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

551–560 of 580 posts

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

#551

Post by modeless »

watwut wrote: post #441
kdamica wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried creating a YouTube Kids profile? What you’re describing sounds like what they already have. It is not the default but there is a setting that allows you to create a list of allowed channels. The setting is called “Approved Content Only”.

YouTube kids is a wasteland for non English content. And also, there is whole world of content I would be more then happy to encourage my kids to watch that is unavailable there. While also containing huge amount of unboxing toys crap I would not give to my kids in my own watchiles.

You can share almost any video on YouTube to the kids app. You use the YouTube app on your phone to share it, not the UI in the kids app.

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

#552

Post by Tadpole9181 »

mvdtnz wrote: post #548
Tadpole9181 wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And anyone who believes in universal healthcare? Idiot. Voting rights and holidays? Idiot. Civil rights? Idiot. Want to stop climate change, damn, idiot. Wow, so intellectual you are to say nobody can hold ideals.

What on earth is this response

They're repeatedly calling people idiots (despite not understanding the topic at hand) and saying nobody can hold ideology if it cannot be implemented immediately in a political climate. What am I supposed to respond with?

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

#553

Post by LocalH »

qcnguy wrote: post #435
shivasaxena wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rein…

To be fair, the chances of a breaking server change being unintentional or a natural evolution versus being a hostile move from the provider are about 50/50. AOL was known back in the day for making actively hostile changes to AIM for the sole purpose of breaking third party clients.

Today I'd say the chances of it being a hostile move are more like 75/25.

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

#554

Post by johnnyanmac »

modeless wrote: post #549
johnnyanmac wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Why is everyone saying this doesn't exist? It's right there on the linked page! Because you're whitelisting on videos that Youtube already filtered on. If there's some form of content that is not on Youtube Kids that you want to whitelist, you're out of luck. >why does Google get to decide that for me? I'm an adult and can choose what level of product placement is acceptable for my kids COPPA, probably.

> If there's some form of content that is not on Youtube Kids that you want to whitelist, you're out of luck. This is false too. You can add almost any channel or any video on YouTube by using the YouTube app on your phone to "share" it to your kids. As I said, it will refuse on some videos that contain product placement, and there are probably a few other restricted categories, but otherwise you are not restricted t…

And where is that? That's not in the link provided upchain.

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

#555

Post by __d »

rightbyte wrote: post #382
__d wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. And yet. It’s like every generation gets fixated on something new which can be perceived as moral decay and societal harm, and then rails against it. Making it even more popular with the younger generation, of course. I’ve seen the same thing play out with rock music, television, computer games, and now social media. There’s likely examples back throughout history. I think you can mount an argument against all o…

For every big tech dystopic platform going all wack there is some "the old greeks complained about kids these days" going my way. Social media need to go. It is bad for us. I don't support a ban but at least the ban indicates there is some sort of room for counterculture. I think only a cultural mindset change works and it cam't be top down.

I think that the operational incentives for advertising-funded, for-profit social media make them unavoidably bad.

Conceptually, a digital means of communicating life’s events between friends needn’t be terrible, but … the impulse to self-promote is human, and ultimately destructive.

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

#556

Post by goopypoop »

baq wrote: post #527
goopypoop wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Removing undesirable information is literally censorship. For irony's sake, I'll adjust my comment for your sensibility: Every restriction is a demonstration of a lack of trust.

Censorship is quite strictly defined to be done by the government. Not allowing kids to watch anything they please is called parenting.

Incorrect.

Your first sentence is plain wrong and your second only begs the question. It's as if you're just trying to distract from the content of my comment with sheer semantic disingenuity. But maybe you missed my point so:

every check shows distrust

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

#557

Post by protocolture »

SlowTao wrote: post #387
protocolture wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suddenly? Australia used to have energy for protesting this sort of shit, but its all spent. We used to have a pretty decently funded anti internet censorship lobby. It died in the 2010s. Since then its just been hit after hit after hit. Any minute justification is seized upon to wind up internet freedoms. Former PM Turncoat said “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australi…

I think a key point of it is that those in power know that if there is bipartisan support, they can ignore all protests. All the campaigns I was involved in for well over a decade achieved absolutely nothing because of this. It is worse than that now, seeing the screws slowly get tightened on peaceful protests makes this even worse. They cant just ignore it but actively suppress it and get away with it. A few years b…

>I think a key point of it is that those in power know that if there is bipartisan support, they can ignore all protests.

Charles Stross calls it the Beige Dictatorship. As long as they agree on 99% they can do whatever they want without public support. And you bring this up with low information voters and they just say "But Blorbus will decrease health spending by 3% thats a huge difference!!!" meanwhile all our civil liberties are eroded.

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

#558

Post by protocolture »

OhioMan2943 wrote: post #343
protocolture wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see, props for admitting you are part of the problem. Next time dont do that.

I just want to share the other side for once.

It used to be the case that you could rely on netizens to support the internet. You read about the old clipper chip stuff in yankistan and they had NSA Cryptographers risking their jobs speaking out publicly against the policy. We were lucky enough to have Bevan Slattery run a massive campaign against the (godawful) NBN economics for the LNP to silently correct half of the issues with no fanfare, when other people were getting silently cancelled over speaking out by their employers fearing NBN retribution. iiNet stood up to Conroy repeatedly.

I need you to understand that you have put at severe risk a lot of good honest people for a false sense of security that is more likely to push kids into worse places than actually prevent harm. With the inclusion of Youtube, its likely the government is going to ramp this up to apply to any website with a comment section. Civil Liberties are easy to destroy in this manner, but oh so difficult to restore. We fought, hard, against internet filtering in this country. We shouldn't have to re-litigate it every 5 years or so while getting white anted by our own.

If there's something worse than ashamed, its where you should be right now.

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

#559

Post by _carbyau_ »

__jochen__ wrote: post #464
_carbyau_ wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There needs to be some terms clarified. mygov vs mygovid vs myid. Agreed, "myid" used to be called "mygovid". But myid/mygovid is NOT mygov. I'm guessing the rename is likely because of that confusion. mygov usage is high, 26 million accounts, according to [1] 2023 report. Myid usage seems middling. 13 million according to [2] 2024 article. Which platform to use for what and how I leave to you. I don't want this. I d…

I agree the naming is a mess. There is the Australian Digital ID system ( https://www.digitalidsystem.gov.au/how-the-system-works ) which allows third party providers. Whatever the capabilities of the Australian government ID services, there is a way to issue privacy-preserving tokens that could do all the things you'd need without being trackable the system was properly designed. (I have not studied the protocols of…

I agree with you that technically it can be done. Which is why I said:

"I don't want the government's aim for auditable provability"

I mean, technically they could do it and provide at least a modicum of privacy protection. But I will bet they won't because whoever is implementing it will want to be able to point to specifics - specific people, specific times, specific places - so they can cover their arse come the next moral panic moment.

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

#560

Post by __jochen__ »

giantg2 wrote: post #499
__jochen__ wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazing! Do you have some spare time? Can you quickly mint me a BTC token please. kthxbai ;)

Stealing them is a possibility too. I think the point is still valid.

From a technical perspective there is so much you can do to secure things, including against theft. While it's hard to lock things down past 99.9% usage, it is not too hard to make token issuance secure enough for practical, wide-spread use (there are a plethora of crypto protocols out there to prove the point).

There's no guarantee that the government will pick the best standard, but one can hold out hope (e.g. when the US govt adopted Rijndael as the AES encryption standard).

Post reply on HN