• LovableSidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    59 minutes ago

    On the upside, people who sometimes wonder if the person arguing with them is a high school sophomore won’t have to wonder anymore.

    • annHowe@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      42 minutes ago

      “This website is age restricted. Click ‘Ok’ to confirm your age.”

      Like that ever worked for porn.

      “Oh, no! I’m not old enough for this site. I better not proceed.”

  • Chick3nDinn3r@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 hours ago

    What the government should be doing is mandating that a social media/drugs literacy course is taught in schools. Kids should fundamentally understand that things are not black or white, good or bad; things are grey. They have upsides and downsides; risks and rewards. Kids should be taught that Social media is a great way to connect with your friends, but you are also susceptible to being influenced/manipulated/addicted in X, Y, Z ways.

    • Moghie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      100% agree. I think it’s a good space for libraries to enter too. Internet literacy, media literacy and critical thinking skills are sorely needed to be taught today.

    • s08nlql9@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      thats a lot of work for the government dude, let them take the easy path

  • Sixty@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Ah fuck. Canada is likely to copycat this, we love copying Australia’s homework. NDP and Cons BOTH already favor this idea except it’s also all 18+ websites. Gov ID to wack off. Puritans are on every wing and I wish we could shake them off.

  • ouch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    6 hours ago

    I don’t think there is a technical way to implement this without privacy issues and potential for future misuse and scope creep.

    Government doing parenting instead of the parents never works.

  • VerticaGG@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    Is anyone talking about the fact that it’s the predatory, short-term-quarterly-gains oriented behavior of the platforms themselves which is in fact rampaging though democracies, massively affecting and survielling Adult’s behaviors on a loop of ragebait-induced dopamine/seratonin manipulation?

    Because Kids are going to connect with one another, on whichever the next platform is that’s not banned. What’s more, the institutions they attend will inevitably ask them to do so as…things like Youtube arent exactly 100% avoidable.

    Pretty pathetic to clamp down on Youth Liberty in a society that has basically none, when centrally-hosted platforms owned by corporate behemoths are all-but-physically trampling the landscape like some kind of fucked up gentrification-glorifying-voiceline-repeating Megazord

    • derpgon@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      It is easier to enforce access than to enforce ethical algorithm. Sadly, it is not perfect, but it is better than allowing it.

      • VerticaGG@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Well we agree but it’s only as much better as it is effective…because when it’s not it’s giving the impression of doing something while in reality it’s legitimizing the stripping of the autonomy.

  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    14 hours ago

    I feel like every law I see coming out of Australia is just telling their citizens they’re not allowed to do something else mundane. All while the government services get worse, and the corrupt become more entrenched.

    What a shithole.

    • auzy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      Like what?

      Often the things that seem mundane actually aren’t

      Like vaping is just tobacco 2.0… and we don’t need everyone to have easy access to guns (especially not kids). Networks like Facebook are so unmoderated at the moment they should be held to account.

      Asbestos and engineered stone? Enough said

      And that’s mainly everything I can think of that’s banned that I can think of…

      • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        Like vaping is just tobacco 2.0

        What is this, govern me like a strict old nan?

        Is dancing allowed down there as well or is it a gateway to thievery or something?

        • auzy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          5 hours ago

          Vaping companies like Vape4life were writing petitions on Facebook arguing that Vaping was great to help smokers stop smoking.

          Meanwhile, the same dodgy companies were selling vapes to 10 year olds online (they had NOTHING in place to stop underage people buying them). What possible health use could underage people have for vapes?

          Meanwhile, every vaping fuckwit around was smoking vapes illegally on trains and in heavily populated public areas. And every asshole (including my ex housemate) was vaping inside (I literally told her not to. I want to do high altitude mountaineering in the future so I need my lungs. And she was getting super cheap rent). When you tell them to do it outside, they always say “vaping is just water, it’s perfectly safe”.

          If you want to “eat the rich”, you should be telling Smoking companies to fuck off. They’re lying to their userbase, whilst their exec’s become wealthy millionaires. And when their clients get cancer (or the people around them get cancer), they run down the clock on the lawsuit so they don’t lose any money.

          Fuck Tabacco and cigarette companies.

          • auzy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            Also, I had some absolute wanker the other day throw a lit cigerette on my nature strip (I was amazed, and I was sitting in the car), on a hot day. I’m lucky I saw him do it and he didn’t start a grass fire (and yet, if one was started, he’d be responsible, not the tobacco company). Everyone in cigarette companies knows this happens and could provide a way to extinguish them in the box, but instead, they know people are chucking them on the ground

            i have attached the photo of the guy (if anyone in Victoria happens to recognise him)

            And it is super common for people to throw cigarettes out of their car, leave them on the ground, or throw their vape cartridges on the ground. Smokers and Cigerette companies had EVERY opportunity to be respectful. There might be some respectful ones, but, there are plenty who aren’t

        • Todd Bonzalez@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          The vaping industry likes to argue that they are safer than other tobacco products, and don’t deserve to be regulated the same way, but the evidence suggests otherwise. It’s a fine example of why we should be happy that regulations exist at all.

          • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            9 hours ago

            No part of my argument had anything to do with safety or health.

            A person’s autonomy is their business. Leave them well alone. Their life, their path.

            Or I guess alcohol doesn’t have a purpose then, and we can get rid of it too?

            • Squizzy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              6 hours ago

              The fact is it impacts everyone else, the public services will have to deal with the fall out.

            • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Everyone is really concerned, GHiLA. We think you might have an addiction. But we’re here to help. Please remember the bans are only for under 18s. You have to remember. Look at your wife, she’s dying of… asphyxiation or something. Because you keep hotboxing the bedroom.

              • GHiLA@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 hours ago

                Oh I’ve got like three at least, that I know about.

                You guys are one of them.

                uwu

        • surph_ninja@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          10 hours ago

          For real. A whole fucking country infantilizing themselves. Pathetic to see bootlicking at this level.

          And it’s not even a good government. I guess I could empathize, if the government was not corrupt and delivering fantastic quality services. But they’re shitting on these people, and telling them to say thank you for it.

          • auzy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 hours ago

            Wow. You’re such a rebel. /s

            If you want to fight authority, start by fighting against the rich assholes causing 30% of stonemasons(and others) to get silicosis from engineered stone. The guys making the money aren’t the ones getting sick. Help them live long enough to get justice and get paid.

            Fight against the companies and rich assholes who are still giving lots of people cancer by using asbestos products to save money (and are putting asbestos in products and not declaring it). The people manufacturing this shit are getting rich, not the people installing it (or who have it installed)

            And fight back by helping people live longer, so they can get justice against tabacco companies for lying to them and making shitty claims like claiming menthol cigarettes are medicinal. Companies like Vape4lyf had nothing in place to prevent sales of vapes to kids whilst starting petitions claiming they were needed for quitting smoking (what possible use could kids have for vapes other than to START vaping). Every shitty vape company out there is basically advertising their products as safe

            Do you think the execs give a shit if your kid dies? Nope, they have lawyers on retainer, and they’ve become increasingly good at fighting any lawsuits and running down the clock. Do you think they give a shit if the people around other smokers die from second hand smoke? Nope, because you can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt a specific company caused an issue. People are suffering.

            Nothing says “badass” like a guy who is willing to fondle the balls of the marlboro man whilst he lies to you and dodges responsibility. Vaping is Tabacco 2.0. They’re making the exact same claims they did in the past for other products.

            I’d suggest you grow a pair and stand up for people. That takes courage. It’s not bootlicking. What you’re doing is bending over for millionaires who give no fucks about you, and defending them

              • auzy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                How do you figure?

                Seems to be working against Asbestos companies.

                And if anyone tries to cut up engineered stone onsite, it will be obvious. In fact, companies are getting actively fined. And my mate who got silicosis I’m fairly sure got a payout.

                Seems to be working fine with our Gun control.

                Seems to be working for lots of food items

                Seems to be working for lots of things. You simply don’t realise it works, because you’re not aware of them.

                If Vaping is banned, shitheads aren’t going to be vaping in public blowing smoke in our faces. And, if they’re smoking at home, people like myself can kick them out. I’m not too fussed about the ones who are respectable (I had a housemate who smoked weed, but they did it outside).

                Do you really think allow free sale of highly addictive drugs like meth is a good idea? Fuck No.

                You keep telling yourself you’re a badass freedom fighter, fighting for the people. But you’re the sucker asskissing the tobacco lobby and who clearly fell for peer pressure from your mates.

  • Juigi@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 hours ago

    What they consider as “social media”? Is it every site where you can communicate with others?

    This seems fucked if its so.

    • Ihnivid@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      15 hours ago

      While specific platforms haven’t been named in the law, the rules are expected to apply to the likes of Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok, per the Prime Minister. Sites used for education, including YouTube, would be exempt, as are messaging apps like WhatsApp.

      • VerticaGG@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Youtube: offers Shorts and aggressively markets them at any demo that responds well to Tik Tok, competing for a more toxic comments section with years of experience.

        WhatsApp: all the group chats and online bullying that you banned facebook to get away from, 1:1, day of the ban.

        Should we identify society root causes and address those? 🤔No. No, it’s the kids who are wrong /s

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          9 hours ago

          It’s the parents who are wrong.

          Parents shouldn’t allow their kids to use social media until they can handle it. Some kids don’t have issues, whereas others end up experiencing severe depression largely as a result of too much or too little social media exposure. Parents should be the ones responsible here, both for deciding the age and for culpability if they knowingly contribute to problems by either intentionally over or under exposing their children to social media.

          But at no point should the government be deciding things like ages, because enforcement would necessitate privacy violations of either the parents (if they need to allow an underage account) of the children. Screw that, let the parents decide and hold them accountable for any abuse.

          • VerticaGG@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            I basically agree, with the caveat that Youth Liberation requires buy in from all the adult influences in the Youth’s life and all that follows…yeah otherwise no notes

  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    19 hours ago

    This is technically feasible, and bussiness don’t need to know your id. If anonymous government certificates are issued.

    But I’m morally against it. We need to both educate on the dangers of internet and truly control harmful platforms.

    But just locking it is bad for ociety. What happens with kids in shitty families that find in social media (not Facebook, think prime time Tumblr) a way to scape and find that there are people out there not as shitty as their family. Now they are just completely locked to their shitty family until it’s too late.

    • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      16 hours ago

      I think that the chances of a kid from a broken home finding an exploiter online is much more likely than that kid finding a helpful, supportive community.

      • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Those kids already have exploiters; their parents. The right to communication should be granted to all, and especially the most vulnerable.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      I’ve said this before, and I’ll keep saying it, we need better terms than “social media.” Tumblr, Reddit, and Lemmy I don’t think should be in the same group as Facebook, Twitter, etc. Social media that uses your real life information should be separate from basically forums that use an online persona.

      I don’t know what this legislation says, but I agree with you. It should be limited to restricting the “personal social media,” not glorified internet forums.

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    22 hours ago

    The fact that people even considered this with a straight face, discussed it and passed it is just indicative how tech illiterate we’ve become.

    • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I don’t know how they are going to do over there.

      Here the plan for the same goal is force any social media company to request a digital certificate when entering, or directly overtaking the ip of the social media and force a certificate check to let the user through. This certificates would be expedited by the government to people over certain age.

      The haven’t implemented yet, as they were going to start using the system to ban porn for minors and got a lot of backslash.

      It’s technologically doable, some kid will always find a way to enter but vast majority will not (next to a bunch of adults that will stop using them because they cannot be bothered with the same system). Moral considerations aside.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        19 hours ago

        It’s technologically doable

        I’d disagree here. Sure in theory you could design some system that authenticates every user on every connection but in practice it would be impossible to maintain without complete authoritarian oversight like North Korea. Even closed authoritarian countries fail to achieve this (like Iran or China).

        This would cost billions of not trillions in implementation, oversight overhead and economic product loss. That money would be much more effective in carrot approach of supporting mental health institutions and promoting wholesome shared culture, anti bullying campaigns etc.

        It’s not a new problem either. We know for a fact that the latter is the better solution and yet here we are…

        • glassware@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Come on, this is silly. You can disagree with it politically but technically it would work fine. I already have a digital ID issued by the government for doing online tax returns. Validating a social media account against that ID would be no more difficult than letting people sign in with Google or whatever. There will always technically be a way to get around it but 99% of people won’t bother.

          • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            16 hours ago

            Nah not a good comparison. Once there’s market people will find a way to easily corrupt this. Remember that this is a 3 way interaction: government, private company and private citizen - the opportunities for bypass are basically endless here. You are comparing it with a 2 way market between government and private citizen which has no incentive to break the system.

    • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      In my country they talked about this. And they thought of a different approach.

      The government were to emit anonymous digital certificates after validate your identity. And then the websites were only required to validate these anonymous digital certificates.

      Or even it was talk that the government could put a certificate validation in front of the affected ip.

      So the bussiness won’t have your ip. Only a verification by the government that you are indeed over certain age.

            • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              This kind of control tend to be ip based, like cookies in the eu. So if they don’t know they won’t know. And if they know means that they knew. Nothing changes on that regard.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                That depends on the law. For example, it’s possible that the US could require Meta to verify ages regardless of nationality, so you the EU (for example) would be subject to it.

                I’m not saying that’s how any of these laws work, I’m merely saying that it’s possible. If enough people sidestep the law by using a VPN, I could countries use a heavier hand (e.g. verify everyone or don’t do business here).

                I will always oppose these types of laws. I set up my WiFi to connect over a VPN to the next state over because my state has ID laws for porn and social media. It’s annoying and increases latency a bit (only like 10ms), so I’ll oppose them even if I can sidestep them.

  • BMTea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    19
    ·
    1 day ago

    I support this move. Some here are delusionally arguing that this impacts privacy - the sort of data social media firms collect on teenagers is egregiously extensive regardless. This is good support for their mental health and development.

      • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        How can you look at the state of things pretty much everywhere since social media has become so ubiquitous and think that it has no effect on people, young people especially? It’s full of hate, envy, propaganda, and brainwashing

      • BMTea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        There is no published science definitively proving that it is harmful or helpful. The effects of this particular legislation, if it is impactful at all, remains to be seen. I’m just offering my opinion based on my personal experiences. I expect it to have some success in reducing acute adolescent mental health issues. If the matter is ever settled through consensus, I’ll defer to that.

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      24 hours ago

      This ban does nothing.

      Anything that does not force ID verification is useless.

      Anything that does verify ID would mean that adults also have to upload their IDs to the website.

      What will happen is either this becomes another toothless joke. Or the government say “okay this isn’t working, lets implement ID checks”, and when that law passes Lemmy Instance Admins would be required to verify ID of any user from an Australia IP.

      Y’all want that to happen?

      So what hapoens if other countries start catching on and also pass such law?

      Eventually the all internet accounts would be tied to IDs. Anonymity is dead.

      • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Government provided open id service which guarantees age. Website gets trusted authority signed token witch contains just the age. We can do this safely. We have the technology. They could even do it only once on registration.

        Digital id’s exist already in the EU, and many countries run a sign on service already. We aren’t far from this.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          No. I don’t want governments to know what social media I use, nor do I want social media to know what country I’m a citizen of. I don’t want any connection between the two.

        • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          21 hours ago

          Depending on what the token contains.

          There are two implementations I could think of:

          “This user has been verified to be at least [Age]. Sincerely, [Government Authority]” Assuming this is an identical token thats the same for everyone? Sure. I’m not opposed to this.

          “This user has been verified to be at least [Age]. Unique Token ID: 23456” Hell No. When the government eventually wants to deanonymize someone, they could ask the website: “What was the token ID that was used to verify the user?” then if the website provides it, now the government can just check the database to see who the token belongs to. And this could also lead to the government mandating the unique token id to be stored.

          • BMTea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            17 hours ago

            Why not just look up how it actually works in the real world instead of hypotheticals

      • lemba@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        This ban is a wake up call to Tech Industry to implement and enforce rules against hate speech, grooming, fake news, etc. They surely cannot verify the age of a human without any official ID made in the real world. This leads to other problems but that’s not the concern of the government! Social Media wants it’s users, not the government.

        • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          22 hours ago

          This ban is a wake up call to Tech Industry

          what? Why would tech industry care? If anything it’ll have the reverse effect and dimiss tech role in brain rott because “see, kids are not on it! It’s all good here”

  • JoYo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    87
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Now ban parents posting pictures of their children under 16.

    I DGAF about your kids.

    • remon@ani.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      14 hours ago

      I DGAF about your kids.

      Preach!

      One of the craziest wtf moment of my life resulted from an oversharing parent.

      At a hot summer day a few years back someone posted a picture of them barbequing in their backyard to our company’s “off topic” teams chat. Nothing unusual. I was over at a friends place so I send back a picture of us sitting in lawnchairs having a beer. In comes the third colleague, first time father with a roughly 1.5 year old at the time. So he posts a picture of his kid running around in his backyard. Completly naked, full frontanl nudity.

      It took me a minute to recollect and I messaged him to please take down the picture. I know he didn’t mean any harm and was just sharing his hot-summer-weekend expirence … and he did realise his blunder and took it down. But wtf mate?

      After that I immediately googled how to clear my teams’ app image cache …

    • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Yeah I agree with you on this. It’ll protect them from the being de-clothed using AI as well. I understand wanting to share moments with your family because kids grow up fast but sharing it with these companies as an intermediary is not a good idea. Sadly I don’t have a solution for them aside from setting up a decentralized social network like Pixelfed or Frendica but that requires skill and patience.

      • Madis@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        22 hours ago

        Frankly, decentralized networks make it even harder to take content down.

        • Eezyville@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          Wouldn’t it be easier to take content down if the app was not federated? I don’t know for sure but couldn’t you have a completely private instance only for the people you know?

          • Madis@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            14 hours ago

            Sure, if it is already private. But if it is not, then it gets copied to different instances and so if the original post gets removed, it is up to each instance to follow and when.