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.
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
593 points (98.8% liked)
Technology
59689 readers
3586 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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...
What they consider as "social media"? Is it every site where you can communicate with others?
This seems fucked if its so.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Pssst! Hey kid, wanna buy some memes?
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.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Well that's not going to work out.
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.
This is good support for their mental health and development.
This is good pseudo-science.
Strange that the adults don't want those benefits for themselves also.
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.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
The second i have to hand over my id to a tech company is the second i leave and never come back.
Also how they gonna manage the fediverse? Can someone get fined for providing social media to themselves if an under 16 sets up their own federated instance?
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.
performative nonsense which does nothing for kids or their mental health and harms queer kids who lose one of the first places they can find community.
Then it seems there is something other to fix in society than making sure facebook knows anything about that kid.
The Zuckerbergers of the world aren't the ones to trust with that.
Then it seems there is something other to fix in society
Yeah that's why we're on Lemmy. It's not perfect but it's better than zuck, elmo, spez, and pals.
No need for the state to attack kids.
This is just abstinence education all over again
Now ban parents posting pictures of their children under 16.
I DGAF about your kids.
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 ...
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.
Frankly, decentralized networks make it even harder to take content down.
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?
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.
The ban and age verification requirements apply to pretty much all services which allow communication of information between people, unless an exemption is granted by the minister.
There is no legislated exemption for instant messaging, SMS, email, email lists, chat rooms, forums, blogs, voice calls, etc.
It's a wildly broadly applicable piece of legislation that seems ripe to be abused in the future, just like we've seen with anti-terror and anti-hate-symbol legislation.
From 63C (1) of the legislation:
For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted social media platform means:
- a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:
- i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users;
- ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users;
- iii) the service allows end-users to post material on the service;
- iv) such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules; or
- b) an electronic service specified in the legislative rules; but does not include a service mentioned in subsection (6).
Here's all the detail of what the bill is and the concerns raised in parliament.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Now ban it for over 16s
You know in the eyes of government, Lemmy is also social media.
The difference being you can’t stop a federated protocol. I was being cheeky, but banning or at least regulating algorithm-based social media would do nothing but good for society. User engagement and user safety are directly at odds in a for-profit model.
People should be allowed to do as they please. I think, however, people should be presented with all the potential risks in very clear language if they're going to, in the same way a pack of cigarettes has a warning, access to social media should present similar disclaimers.
view more: next ›