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

Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws

abc.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

481–490 of 498 posts

Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws

#481

Post by yosame »

bix6 wrote: post #287
nomilk wrote: post #175

Every single Australian 's ID will have to be verified (in order to confirm their age). Depending on the degree of cooperation (/coercion) the Australian government has with social media companies, the Aus Govt will be able to access citizen social media data with relative ease. So no more pseudo anonymous accounts (or, at least, they'll be made more difficult, especially for non-technical folk). Reminds of the 'chil…

It doesn’t say that? “Social media companies also won't be able to force users to provide government identification, including the Digital ID, to assess their age.”

Because they won't be forced to provide identification directly, they'll be forced to provide an age verification token that's linked to government identification. It's the same end result (a way to link your identity to the sites you use), but with extra steps.

And honestly with the government's track record when it comes to privacy and technology, I don't think they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws

#482

Post by yosame »

pmarreck wrote: post #455
teitoklien wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So lazy that they successfully lobbied governments to ruin their relation with big tech companies like facebook, google etc To give newspapers 100s of millions of free money just for the “privilege” of linking to their article, a “link tax”. They are lazy about reporting news without a bias, but they are perfectly active when it comes to lobbying.

I would be happy to see any links to evidence of this

Proof:

https://www.accc.gov.au/by-industry/digital-platforms-and-se...

It's called the news media bargaining code. Technically speaking, the law isn't enforced since Google/Meta chose to voluntarily pay the link tax, rather than be put on the list that would force them to pay. But, at the end of the day it's the same effect.

Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws

#483

Post by jruthers »

71bw wrote: post #429
xyzzy123 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difficulty is co-ordination. My job as a "responsible parent" is much more difficult if I have to fight prevailing social norms and my kids perceive they are being excluded from conversations and arbitrarily cut off from their peers. The social media ban is similar to the logic behind gaming limits in China. The idea is that while the controls themselves are easily circumvented, it gives everyone an excuse to do…

>I am OK with this ban for the same reason I'm OK with tobacco sellers being not allowed to sell to under 18s. And yet almost anywhere in Europe this ban is completely ineffective as the kids who start smoking get their hands on the cigarettes regardless. It only is a VERY minor inconvenience until they grow 18.

In Australia it's very hard to get hold of cigarettes under 18. Determined kids will find a way, of course. But vaping is more prevalent currently, and is held in higher regard by teens here.

I haven't lived in Europe some years, but I was amazed at how smoking was perceived as more acceptable there.

Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws

#484

Post by mavhc »

dhx wrote: post #148
mavhc wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not disallowed, just they also have to offer an alternative. Question is why hasn't Australia created a Digital ID system that can prove you're >= 16 years old without giving away other info?

In the spirit of "Falsehoods programmers believe in"[1] for human ages: * Not all people know their age.[2] * Even if people do know their age they may not have any means to prove their age.[2] * Even if people know their age, they may know their age only in a calendar system which is ambiguous or with a margin of error.[3] * Even if people have documentation proving their age, the documentation may provide an approx…

Does that matter though? At some point someone's assigning them a legal age so you can decide if they're over 16 or under 18, or over 21 etc. Your real age doesn't matter. And why would it not be able to be corrected later? Another advantage of a digital ID

Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws

#485

Post by hn_acker »

BSDobelix wrote: post #409
hn_acker wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook's internal documents showed that on 11 of 12 body image issues, Facebook was helpful to more teens than it was harmful to [1]: > For example, lots of people rely on the reporting around the Frances Haugen leaks from inside Facebook to argue that “Facebook knew” that Instagram causes “body image issues” for children (and then most people leapt to the belief that the company then ignored and downplayed that fi…

Written by Mike Masnick..... Next, face filters are actually good for teenage self-esteem, just don't put mirrors in your house, or onlyfans... where women find the real mental glowup.

> Next, face filters are actually good for teenage self-esteem, just don't put mirrors in your house, or onlyfans... where women find the real mental glowup.

Did anyone suggest anything close to that? And why mention OnlyFans? If the number of teen users helped by a social media site with face filters is greater than the number of teen users harmed by the social media site, then the former group might already be avoiding or using the worse features (including but not limited to face filters) in a healthy way. Parents and guardians should be teaching children to use the internet in a healthy way, including by warning that photos on social media can be edited with internal and external tools. Some public schools include the topic of manipulated images on social media in health class. Removing face filters from social media sites that have them might be a good idea, but people with severe body image issues will resort to external tools and post the edited images in their group chats. But I digress.

Of the pressures that teen social media users attribute to social media, "overwhelmed because of all the drama" and "like their friends are leaving them out of things" are more prevalent than "worse about their own life" [2]; even then, most teen social media users report that social media makes them feel "more connected to what's going on in their friends' lives" and "like they have people who can support them through tough times" [3]. The percentage of teen social media users reporting that social media has had a net positive effect on them personally is greater than the percentage that report a net negative effect [3] (and the sample probably includes users of TikTok and Instagram, which have face filters).

> Written by Mike Masnick.....

Wherein he links to [4] the publicized results [5] of Facebook's internal research, provides a major infographic from the results, and follows up with infographics and excerpts from Pew Research, yes.

Also, I have to correct what I wrote in my previous comment. What I originally wrote:

> Facebook's internal documents showed that on 11 of 12 body image issues, Facebook was helpful to more teens than it was harmful to

The evidence I referred to was from public documents about internal research, not internal documents. The infographic was about Instagram, not Facebook. Instagram, which has an app with face filters. The reesearch was about 12 issues, of which one was body image. The corrected version of what I wrote is:

The 12th issue was body image. Instagram was helpful to more teen boys than it was harmful to, but more harmful to teen girls than it was helpful to.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42266581

[2] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/11/16/connection-c...

[3] https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/11/16/connection-c...

[4] https://www.techdirt.com/2022/11/28/contrary-to-popular-opin...

[5] https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Instagram-Te...

Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws

#486

Post by whimsicalism »

nozzlegear wrote: post #480
whimsicalism wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tobacco use is problematic because it causes cancer . I don’t think the analogy is apt.

Isn't it more problematic because the nicotine causes addiction, making tobacco users orders of magnitude more likely to develop cancer? Social media sites are designed to cause addiction, to keep people doom scrolling and looking for their next dopamine hit for as long as possible. But even if addiction isn't our main contention and we want to keep the comparison to ailments, social media is also responsible for men…

coffee is addictive but doesn’t cause cancer so we are more chill with it.

the addiction is necessary but insufficient.

Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws

#487

Post by hellojesus »

fsflover wrote: post #435
cscurmudgeon wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still no science though. One exec's views in a large company doesn't equal science. If exec's views are science/truth. Then I bet you would have found execs in tobacco companies who thought they were doing good.

True, it's not science. It is however the intention.

> Allowing for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news to flourish...

I don't understand why people are so against this? Isn't it possible that people do research to determine the validity of what they read online?

Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws

#488

Post by fsflover »

hellojesus wrote: post #487
fsflover wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, it's not science. It is however the intention.

> Allowing for misinformation, conspiracy theories, and fake news to flourish... I don't understand why people are so against this? Isn't it possible that people do research to determine the validity of what they read online?

Is it possible for the people to do research and avoid junk food, smoking and alcohol? (Also, to understand the danger of the climate change.)

Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws

#489

Post by iamthemonster »

xp84 wrote: post #104

If you’re tempted to think “this isn’t worth it, too hard to enforce without affecting something else”… read “The Anxious Generation” by Jonathan Haidt. There is very real, irreparable harm being done to young people, and it merits trying to make it right, not just surrendering to it. Surely the problem of verifying a property of someone (the Boolean of “is over X age”) without sharing further details, is a surmounta…

Yeah I don't understand the particular revulsion to showing ID here. The concept of showing your ID to get access to something is very well embedded across alcohol, driving, cigarettes, your myGov account, Medicare, air travel, all sorts.

Re: Australia: Kids under 16 to be banned from social media after Senate passes laws

#490

Post by lstodd »

worthless-trash wrote: post #440
lstodd wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put them in chains and onto a stinky sail vessel enroute to Australia... oh wait

The modern equivalent would be to repost all their last year tictocs, again.

A cruel and unusial punishment.
Post reply on HN