of other sweet details that make extortion schemes a child's play

It would be cool if the post office could issue you an ID card, but for a pseudonym of your own choosing, so that when the data leaks, you can just trash it and get a new one. You could just show the dude at the post office your real id and he can check the age, but not actually write it down or link the two identities digitally.

Even cooler would be if you create a different identity for each service so when they do leak, you know who leaked it. My first id would be for John Facebook Doe.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#433

Post by thombles »

imtringued wrote: post #386
thombles wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have a look at Jon Haidt's book The Anxious Generation. He makes the case rather well that we need to cut out the safetyism in the physical world while getting serious about it in the online world. It's not some abstract matter of the morality of kids' digital freedom, it's the tanking of mental health and increase in self-harm and attempted suicide since smartphones came along.

You're trying to treat the symptom of the symptom of the symptom. There are extremely popular movements that claim to stand for their members, but in reality just induce massive paranoia and fear. It is extremely popular to accuse people of being the worst possible based on little to zero information or to actively twist the values and principles of the "opponent" into their opposites. I can find the same mental heal…

> the same mental health degrading content

In this brief choice of words you've revealed that you're just guessing at what the actual problem is. There's a good book about it mentioned upthread; I recommend it.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#434

Post by uyzstvqs »

forgotoldacc wrote: post #46

A couple months ago, I saw people everywhere online (including HN) saying they love the idea of social media bans for kids. They love the idea of keeping people under 18 safe from the dangers of porn and mature games and other unclean things as well. Now governments around the world are acting in unison to happily give those people what they want, and people are suddenly confused and pissed that these laws mean you n…

That opinion still stands. But I believe that we should regulate children's access to the internet, and not the internet's access to children. As the prior does not affect adults and their free, open and private internet, while the latter absolutely does.

I believe that there should be a standard, open framework for parental control at the OS level, where parents can see a timeline of actions, and need to whitelist every new action (any new content or contact within any app). The regulation should be that children are only allowed to use such devices. Social media would then be limited to the parent-approved circles only. A minor's TikTok homepage would likely be limited to IRL friends plus some parent-approved creators, and that's exactly how it should be.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#435

Post by qcnguy »

shivasaxena wrote: post #384
Aurornis wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We should be allowed to create and use whatever UI we want for the public endpoints that are exposed Having been at a company that tried this: The number of poorly-behaved or outright abusive clients is a huge problem. Having a client become popular with a small group of people and then receive some update that turned it into a DDoS machine because someone made a mistake in a loop or forgot to sleep after an error…

Thanks for your comment and for sharing your experience. > Having been at a company that tried this: The number of poorly-behaved or outright abusive clients is a huge problem. Having a client become popular with a small group of people and then receive some update that turned it into a DDoS machine because someone made a mistake in a loop or forgot to sleep after an error was a frequent occurrence. Ok, but this coul…

It's what happens, it's almost by definition not subjective. The world is full of people geeky enough to use third party clients but not geeky enough to understand the nuances of service evolution. Their reasoning goes like this: yesterday it worked, today it doesn't. I didn't change my client, so it must have been the service that changed. Therefore, it's the service's fault.

This type of reasoning is typically reinforced by the third party app developers themselves, who will tweet "XXX broke their APIs today, really sorry, working hard to get you an update that works around their $@!%#! engineering" and other stuff that not-so-subtly encourages people to blame the service.

Also, don't discount the abuse aspect. Closing clients and out-iterating them is a proven strategy for winning the abuse war, and as all users care about abuse but very few care about third party clients, losing the latter to please the rest of the user base is an easy decision to make.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#436

Post by jay_kyburz »

upboundspiral wrote: post #210
forgotoldacc wrote: post #46

A couple months ago, I saw people everywhere online (including HN) saying they love the idea of social media bans for kids. They love the idea of keeping people under 18 safe from the dangers of porn and mature games and other unclean things as well. Now governments around the world are acting in unison to happily give those people what they want, and people are suddenly confused and pissed that these laws mean you n…

I would like to note that I am probably grossly unqualified to talk about such topics, but one idea that I've had rolling around is that inevitably, if you ask people "should kids be able to watch/read/be exposed to [insert adult thing here]" they will inevitably say no of course not. I feel like this is pretty reasonable. For advocates of privacy to succeed I believe that they will need to not just oppose censorship…

Apple already provides heaps of tools to help moderate what children can do on the phones, you can limit apps screen times and disable some apps altogether.

People want these laws simply because its hard to say no to your kids, and it's a lot easier to tell your kids its the governments fault they can't use social media any more.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#437

Post by [deleted] »

ElCapitanMarkla wrote: post #133

I don't really understand why Youtube won't let me create a profile, on my paid family account that I'm paying $29 NZD a month for, which lets me whitelist channels. I'm happy for my kids to have free access to certain channels on youtube, but the mind numbing shorts, and shit they find on random channels just does my head in. And it seems to be getting worse, I'm not sure if its that they are getting older and able…

[deleted]

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#438

Post by john01dav »

abduhl wrote: post #313
shakna wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who's in charge here, you or your kids? As a parent you're not in charge of a teenager. You're there to guide them, and try to protect them from their bad choices, but they have reached a point where they are beginning to control their self-determinism. They're not a kid anymore. If you just try to act the authority, try to control everything, then well... You'll either end up in abusive land, or trying to control…

You are, in fact, in charge of your teenager as a parent. They are, in fact, still a kid. Controlling your kid’s access to things which you deem harmful is, in fact, not abusive. Setting appropriate boundaries does not, in fact, mean you are not treating your kid as a person who has their own sense of self. Most kids will not, in fact, hate you for setting boundaries and being their parent. It is quite impressive tha…

This is a terrible argument. You just repeated the claims and said that they're false, giving no reason to believe this over the claims that you're disagreeing with. If you want to convince anyone, you should explain how you came to the conclusion that these things are false.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#439

Post by watwut »

modeless wrote: post #280
intothemild wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's YouTube kids. Not YouTube YT kids uses a separate app, with a different UI. It's branded as YouTube Kids. And once your kid hits a certain age, they do not want to be on the kids version. Another approach... Is to mark their kids account as a kids account or something, and have that just be on the regular YouTube website and app. Or what every parent really wants. To whitelist content your kid can watch…

> And once your kid hits a certain age, they do not want to be on the kids version. Who's in charge here, you or your kids? Sure, maybe you could imagine a teen YouTube product you might like more, but you can't say the whitelist feature doesn't exist. It's there and it works.

Ok, once kids hit certain age, YouTube kids is mostly useless to them. As the most perfectly ok and even educational channels are just not there. Includes channels parent wants to give to the kid.

Oh, and if the kid is not English speaking, YouTube kids is a wasteland of nothingness.

Re: Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption

#440

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

ACow_Adonis wrote: post #148
ElCapitanMarkla wrote: post #133

I don't really understand why Youtube won't let me create a profile, on my paid family account that I'm paying $29 NZD a month for, which lets me whitelist channels. I'm happy for my kids to have free access to certain channels on youtube, but the mind numbing shorts, and shit they find on random channels just does my head in. And it seems to be getting worse, I'm not sure if its that they are getting older and able…

Presumably for the same reason Google doesn't let you block or filter shit sites. If you genuinely let user's preferences be taken into account, it's incredibly hard to make money from ads if the user's true preferences are not to be shown them. The entire point of ads is to manipulate and change user preferences and behaviours. So any preferences or customisation has to be minimal enough that their use can only part…

Whitelisting—and more user control in general—seems like such a valuable feature, that they could probably charge for it. Heck, I'd pay $10 a year if I could just customise certain aspects of YouTube and remove all the ads and suggested content.

Whether this is viable or not, I don't know. I'm not sure what the average take per person is from the current model.

Post reply on HN