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

81–90 of 345 posts

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

#81

Post by vermilingua »

obblekk wrote: post #2

The votes are strong majorities of both houses - great to see a functional democratic government act on such an important issue. They specifically don’t prescribe any particular age verification methods. This would be a great time to follow up with legislation that updates their national IDs to be able to provide cryptographically secure proofs of age without leaking identity. Absent that, I’m sure many of the commen…

> great to see the government act with expertise

I’ve seen the Australian government accused of many things, but that’s certainly a first. This is the same country whose prime minister once said “The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia”.

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

#82

Post by labster »

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?

I mean there has been at least one genocide planned on social media. Maybe adults were the real danger after all.

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

#83

Post by nixpulvis »

OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #69
nixpulvis wrote: post #44

This is a bad idea. We should be forcing demonetization of the platforms content creators instead of hamstringing children. No I'm not joking. Content creators making money should be outside where I post about my cat. I'm fucking sick of engagement bait.

The money driven content creators are going to thrive on platforms that support them. If you don't want to have their content on the same feed as your cat pics, you're going to have to find some alt networks

Supposedly Bluesky isn't monetized?

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

#85

Post by liammclennan »

linuxandrew wrote: post #62
obblekk wrote: post #2

The votes are strong majorities of both houses - great to see a functional democratic government act on such an important issue. They specifically don’t prescribe any particular age verification methods. This would be a great time to follow up with legislation that updates their national IDs to be able to provide cryptographically secure proofs of age without leaking identity. Absent that, I’m sure many of the commen…

> They specifically don’t prescribe any particular age verification methods. This would be a great time to follow up with legislation that updates their national IDs to be able to provide cryptographically secure proofs of age without leaking identity. Hard disagree. We do not need an internet driver's license. Australians are supposed to have a right to interact with organisations with privacy protections under the…

Did you see the "without leaking identity" part? Your comment seems to ignore that.

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

#86

Post by chrishare »

SamPatt wrote: post #23

I don't like nanny state policies like this, but hopefully we'll get some data about social media usage from this after a few years. Prediction: the policy was both difficult to implement and difficult to determine if it made any impact, positive or negative.

I've always wondered, when do policies become nanny state policies? If they have data showing that under-age use of social media leads to higher rates of suicide, why would that be a 'nanny state' policy? Does there have to be a gun or drug involved, rather than a phone?

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

#87

Post by liammclennan »

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

Compulsory voting seems to push against the current trend of political polarization. Also, not sure Australia is, or wants to be, an "Anglo nation".

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

#88

Post by lmm »

doxick wrote: post #79
BrawnyBadger53 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> It's not like they can't see each other after school hours... I know i used to.

Things have gotten much worse since then. These days children get reported if they're out and about unsupervised.

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

#90

Post by oefnak »

hcfman wrote: post #71
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.

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.

Please give more details about that fine. I But I'm sure you won't because the example wouldn't help your argument.
Post reply on HN