Australia tells tots: No TikTok till you're 16... or X, Instagram and Facebook The Australian government has confirmed it will create legislation that bans access to social media for people under the age of 16. "The Bill builds upon the Australian Government's work to address online harms for young people, including the $6.5 million age assurance trial, establishing an online dating apps code, …
> block them from stackoverflow
Absolutely.
They need to be given the chance to learn for themselves what it takes to solve problems and what it looks like when they are speaking from a position of understanding how their answer works.
Then they can be introduced to the world of chicken-waving (and willy-waving) voodoo copy'n'paste points-scoring "solutions" that permeates Stackoverflow when they have a fighting chance of being able to spot the gems of rationality that still lurk there.
True, there are worse forums of scum and villainy out there (/Linux may be reasonably safe but that is next door to so much other Reddit...). It may be sensible to let them into Stackoverflow first, under supervision to start, and gradually phase in exposure to over sites.
When I was young, and the world was 8bit, the only place to learn was hoping WHSmith had a magazine with some Basic you could type in.
Now school kids can play with the same OS that runs the world, watch computer-science lectures from the world's best universities and have online tutorials for every conceivable language/technology.
But we should probably stick to waiting until they're 16 and then have them learn how to draw flowcharts in A-level computer science
Now school kids can play with the same OS that runs the world, watch computer-science lectures from the world's best universities and have online tutorials for every conceivable language/technology.
Can. But do they do?
I was an assistant teacher at a local community college some 20+ years ago. We set up a lab with Linux (probably one of the extinct flavors—Mandriva?) with lots of free languages and development tools. Most of the kids went to the lab to lurk around in Orkut or similar crap. I doubt things had changed.
"Can. But do they do?"
Some do. I grant you, not many. But I have encountered late teens that have been using Ubuntu, programming (mostly python) and learnt LaTeX for document preparation from their early teens.
I suspect no matter what, those that "do" will find it well within their ability to circumvent any arbitrary restrictions, to do, whatever they would have done in any case, unimpeded.
No one but a complete fool would bother to interfere but then we are not exactly suffering a drought of fools at present. Are we?
If you read the article well.. it says that the educational & health awareness access would still be accessibe. It's all the garbage they are trying to filter. ANd ther's so much NOISE to filter for a 15 year old who doesn't know how to talk to an adult any more because a) they hadly have time for conversations anymore because the screen beckons and b) they've learned to just BLOCK someone rather than be forced to communicate in a mature way with words.
> ... watch computer-science lectures from the world's best universities ...
And very good they are; I have a note on my to-do list to hunt down the "Structure and Interpretation..." lectures as a refresher (some things just don't go out of date).
> Online tutorials...
More of a mixed bunch than those lectures, but there are good ones; just don't sick to just the one per subject, unless all you really need is a worked example to do a quick job today.
> But we should probably stick to waiting until they're 16 ...
Now worried that you are against younglings watching CompSci lectures, running a decent OS etc.
Oh, no, wait - that last paragraph, you aren't trying to be sarcastic, are you? And in a direct response to my comment? But, but, that would surely mean...
Oh my goodness, you are! You are trying to equate Stackoverflow with "lectures from the world's best universities"!
Bwaa-ha-ha! Oh, glorious.
Hmm, wonder if I can find an online lecture from MIT that discusses the concept of "Signal to noise ratio" for you.
You'd think that if the cell phone service providers were required to know the age of the "default phone user" of the phone as part of the service agreement, they could do a lot towards blocking what that phone can do/access based on the users age. If Dad wants to watch porn on Junior's phone, well, that collateral damage is just tough luck.
Moving "default age" to the phone service provider may be an easy way out. Set an age restriction flag which can be read by from the phone by the app and reset by the supplier when the user is deemed old enough (whatever that is) ... Will probably be hacked but it is as good as any other method and does not have intrinsic personal privacy concerns.
I would think phones could support two unlock pins, one for a restricted user and the second for an "admin" (adult) user. So a parent could still use the phone normally but set restrictions for use by a child.
This would also be useful when sharing your own phone with a child - like when travelling and letting them use your phone for games or other distractions.
They generally can. Android works similarly to what you've described, while IOS uses a slightly different system where there is only one user account with one unlock pin, but you can put a different pin on features you want restricted. The child would only be given the former pin and could only use the allowed functions. Not perfect, but it can do a lot of what people are asking for. I know of no people who actually use that feature, but it is there.
That's crediting the Australia telecos with enough wit and sagacity to organise a pissup in a brewery.
It's just over a month ago I fell foul of the phenomenal clusterfuck that the Australian 3g shutdown has turned into. Huge numbers of phones are now being summarily blocked from Australian networks - mostly those sourced from outside Australia but plenty purchased in-country.
Banning in many cases seems to be based on the first 8 characters on the IMEI, which defined country of origin . "Foreign" phones in those cases are a no no.
mostly those sourced from outside Australia but plenty purchased in-country.
Yes based on the IMEI but even the Australian model of Nokia 2.3 fails the test. Oddly now it cannot make voice calls but data and SMS still work.
"organise a pissup in a brewery?" Don't think so.
"a dog fight?" No.
"their usual, except in a bordello?" You are kidding surely?
Yes. finally! Finally.
I can be mom (not police)
There might be fewer arguments and wars inside my family unit. Less tension.
More love, more connection. Mor ejust plain ol' being present
I have had a private IG resentment towards Apple, Google, all the free flowing social media crap that is avaiable for not being more responsablie bout everything the put out there freely for their own financia benefits without thinking at ALL about family life and how it can be affected. How kids fall victim to so much SH-- out there freely available to them unless they start another war with a parent trying to curb their use.
Assuming that the stated purpose of this (rather than the actual Federal electoral purpose of "appearing to do something") is that children under 16 aren't mature, I note that an Australian State Government wants to bring in imprisonment for those who commit "adult crimes" to "adult time" for 10 year olds.
As is the case a lot of the time now, these 10 year olds do these things due to the effects the psyops of these platforms have on them. Where is the line?
Thompson and Venables aside, if a future Aussie 10 year old commits a murder and is tried as an adult then is the mitigation that they were corrupted by things they do not understand.
It's not a mitigation, by 10 we expect kids to know not to murder people, if they don't then they need to be removed from society for the protection of others. That they access content that was inappropriate for them and it damaged them is even more reason to lock them up since they are already damaged and a danger to others.
The priority must be:
1. The protection of the public. Why should people who have already demonstrated that they are willing to kill people be given the opportunity to do so again.
2. Punishment of the perpetrator and justice for the victim.
3. Rehabilitation if possible.
Very interesting reading about those kids on Wikipedia. At the time, Thompson was thought to be a psychopath due to showing a lack of remorse, while there was strong hope for Venables because of his ability to show remorse. However, after they were released at age 17, it was Venables who was the repeat recidivist offender, convicted two times for possessing violent child pornography (brutal child rape videos). If the lesson is that Venables was a psychopath who could show remorse without feeling or at least incorporating it, then is it possible that Thompson could have felt remorse without showing it?
I'm inclined to believe, on statistics alone, that one of them was the leader who managed to manipulate the other, and without whom the other would never have committed a child murder, not because they weren't capable of it, but just because they would never have thought of it alone.
Anyway, it seems like the authorities really made an effort to reform them in youth and give them a chance later - very different from average adult imprisonment. The authorities did what they had to do, and it would be hard to call it harsh punishment.
The parent gives a child a mobile phone and does not check the child is ok,using it safely. Should they install mdm.
The government puts the responsibility to tiktok,meta etc.
Will nobody take responsibility/action.
Ooh I don't want to say no to my child it's the government's problem.
That is society and those people who give their offspring the phones, tablets and then pay for the contracts mostly don't care.
It is the electronic baby sitter or entertainment provider.
That the outcome is often so distressing appears oblivious to both the provider of the equipment (parents) and the purveyors of the content (TicTok & Meta), the response is that it is the Government's fault.
"It is the electronic baby sitter or entertainment provider."
Tiktok, Facebook and Instagram etc. are how young people (kids) stay in touch with each other these days. A parent who says no to their child having them is also saying to the child to not speak to their friends. It's no good telling a child to use WhatsApp or SMS or similar because that makes the child an outcast. The downside of course is that tiktok, Facebook and Instagram etc. all come with a heck of a lot of negative baggage.
And before anyone chips in with "we coped in my day without all that", those days are gone, this is how the world is today.
Tiktok, Facebook and Instagram etc. are how young people (kids) stay in touch with each other these days.
That's actually a big part of the problem.
In case you haven't noticed (and perhaps things in the UK are slightly different than here in the states), people under the age of about 30 these days (otherwise known as people who grew up with the WWW and algorithm-driving social networking), have all sorts of social problems from general social anxiety, fear of romantic relationships, fear of talking on the phone rather than some form of texting (thus taking away their "shield from emotional vulnerability"), etc etc.
All of these things are ultimately going to cause (and have already caused) a variety of avoidable social engagement issues. A veteran teacher I know in central Europe for example complains of the same things that teachers here complain about these days with with regard to high-school age students: lack of focus (eg continuously distracted by the phones and other online things), lack of sleep, lack of the fortitude to stick with projects, etc etc.
As an IT consultant I go to various company environments and in recent years here it's gotten to the point where half the staff has got headphones on at work most of the day and if you have the audacity to walk up to one of them to ask a question they often glare at you like you are illegally trying to pierce their hermetic personal bubble.
It's time that young people learn how to actually interact constructively with other humans in the flesh again, before the entire world ends up socially crippled.
Some of that is true of a significant subset, and a lot of that is just the typical intergenerational stereotypes that always crop up. For example, teachers annoyed that their adolescent students aren't paying attention and don't put the dedication into their homework that they should... nobody's ever said that before. It simply didn't happen before 2010.
Another one I can explain is the office environment. Yes, people wear headphones. They wear those because there are no walls and they want to reduce noise pollution so they can work with less distraction. Some of them might be playing music which they think helps them work. That's not antisocial, it's attempting to improve productivity. People of all ages can get annoyed at interruptions. Unless they called you there, there's a chance that they were working on something and don't particularly want to talk about your thing, hence the negative reaction, and one I think you're likely overestimating because most people have learned not to show their annoyance at interruptions that they can't prevent.
Other ones are less clear. I could try to explain the changes in etiquette that has reduced the acceptance of just calling someone when you want to speak with them. However, there are some people who dislike calls even outside of that. However, I'm not sure you would care about those different subsets as you've already decided what the explanation for all these things must be.
However, I'm not sure you would care about those different subsets as you've already decided what the explanation for all these things must be.
Have you ever noticed how many people often accuse others of personal foibles that are not particularly evident with the recipient of such critiques, but the critic themselves happens to display it in spades themselves?
Given how long I've been doing the "visiting various businesses" thing, I can see the changes over time.
Now I could have given 100 other examples from various other realms of life as well, but when people's minds are made up, they're made up, hm?
Suffice to say, the impacts are everywhere and easily visible to those who pay attention and have been around since before the FB/YT/TikTok/etc era.
"Changes in etiquette" do not get hatched in someone's evil laboratory and imposed on us by Big Brother without our consent, they are a reaction to a change in public attitudes.
And those "changes in attitude" are precisely the things In talking about here.
I think this demonstrates what I expected, but you did allege that I'm assuming something that doesn't represent you, so let's give it a try. We can limit ourselves to the talking on the phone bit, because it perfectly demonstrates what I was talking about. I see your post as assuming why people don't talk on the phone: "fear of talking on the phone rather than some form of texting (thus taking away their "shield from emotional vulnerability")". That would appear to me to be a rather clear generalization, even though there are lots of reasons why people avoid talking on the phone.
Here's one. A change in attitudes, not because of any "emotional vulnerability". One change in attitude has come along because the phone is no longer the only way of contacting someone. A while ago, if you wanted to talk with someone, the phone was the best way of doing it, but now, an email or chat message will arrive just as quickly. Some people have grown less eager to use the phone because it means they have to have a conversation when the call happens rather than an asynchronous one at a time of their choosing. And that is recipients of calls. I have certainly noticed this. There are people I want to talk to who just don't answer the phone and don't listen to or respond to voicemails. If you need their attention, you have to send them an email and schedule a call if needed. That applies to many older people as well, and there's at least some logic in it because it is less disruptive to whatever else they were doing that day. That, in turn, means I'm less likely to call people because there's at least some chance that I am wasting my time because they won't answer or respond, so although I quite like calling people to communicate with them, I still generally start with an email.
That set of people are not doing that for anything related to "emotional vulnerability". Incidentally, what is your theory for why there is more emotional vulnerability on the phone? It's pretty easy to insult someone or to be insulted over text chat. There's more direct vulnerability on a video call, but those are rather popular.
However, just because that or other non-emotional reasons exist doesn't mean everyone is as I describe. There are indeed some people who dislike talking on the phone for some different reason. However, by making a statement like you have, you've ignored many alternatives, applied your own assumption for why people do things differently to how others did them decades ago, and then used your assumptions as evidence of a different problem with a tenuous connection. Even if we were limiting this to those who feel anxiety about making a phone call, we'd still have to figure out why before we could blame it on any particular change in activity, but we didn't get that far because I saw you lumping all sorts of things in.
No penalty for users = no possibility of enforcement.
Even with penalties, I don't think it will do more than slightly slow them down.
I suspect that if Facebook has fewer underage people than it did, it's because it's not the thing to do anymore. They're all on Instagram or Tiktok instead.
Many countries have age-related restrictions on the sale of (e.g.) alcohol and penalties for sellers that break them.
Presumably, you're opposed to any such restrictions, on the implied basis that it's the responsibility of the parents- and solely the parents and no-one else- to keep them away from that?
Or, regardless of what one thinks of the actual proposal and it's implementation, is there a reason that the principle itself should apply to one area, but not another?
@Michael Strorm
"Many countries have age-related restrictions on the sale of (e.g.) alcohol and penalties for sellers that break them."
And yet the parent can buy alcohol and choose to allow their child to partake in some if they wish to. Its parenting. Teaching kids not to abuse alcohol is a good idea, is it best they are introduced to it from their alcoholic irresponsible friends or their parents?
"Presumably, you're opposed to any such restrictions, on the implied basis that it's the responsibility of the parents- and solely the parents and no-one else- to keep them away from that?"
You seem to have created one hell of a straw man. If we are doing that I might as well accuse you of wanting to take children away from parents and handing them over to the state.
"Or, regardless of what one thinks of the actual proposal and it's implementation, is there a reason that the principle itself should apply to one area, but not another?"
Parental responsibility is in all areas. Its that problem of life and trying to get your kids ready for it before they have to continue on without you
You made a reply to a story about a third party being able to be held responsible for childrens' use of social media. Your negative response in that context seemed to suggest you disagreed with and opposed that, i.e. implying it should be solely the parents' responsibility.
If that's not what you meant, okay, but it wasn't an intentional strawman. And that being the case...
The point isn't that parents *can* choose to give their children alcohol. It's that people generally don't want others (e.g. shopkeepers) to be able to freely do so.
If you don't disagree with that in principle, do you also agree with the general principle when it applies to other things like social media, or is there a reason it doesn't?
@Michael Strorm
"You made a reply to a story about a third party being able to be held responsible for childrens' use of social media. Your negative response in that context seemed to suggest you disagreed with and opposed that, i.e. implying it should be solely the parents' responsibility."
Pretty much. The company cannot identify a 16 year old. They can try to infer based on content but I cant even think that to be very accurate so how can they. The parents however have the duty of care to their own kids.
"The point isn't that parents *can* choose to give their children alcohol. It's that people generally don't want others (e.g. shopkeepers) to be able to freely do so."
The media companies aint freely giving it to the kids. They are free online to anyone. And any one can lie about their age on them (I lie as I dont want to tell them accurate info). A child doesnt have the means to go and buy a smartphone or an internet connection nor a computer. These are provided by adults, parents and schools. Zuck doesnt stand outside the school gates giving away cheap smartphones like cigarettes or drugs.
"If you don't disagree with that in principle, do you also agree with the general principle when it applies to other things like social media, or is there a reason it doesn't?"
While media companies can try to limit it somewhat the idea they can stop kids when the parents are unable or unwilling to do so is stupid.
@Khaptain
"One also has to take into account that the Social Media companies are making huge amounts of cash from this, so of course they should also be held to account."
What account? I would agree with them not being allowed to try and advertise themselves to kids but they cannot stop the kids, thats the parents duty. Again the kids aint buying the phone, computer, data, internet connection, etc.
@Khaptain
"The Social Media companies have fine tuned their algorithms to ensure a maximum of addiction to their content. They are encouraging dependency and for this reason they should be held accountable."
Packaging for kids toys is often bright colours. Adverts for pretty much anything contain smiling actors of the selected shape to resonate with people to get them to buy buy buy. Stores optimise their layouts using algorithms to optimise for customer spending. And still that isnt a reason why parents shouldnt be parenting instead of the nanny state.
More-so as I pointed out, these kids cant access social media without the parents/schools providing the smart phone, computer, data, internet, etc. So the parents are the ones accountable to their parenting of the kids here. If the parent is providing the drug that encourages dependency it is the parents doing it.
> And any one can lie about their age
Kids buying alcohol lie about their age as well, but that doesn't get the shops selling it to them off the hook.
And even if they can't stop kids signing up initially, social media companies would soon have enough information to work out the likely age of that person in the vast majority of cases.
I've never trusted Facebook due to their obvious contempt for privacy and relentless gathering of personal data.
But that's the problem- they *already* snarf up that data regardless and use it for *their* own benefit. That dystopian panopticon already exists. So the defense that they somehow couldn't use it to spot discrepancies and make obvious inferences about age- from relationships, the type of content used and shared, etc etc- when it doesn't suit them to do so just doesn't wash.
Let's be blunt- it suits social media companies not to be able to do this. If the commercial motivation was there- e.g. their entire ability to operate in a profitable market was at risk- I'm damn sure they'd quickly figure out a way to do it.
> While media companies can try to limit it somewhat the idea they can stop kids when the parents are unable or unwilling to do so is stupid.
How does this apply to social media, but not the sale of alcohol to minors?
@Michael Strorm
"Kids buying alcohol lie about their age as well, but that doesn't get the shops selling it to them off the hook."
Instead they get asked for an ID that demonstrates they are over 18. What ID demonstrates they are over 16? Do you want to increase the accuracy of the information social media have by giving them your actual real world ID?
"And even if they can't stop kids signing up initially, social media companies would soon have enough information to work out the likely age of that person in the vast majority of cases."
How? Guessing based on inaccurate information? Do you believe these companies are psychic?
"But that's the problem- they *already* snarf up that data regardless and use it for *their* own benefit."
See the ID problem above. You dont want them having data for their benefit, but want them to accurately identify 16 year olds which would require a real world ID to verify. Without that you want companies to be psychic which is actually impossible. Regularly on here people complain how hopeless the targeted ads are, that uses the very data you think can ID age to a high degree of accuracy.
Always easy with Facebook, Instagram, X, etc as the government can fine them. So what happens with decentralised Mastodon, Friendica, Diaspora, Peertube, etc where there are hundreds of servers all over the world - the legal accountability here is being placed on the hosting party. With Peer to Peer networks it gets even more complicated as there is no central hosting service at all - think of Nostr, SSB, RetroShare, Aether, etc - your own computer or phone is the host.
The world has changed, and I'm still interested to see how brands and governments are going to catch up. Many kids today have no interest in these legacy platforms apart from maybe TikTok, but decentralised Loops has just launched as an alternative to TikTok.
If proof of age over 16 is going to mean having to produce government IDs to prove that to each and every network, I see a major privacy risk as there is no way that information can be kept safe anywhere online.
Kids will go where they can, so I really don't think parents can just sit back and abdicate their role. Of course, with Australia, they could just add a gov warning sign on every lawn outside houses where kids live. I gather the warning signs are quite a big thing.
Given the amount of data that people freely give to these platforms (and pretty much any other online site) I rather think this is meaningless.
The majority simply don't care about online privacy and what happens to their data. Being able to post on Social Media cat photos, what alcohol/drugs you consumed or who you shagged it is of greater importance.
Not to mention the plonkers who cheerfully take intimate photos then are surprised when they are shared online and all the flack starts at school or college.
A few years ago there was a TV series about student life at the University of Leicester. The set of students involved allowed all the phone/internet activity to be monitored.
I cannot find a link to it now.
"The world has changed"
No it hasn't , all that has changed is the medium. In my time kids were doing the stupid shit too, it's just that technology offers other possibilities. Before you might have stolen a porn mag from some relatives bedroom, now you log into onto a Browser...
You once had flashers in and around the schools, now you have groomers on the other side of the world behind an online app... Same perverts, different medium.
We constantly have to strive to keep up with the new methods which are being updated and employed since time and memoriam by the bad elements of society..
In your time the parent unplugged the TV and took it out the room. That was in addition to the TV channel putting on 15, 18, etc... rated series or films on later, past the usual bedtime of younger children. Now the parent may take the phone off the computer or phone off kid, but that doesn't stop the social media account itself.
There isn't a single social media network that allows parents to review/block contacts or messages or enable or disable features for their child's account. Power is taken away from the parents so social media networks can spam their kids with posts that raise engagement (anorexia, bulimia, bullying, far right, who cares, it's all good) with the sole aim of raising advertising revenue. When the bad elements of society are multi-billion dollar corporations who have lobbied for de facto immunity, parents who do take parenting seriously are screwed; they're hamstrung and all parents are forced to be on the same level as the parents who don't give a shit.
@Khaptain
Though it has changed a lot in what you can get away with.
I remember when at school, decades ago, lots of us around at a party (kids parents away), a female & I had got "intimate" in one of the "out of the way" rooms.. However, part way through one of my friends opened the door & saw us, slapped me on the arse as a laugh & to try and put me off (& called to lots of others to see too).
Although lots of people knew about what had happened, & gossip around school the next day in true wild fire style, with no mobile phones at least there was no video / photos of such an event, I would imagine kids these days have to be a lot less restrained in their partying to avoid the risk of problematic phone footage (maybe that's partially why drink & drug use is relatively low in recent generation compared to years gone by to keep self control* in such situations).
* Though given my excessive libido & hedonistic tendencies as a sixth former, doubt my party hard approach would have changed much if mobiles were around back then!
Sorry for the long-winded rant ...
I'm no fan of social media. There are good and bad aspects to each service but on balance I could do without the lot of them and I avoid them if possible. Having said that, I am a firm advocate of informed free choice. My choice is not your choice. Also, not every adolescent matures at the same rate and parental wishes should be respected, IMO.
I would much prefer a solution along the lines of provisioning each child's device in 'kid mode'. You know the drill: locked admin/owner acount, child (user) blocked from installing new apps or changing DNS settings, no VPNs permitted, mandatory content filtering and site blocking (e.g. via 'safe' DNS), safe search, etc. That could be made even better if filtering, search and site blocking were linked to the age bracket of the child (user). For shared devices (home or school computer, if anyone is still using those), the humble user account ought to be able to achieve the same (since it has for many years now). Nothing is 100% perfect, but at least that puts the power in the parents' hands, leveraging existing technology that could be made almost 'one click' simple with a few tweaks - and that's where I think Governments should really be exerting pressure - to make that 'kid mode' as simple and foolproof as possible.
But no. Government is instead mandating IDENTIFICATION AND TRACKING as they do with monotonous regularity. Why do they always choose that path? Hmmmmm.
To me it's simple. Platforms and OS makers cooperate to make 'kid mode' an almost 'one click' simple operation. PARENTS make the decision to activate the mode and select the maturity level or age bracket. PARENTS also provide the parental guidance around why (assisted by, one expects, a helpful brochure from the Government). Safe DNS/safe search should filter out adult-oriented non-platform sites. Site block lists or content filters could even be augmented or provided by Government. This approach allows the adults to be left alone to do what THEY choose free (short of actual criminal violations such as CSAM, drug trade, etc.) from privacy intrusions or, more specifically, free from the threat of being identified and tracked like animals against an ever-shifting idea of what is or isn't 'acceptable'.
As an Aussie, I've been following all this very closely for the last two or so years. Before a social media ban, the rage was against porn (not CSAM, just regular porn) using the argument that adult identification was required to stop underage access. Yes, they really were lobbying hard to IDENTIFY every adult porn watcher. Of course, they claim it would be anonymised age verification .... pull the other one! But the emphasis suddenly switched to social media.
Being the cynical old b*stard that I am - and having worked in Government for many years - my take is that this social media ban (through age verification, i.e. ID and tracking) is a dress rehearsal for a future porn ban (through age verification, i.e. ID and tracking). It started that way and I think it will finish that way. There really are people, in no small number, who believe even consensual adult porn is inherently evil and that its watchers must be identified and tracked as 'criminals in waiting'. Personally, I gave up that kind of thing years ago so it wouldn't affect me ... but ... my choice is not your choice.
I cannot agree more about being giving parents the power to manage devices and apps for their children but Google, Apple, and social media networks won't do anything they're not legally obliged to and as they're all US corporations they probably never will be legally obliged to give a shit about how they're wrecking society.
TikTok is a special case, Douyin in China is highly regulated and TikTok outside of China is not. It's almost as if it's like that for a reason...
"... but Google, Apple, and social media networks won't do anything they're not legally obliged to ...".
Precisely. Filtering/site blocking at device level (in concert with DNS) and 'safe search', which already exists (so requires no more cooperation), gets around platform or site intransigence. I don't mind legislation to put the 'one click' simplicity of choice in the parents' hands and would rather the age 'verification' be performed by the parent at the point of exercising that choice.
Regardless of what major platforms like TikTok or Facebook do (or don't do), there will be hundreds of thousands (and then some) of unsavoury sites not fit for children that no legislation centering on 'age verification' will ever address. But filtering/site blocking can and does do this and can be kept accurate up-to-the-minute. I've set up and run such systems myself. Don't expect perfection, but it's better, IMO, than relying on a handful of platforms to 'verify age' ... and thusly mandate and make commonplace the most invasive ID technology yet created ... and aimed at children, too!
You might well be on the money Nerf.
Also a propos the recent kerfuffle at Orange Hospital, where a non clinical administrator arbitrarily imposed his/her moral position in restricting certain services provided by that hospital. Prefiguring a replay of a similar disgraceful brawl from the US, I suspect.
Some flags Aussies won't salute no matter what galah runs it up the pole, fortunately.
As a child I was exposed to multiple malicious environments and dangerous situations. Even Cold War news on TV made me freak out. My parents liberally gave me freedom to explore the world around my house, and I am glad for that, as I have not grown into a "greenhouse plant" from a sterile environment. They cared about my safety, but they did not have omnipotence to protect me at every moment. So I had my share of psychological traumas. Some of the situations I never shared with them for fear of being misunderstood or punished. I was lucky not to die or be critically harmed. But I remember all too well my overwhelming stress and non-stop fears from the exposure. Also quite a few times my parents and other adults treated lightly what I considered extremely stressful - to the degree that I did not trust adults in general, so I tried to be self-reliant as much as possible.
So I wish I was never exposed to some of the dangerous environments. I would have grown healthier without being overwhelmed with stress hormones most of my childhood. Even though some might argue that humans are supposed to be exposed to train for future dangerous situations. This is a topic for psychiatrists.
Therefore removing the major gateway to dangers in the form of pseudo-social networks is right. Children should develop deep social networks in real physical environment first. Kids get enough information from the Internet to learn without being actively involved online. Governments should protect them indeed, as not every parent is powerful enough or smart enough.
Not to make light of childhood trauma but no matter what technology is adopted, and no matter what legislation is enacted, there will always be cases of abuse and harm, as regrettable as they are. I don't support widespread child access to social media. We agree on that. It's the 'how' (where the filter/block is implemented) and 'who' (the decision maker) where we disagree. I also have strong opinions on the potential for scope creep of 'age verification' (ID) technology and its ultimate application to consenting adults that I believe is inevitable if people don't push back.
No, I'm sure they are well aware that people will lie. That will eventually require them to pass another law that makes it difficult to lie, which will probably involve identity verification. I'm guessing they are doing it in two stages because they think identity verification for all users is difficult to get support for, but a measure to enforce an existing law may be easier.
Why they want it is a different issue. Maybe they only want it because they really think this is important enough and that the loss of privacy for other social media users is a cost worth paying. However, I expect that, even if this is their thought process, they will extend identity verification to many other sites. I don't use the social media sites they mention, but I oppose this because I think the effects on privacy will begin to affect myself and others on sites where there is no valid excuse for it.
Have a read here. Then ask yourself if you think Australian IT and telecom industries and their regulator are remotely capable of organising a pissup in a brewery.
In the Aus (Westminster) system of government, "National Cabinet" and "the Australian Government" are the same thing.
You can say that the legislation finally received "endorsement", but unless the Albanese government is at war with itself (which has been known to happen: ref Boris Johnson), cabinet has been backing this legislation all along.
You definotion is broken...
State representitives do not vote in the national parliament. State vote in state parlimanets, federal reps vote in fed (national) parliament.
There is no parliament composed of members for both state and federal electorates.
AU sim purchase requires Adult ID ...
buy them a "Dumb" phone, it makes calls, gets texts, that's it they've got emergency comm's to you or friends, as required. No PC/Console in their room unless they genuinely earned it, but give them a weekly book allowance on request from Dymoks or Bookworld and a free Bookshelf for their room.. tablets and consoles MAC locked from 7pm till 20 minutes after school starts. Nanna and Pop can't trump parents, 60% Solved.
The other 40% is *being* the open proactive parent (Look at their screens every other hour for 2-4 minutes and ask a pertinent question. Grow a spine and don't buy into the " ... aww but the Jone's kids got iPhone's for Christmas/Birthday" bullshit.. raising kids takes more the genetic equipment used to create them and their access to your wallet .. be prepared to actually parent.
Now I've 2 well adjusted respectful adult children, gainfully employed with their own careers not just 'jobs', and a 14 yo not far off them for attitude, and I still get presents and random hugs from all of them. The down side is they now whinge at me when their employees and colleagues and friends sit like mullets on their phones and waste time .. Acceptable trade off as far as I'm concerned, I just smile and commiserate...
which I think originally came from the same source as Cloud Cuckoo Land.
But the upside is that if the onus placed on the Social Media companies is so onerous as to be placed in the too hard basket then they may well determine that AU is too small a market to bother with and just walk away and blocking AU.
Of course the kiddywits are already aware of VPN services for other purposes and will continue accessing their social media whereas their elders and betters will have to find something more useful with which to fritter their lives away.
I assume everyone in Australia trying to sign up for social media will have to prove that they are 16 or older. Would most of them have a driver's license or some other state issued ID? If so I guess that would work, but forcing adults to hand over their real identity to social media companies seems like it might be worse overall than letting a few 13 year olds dumb enough to do Tide Pod challenge end up in the hospital.
Maybe the government will act as a third party so you authenticate yourself with them (who already knows all the information on your ID so no privacy lost) and just tells Facebook etc. "this person is old enough". If so I find it hard to believe the government would make the protocol that simple in reality. They would want Facebook to tell the government who you were signing up as, what email address you used, and so forth so they can build a database of social media users.
In return Facebook, Tik Tok etc. would probably want more than a yes/no, they would at a minimum at least want to know if the name were you signing on as was your real name and if the birthdate you provided was your real birthdate. That would help them greatly with targeted advertising as they could reliably link that real name to other activities of yours on the web, know your age/sex they know whether to send you ads for vapes or dentures (whatever happened to dentures, they used to advertise denture cream all the time when I was a kid I guess old people back then had much worse teeth)
The idea in isolation may be a good one, similar to age limits for alcohol or driving, but the side effects are going to be privacy destroying for everyone in Australia.
This post has been deleted by its author
Putting the onus on providers will leave them little option to insist on some form of ID verification to establish an account. All of a sudden the true owners of an account will be identifiable to the government by a court order. This may or may not be a good thing depending on your viewpoint - but I’m generally keen on less rather than more government oversight.
If you see the sort of social media posts that are receiving police interest these days - where posting an image of the national flag can make you ‘of interest’ - some may think this kind of thing has a much wider agenda.
Meta's response, as I'd expect, is expertly crafted to divert discussion from the real problem, the only measure that might actually have a beneficial effect on social media use...
Because as the story alludes, the problem isn't that kids are using it. Kids will do what adults do, some sooner than others. Nothing wrong with that.
No, the problem is that people - adults and kids alike - use it to excess. And the media companies' interest lies in keeping them engaged as long as possible - in soaking up as much of their attention as possible.
That's what we should be trying to change. Let's get to a world where people visit Facebook to catch up on whatever, do so, and then go elsewhere. Not spend all day following link after link.
I have two proposals to bring that about, which may be used together or separately.
One: tax providers for monopolising users' attention. Say, a charge based on what proportion of your users spend more than 1 hour per day on your service. They're tracking this data, they're using it to sell ads, so let's use it to regulate them.
Two, a flat out ban on auto recommendation of content. Ads are one thing, but the whole "you might be interested in" shit has got to go.
Maybe these ideas wouldn't be enforceable, or practicable, or helpful. I don't know, they're just my ideas. But at least they're aimed at the real problem, not this kind of peripheral distraction.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
