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

71–80 of 345 posts

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

#71

Post by hcfman »

threeseed wrote: post #46
ClassyJacket wrote: post #21

The point of this isn't to keep kids off social media. It's an excuse to require ID for adults so they can arrest us for criticizing them. They also recently tried to pass a "Misinformation" bill which would have given them the power to decree what we can and can't say on social media, and they'll try to sneak that back in, too. This country is a nanny state and it's getting scary.

You're literally spreading misinformation in your comment. a) The government was trying to outlaw deepfakes and fake accounts. But also require more transparency for users to contest moderation decisions. It did not try to limit what you can say. b) There is no law that makes it illegal to criticise the government.

Well there is actually. If the government label the criticism fake news.

In the Netherlands people have been fined hundred of thousands of euros for spreading fake news about the government. However if it’s not fake news they can do the same. You won’t be able to do anything about it because it order to show your evidence you need to be able to publish and the press on there Netherlands will not help you with that.

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

#72

Post by BLKNSLVR »

kumarvvr wrote: post #24
arlattimore wrote: post #10

While I appreciate the sentiment of this legislation, removing social media access for everyone under 16 years to address the concerns of a few is a nanny state act. As a parent, you should be making these decisions for your children - not your government. Additionally, I would suggest it won't address the actual issue. The named/identified social media companies will comply as required, younger internet users will s…

It is undeniable that big tech has warped the way even adults deal with each other. It warps social norms, social habits, human interactions, perspectives on the world and a lot more, all for the worse than the better. For children, it is very important for them to build their social skills based on interactions with other kids and adults, rather than from social media. They must learn about the world from the world,…

> It is undeniable that big tech has warped the way even adults deal with each other. It warps social norms, social habits, human interactions, perspectives on the world and a lot more, all for the worse than the better.

Also true for television. Old Media had the monopoly on opinion-guidance back then. Part of the (encouragement of the) negative reaction to social media is it's threat to the status quo, much like Australia's previous legislation to force Facebook and Google to pay old media for linking to their news articles.

Different groups of people will have different lists of things they don't like about society and where it's headed; violent video games, advertising, music videos (that tend to be soft-porn these days), internet browsing tracking. Where does a government draw the line on what to act on and what to leave to the responsibility of parents? (how does this help other agendas? Will this look like we're "doing something"? Will this score votes? which way is the breeze blowing on this topic?)

Social media is a concentrator. I'm not convinced it's a 'cause'. There seems to be an epidemic of (social) anxiety, and maybe Facebook is the cause, but to me it feels societally deeper. World leadership is demonstrably not "the best of us" (I'm not just saying that because of Trump), to me, it feels as if there's a pervasive attitude of "I'll get mine and fuck the rest of you", which predictably trickles throughout the society whose leaders portray that attitude. Social media being one outlet of this, but I see plenty of 'us vs. them' polemics in traditional media.

Just my theory. I'm already poking holes in it mentally, but anyway. I don't have any useful answers. I guess we'll see if this ban makes a difference.

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

#73

Post by linuxandrew »

turbojet1321 wrote: post #58
mianos wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I highly doubt they have the expertise to implement anything remotely 'cryptographic.' Their level of competence seems stuck in the 1950s, stamping paper forms, while anything more complex is handed off to consultants in Australia. These consultants appear far more interested in lining their pockets than in understanding technology or math. The far more likely scenario is they piss a couple of hundred billion away on…

There is myID (formerly myGovID) which would be the logical vehicle for a government provided age verification service. I've heard (but can't find a source) that it's build on OIDC/OAuth, so extending it to be an IdP exposing only specific claims (ie, age) shouldn't be a huge leap.

myID as it stands is a bit of a farce. It uses OIDC under the hood, but it only supports end users that download the myID app on their smartphone via the Google Play Store or Apple App Store. Security is effectively outsourced to Google and Apple as the user's identity is "pinned" to their smartphone.

Take myGov in contrast which is web-capable and supports users to use a Yubikey or Passkey/Webauthn-capable device to authenticate.

Under the Australian Digital ID scheme myGov will likely be usurped by myID, which is, in my view, an inferior scheme which blatantly ignores basic standards.

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

#74

Post by hcfman »

Nasrudith wrote: post #64
threeseed wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're literally spreading misinformation in your comment. a) The government was trying to outlaw deepfakes and fake accounts. But also require more transparency for users to contest moderation decisions. It did not try to limit what you can say. b) There is no law that makes it illegal to criticise the government.

There are many places in the world where there is no law for "contempt of cop" but police find a way to extra-judicially punish anyway. The lack of a law allowing something doesn't stop abuse of power! And Australia is notorious for its raids of journalist's homes and has a court system very disinclined to punish the police for illegal activity.

Yep. The Netherlands is one of those places. They have made extra judicial punishment a way of working. They call it an “intervention”. And they will make use of all the government organisations to do it. those organisations just have to follow orders because the interventions are co-ordinated by an intelligence agency called the RIEC.

No evidence is required, there are no bounds as to what they can do and there are no repercussions.

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

#75

Post by gloosx »

oblio wrote: post #51
gloosx wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the government act with expertise to solve the problem Do you have an idea which problem did they solve? Did banning certain psychoactive drugs solved the problem of drug abuse? Maybe banning alcohol removed it from the streets during great depression? Banning gambling? Kids will find a way to get into their social media accounts anyway, and then these democrats will tell you they need to ban every VPN service and s…

Banning smoking in many places plus banning advertising it plus banning selling it to kids reduced smoking by unfathomable amounts.

Do you have data do back it up? From quickly looking at historical records online, I can't see any unfathomable amounts reduction, It's levelled on 20-30% of smokers among kids, and it remains a core challenge for child and adolescent health to the current day (according to 2020 WHO report[0]), plus they started to smoke vapes. So did the bans you sampled really work, or do they just smoke more discreetly and use tricks to buy cigarettes now, making the whole thing more inaccessible and desirable for an average child?

[0] https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/05-06-2020-smoking-stil...

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

#76

Post by linuxandrew »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #38
ENGNR wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re a nanny state, the government is just going to use it to track us

Forced voting is proof of it. Australia is by far the least free Anglo nation. I will never step foot on that god forsaken island. They have no culture, and that’s the opinion of Australians: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucky_Country https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Australian_Ugliness

Ha! We have compulsory voting but unlike many Anglo countries we don't require voter ID, vote registration etc. In fact you do not need to provide any ID to vote, because voting fraud is so statistically low (see https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/voting-fraud-negli...). We simply provide a name and address and fill out the ballot.

We have so many issues, but compulsory voting is not one of them, in my opinion. If you feel so strongly to not vote you can abstain by an informal vote like roughly 5% of the country does on any given election (https://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/Informal_Voting/) or simply pay the AU$20 (roughly US$13) fine like apparently around 5-10% of Australians do on any given election (https://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/non-voters.htm).

In my view, and in the view of many Australians, people encouraging further "freedom" to not vote are attempting to suppress votes, a major issue in the United States and other countries with optional voting.

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

#77

Post by Aeolun »

oblio wrote: post #51
gloosx wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the government act with expertise to solve the problem Do you have an idea which problem did they solve? Did banning certain psychoactive drugs solved the problem of drug abuse? Maybe banning alcohol removed it from the streets during great depression? Banning gambling? Kids will find a way to get into their social media accounts anyway, and then these democrats will tell you they need to ban every VPN service and s…

Banning smoking in many places plus banning advertising it plus banning selling it to kids reduced smoking by unfathomable amounts.

The very graphic lessons at school showing what a smokers’ lung looks like after a life spent smoking didn’t hurt either.

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

#78

Post by gloosx »

123124dfasd wrote: post #68
gloosx wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the government act with expertise to solve the problem Do you have an idea which problem did they solve? Did banning certain psychoactive drugs solved the problem of drug abuse? Maybe banning alcohol removed it from the streets during great depression? Banning gambling? Kids will find a way to get into their social media accounts anyway, and then these democrats will tell you they need to ban every VPN service and s…

Just because the War on Drugs failed does not mean the argument extend on to every other fields.

Social media is similar to a drug because it is dopaminergic, and banning it is very similar to War on Drugs scenario, just a knee-jerk reaction, not an expertise-driven policy

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

#79

Post by doxick »

BrawnyBadger53 wrote: post #67
threeseed wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to turn down the volume here. Not being exposed to social networks for a few years is no way comparable to depriving them of bodily autonomy.

They are already mostly segmented off from their friends after school hours. They have killed off one of the final mediums for interaction and are preventing interaction with the rest of their generation's culture. They're also narrowing their world view to be more controlled by the state.

Hasn't that been the case for thousands of years? It's not like they can't see each other after school hours... I know i used to. And i still see my friends after my workday. I have much deeper connections with the 20 people i see in real life than the 1000 people on my linkedin profile.

Do people thrive more in their mental health when they are supposedly 24/7 accessible? Is it necessary? Is it wanted?

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

#80

Post by voidfunc »

kumarvvr wrote: post #25
lmm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the opposite of democracy - a group imposing rules "for their own good" on people it doesn't represent who have no recourse. If they had any integrity they'd be banning it for adults not children.

How can you protect children from the absolute devastating effects of social media on children, by banning it for adults?

Demonizing social media is this generations version of demonizing rock and roll.

It's so tiring.

Post reply on HN