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

491–498 of 498 posts

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

#491

Post by brokenmachine »

biztos wrote: post #457
illiac786 wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany has a system in their ID cards that allows anonymous age verification. No one uses it but it’s a technical marvel in my opinion. The site asks for specific read permissions and the user can decide if he wants to grant them. One of these permissions is age verification. You put the phone on the ID card and there is a cryptographic proof that the user connecting to the site is in possession of an ID of a person…

It's hardly an age verification if it just requires the bearer to have an adult's ID card. You borrow your friend's card, or you "borrow" your parent's card, or you pay someone who sees this market opportunity. I think it's ridiculous how the lawgivers are telling the companies to just nerd harder, but they're definitely going to have to nerd harder than that.

They know, of course, that they're giving the nerds an impossible challenge.

Then when they can't achieve it they can say, "well we tried the non-authoritarian way and the nerds didn't oblige, now we're forced to bring out the brownshirts. Papers please!"

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

#492

Post by brokenmachine »

beardedwizard wrote: post #393
Aurornis wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent comment suggested of the sort. There is obviously more porn on porn sites than on moderated social media platforms. Pointing out that some porn occasionally evades filters on Facebook for a couple days doesn’t mean social media sites and porn sites are fully equivalent. > For me, social media is the worst thing we ever created. Calling social media the “worst thing we ever created” as a comment on a social…

So your argument is that hackernews is similar to TikTok and instagram? I completely disagree. The core of HN is not self promotion, narration, or comparison - the very things driving teen suicides up from social media use. I further suggest most of the replies to my original comment are willfully ignoring the data the Australian govt is citing for these bans, and what psychologists worldwide are citing. None of the…

From the actual bill:

63C Age-restricted social media platform (1) For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted social media platform means: (a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions: (i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users; (ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users; (iii) the service allows end-users to post material on the service;

I would say that HN is covered under that.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...

You are quite shortsighted if you can't see the possible outcomes of such a far-reaching and anti-democratic law.

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

#493

Post by beardedwizard »

brokenmachine wrote: post #492
beardedwizard wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your argument is that hackernews is similar to TikTok and instagram? I completely disagree. The core of HN is not self promotion, narration, or comparison - the very things driving teen suicides up from social media use. I further suggest most of the replies to my original comment are willfully ignoring the data the Australian govt is citing for these bans, and what psychologists worldwide are citing. None of the…

From the actual bill: 63C Age-restricted social media platform (1) For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted social media platform means: (a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions: (i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users; (ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of th…

I would argue it's short sighted to do nothing to prevent harm from social media, and we certainly won't find out what works or doesn't by doing nothing to chase a perfect solution that will never exist.

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

#494

Post by brokenmachine »

beardedwizard wrote: post #493
brokenmachine wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the actual bill: 63C Age-restricted social media platform (1) For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted social media platform means: (a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions: (i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users; (ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of th…

I would argue it's short sighted to do nothing to prevent harm from social media, and we certainly won't find out what works or doesn't by doing nothing to chase a perfect solution that will never exist.

Doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing.

This has too many chilling effects. It's so far from perfect it's crazy.

By the letter of the law any service even allowing only one-on-one conversations is covered. It's obvious to me that these secondary effects are by design.

Open communication is the most important thing that democracy needs, and this is a clear attack on it.

Also can we not recognise that social media can have good effects as well? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-01/social-media-ban-unde...

Murdoch media is losing it's power and fighting back.

Why not restrict the algorithms they're permitted to use, to fight echo chambers?

That might actually have a chance of helping every person, not only <16 year olds?

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

#495

Post by brokenmachine »

yosame wrote: post #481
bix6 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It actually doesn't say that. It says:

(a) the provider provides alternative means (not involving the material and services mentioned in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b)) 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.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi... - page 8

So it doesn't actually provide an alternative, just says the nerds need to magic one up.

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

#496

Post by brokenmachine »

teitoklien wrote: post #203
pmarreck wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to see some evidence before I buy this conspiracy theory. If anything, I feel like legacy media is too lazy and entrenched to even consider this

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.

Don't forget the best part, they will also get fined for not linking!!

Brilliant!! The incorruptible free market of Australia in all its glory.

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

#497

Post by brokenmachine »

dyauspitr wrote: post #165
afavour wrote: post #141

Like the spirit, dislike the execution. Passing legislation to “protect the kids” is politically easy. Bans are simple. Much more effective, IMO, would be to legislate the way social networks behave. Stop their most addictive patterns. Adults are just as susceptible as kids in my experience. If there needs to be anything kid specific, perhaps a block on using the service during school hours, or only for X hours a day…

I think the execution is bad because I don’t know how it’s going to be enforced. It explicitly says you can’t use government ID.

It says they can't use government ID exclusively.

They have to also offer an alternative, which is not specified...

Agreed, the execution is bad.

Post reply on HN