Australia not banning kids from YouTube – they’ll just have to use mum and dad’s logins Australia’s cyber-safety regulator eSafety has advised its government that YouTube is as dangerous as other social networks, opening the door for the video-streaming site to be included in the Land Down Under’s plan to prevent Big Tech allowing kids under 16 from signing up for accounts. Australia’s government plans to enact …
Yes.
So the lede "Australia not banning kids from YouTube – they’ll just have to use mum and dad’s logins" is ignoring the huge elephant in the room, which is that mum and dad will now have to log in to YT.
A fantastic gift from the Oz gov to a foreign surveillance company.
This post has been deleted by its author
I think it has been for a long time. Seems to think if it projects a larrikin, laidback image then the residents won't notice it embraces more of its convict officer heritage than convict.
As an Australian I think the government (of both flavours) hasn't yet meet a restriction it doesn't like.
So instead of giving the child an account marked as child so at least some basic protections can be applied we're going to give them an adult account and call it job done? This is like what happened with facebook in Europe when the EU put unworkable rules on them so facebook banned child accounts in the EU. My children don't have them but I know more than 1 child in my circle that's now on FB with an adult account so less protected than before they made the rules to "protect the children"
So the adult is now complicit in allowing the child access to adult content. That's just the same as a parent who lets their child drink from the gin bottle, or play with matches. At the moment no-one wants to take responsibility but it's going to have to be shared: ISPs and social media platforms need to provide secure mechanisms for delivery, and it should become unacceptable for parents to circumvent those mechanisms.
Andrew Tate strikes me as a singularly large ego person and if true some of his behaviour is criminal, I emphasise if true as he has been raised up as the bogeyman which always makes me question things. But he also states some truths which they don't want kids to hear such as be a man, make yourself fit and strong, take responsibility, protect your woman and don't take shit. However, you can hear the same thing from Jordan Petersen in a slightly less arrogant more acceptable way.
Since when you upload a video to Youtube you have to tick a box to say if its made for children or not, and cannot publish a video until you disclose that. I don't see why Australia can't just amend their law to say anyone with an account who is under 16 can only view the videos on Youtube made for children, rather than giving them an account set up by an adult which can access everything.
I know why this "bold regulatory action" is happening and so do you.
It starts with content "harmful" to children. And then you need an ID to prove you're an adult. Then who would argue with banning content that harrases minorities, or other (intentionally vaguely defined) classes at risk of harm by online hate. Then there's content which might be offensive to someone or other. And surely we must ban content that might foster discord and negative feelings.
And why would you allow content containing disinformation or misinformation (as of couse defined by the government) about things like vaccines? Then we must ban any content the government doesn't particularly like. And how dare you, citizen #3247, post a video which makes fun of Fuhrer Albanese. Off to the re-education camps with you!
> shortform video content may encourage excessive consumption without breaks
Hear, hear!! Those Shorts have become a total time-sink. They say there is a way to see "less" of them, I did that, it was better for a day and then worse. Also the shorts feed seems riddled with bugs and annoyances. Multiple text overlays blocking the action, and particularly when an interesting female body is in the frame. But so many of them are just stupid. And ads where you can't figure how to find the product. If they actually get a Non-Adult filter working, I am going to sign in as my dog.
There are many problems with the approach adopted by the Aus Govt. The most basic one is that the argument is very one-sided. Those who point out problems, or object wholesale, do not have the ear of Govt, which appears to listen only to one voice: the eSafety Commissioner(1). This, and the comically-deficient feasibility report released last week, contribute strongly to the argument that it's all a pre-ordained outcome. Even though the PM and Communications Minister state that 'privacy protections' will be put in place, given their disastrous track record at meeting past assurances and utter inability to protect even the paltry privacy we're supposed to have now, I can't bring myself to believe that any privacy will be preserved. Indeed, PM Albanese even stood up and said (to paraphrase, as I can't find the quote) 'crime happens in private' as if all privacy equals crime. That reveals the Govt's true thoughts.
Where is the Privacy Commissioner in all this? One would think she would be canvassing and relaying opposing views but she seems to be silent. That situation is not helped by her remit, which is to 'enforce' only Australia's extremely weak and outdated Privacy Principles ... that date from 1988 ... and she lacks regulatory 'teeth' to do much anyway. And where are the other privacy advocates? Are they afraid of taking on the 'won't someone think of the children' lobby? Cowards.
We, the sensible, law-abiding and consenting adults of Australia, suffer a relentless, daily onslaught against reasonable privacy and security both online and in the physical world. Rarely is our consent requested, or controls offered, in a form where we can reject objectionable terms. In far too many cases, the privacy implications, and even which companies receive data, aren't made clear. Even if they are, opaque and invasive-by-design mechanisms, non-compliance, uncooperative external jurisdictions and frequent data breaches make a mockery of the small protections we might believe we've gained. That's then worsened by a Govt that lacks the competence to fully grasp the risks and act in our favour.
Adding mandatory technology to 'protect' kids, where the options proposed aid individual identification and identification aids tracking, all but guarantees that every adult that uses a social media site, now including Youtube, will be tracked. It was bad enough already; this makes it worse. (Look at the methods used in e.g. banking apps and on the web to 'fingerprint' your device, OS, browser and your user behaviour down to your handedness, typing errors, swipe pressure ... heck, it's a long list. These measures differentiate a user with great precision. And to that, they want to add things like face-scans or other mechanisms implemented by the site so that it won't matter how much you tweak your OS?).
The Aus Govt will not adequately protect privacy unless forced to do so, presumably by weight of opinion(2). Commercial entities will not respect privacy unless the technology innately protects privacy and enforcement has 'teeth'.
Mandating more privacy-busting tech, regardless of whether the Govt *says* it can protect privacy(3), isn't a matter of degree or balance; it's going wholly in the wrong direction, especially since 'protecting' kids can be done without it.
I think the long-term solution starts with recognition that good privacy, like good security, must be built-in from the outset. It's a long journey to that world, but it starts with a single step *in the right direction*. We can at least start to make it better instead of worse.
And perhaps it's time for a Bill of Rights.
--------------------
(1) Plus security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Their advice will be equally anti-privacy but is never made public. Such agencies have reportedly become dependent on data harvesting by tech companies and so have a vested interest in advising Govt accordingly.
(2) But generating weight of opinion requires mass communication, which largely occurs via social media. How convenient that, imminently, social media users will be better tracked.
(3) I don't believe them anyway.
I'd like to ban my kids from a lot of stuff. But I want to make that decision not the state based on their judgements and desire to id & decide what I can read about the state. If they cared they would instead offer helpful info on securing your child's access or maybe even commission vendors to provide the software free. Perhaps create simplified standard overlays for routers and how to use static addresses.
The only reason I'm not particularly mad about this is because I suspect it isn't to do a surveillance, but to make it so tedious for parents to give Susie and Johnny a tablet they find the kids something healthier to do.
Maybe when retards can't pop out kids to be babysat by youtube while they're scrolling bumble for a new baby mama/daddy we see the bell curve of intelligence shift. Hope springs eternal.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
