this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
618 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

59689 readers
4299 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sudoer777@lemmy.ml 19 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

This is just abstinence education all over again

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 11 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (2 children)

I always wear a condom when I log into Facebook, so I should be safe

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] JoYo@lemmy.ml 82 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

Now ban parents posting pictures of their children under 16.

I DGAF about your kids.

[–] Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 9 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rcbrk@lemmy.ml 34 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 9 points 18 hours ago

It's a good thing we wiped out covid and will never need students to use Zoom again!

Oh, wait

[–] Magister@lemmy.world 134 points 1 day ago (2 children)

teen go to website

please enter your birthdate

1/1/2000

welcome!

[–] DrunkenPirate@feddit.org 39 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Lawyer sues tech company

But we asked for the birthday

Lawyer points to law text

Company fined

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 32 points 21 hours ago (10 children)

I don't see many options between asking for a birthdate and asking for ID for this problem. I don't see any way that this can be enforced that isn't problematic.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 10 points 18 hours ago (2 children)

Facebook/Meta has developed software to estimate the age from a video.

I don’t see any way that this can be enforced that isn’t problematic.

Comes with the territory. The point is to control who has access to what information so that they don't get wrong ideas.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] baggachipz@sh.itjust.works 8 points 16 hours ago (2 children)
[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

You know in the eyes of government, Lemmy is also social media.

[–] baggachipz@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 hours ago

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.

[–] Dozzi92@lemmy.world 7 points 15 hours ago

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.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 35 points 22 hours ago (4 children)

China Video Game Ban v2.0: Electric Boogaloo

Parents should be parenting, not delegate their responsibilities to a nanny state.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

This isn't even delegating. It's more of an equivalent of stuffing your fingers into your ear holes and going "nanananan CAN'T HEAR YOU"

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 25 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

That would require us paying one parent enough to cover the other parent being a child care expert. But nobody gets to profit off of that so fuck society, everybody works, and nobody gets community goods except the wealthy.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 points 21 hours ago (15 children)

Solution is to fund a social safety net, not ban social media.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

but but that requires actually effort and budget that we'd have to take away from Australian oligarchs!

load more comments (14 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 40 points 22 hours ago (8 children)

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. 

The law does not require users to upload government IDs as part of the verification process.

Sounds like a pretty weak law. It will require a birthday when creating an account and accounts under the age of 16 will be restricted/limited. As a result users (people under 16) will lie about their age.

Companies don't like this because it messes with their data collection. If they collect data that proves an account is under 16 they will be required to make them limited/restricted. However they obviously collect this data already.

I wonder if Facebook and other apps will add/push education elements in order to become exempt.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 3 points 14 hours ago

Huh, I thought all kids immediately say they were born in 1969

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Any stonger, and they wander into China "Great Firewall" territory.

Lets not make every country into an authoritarian shithole.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world 92 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Now everyone gets to hand over their ids to the tech companies.

[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 52 points 1 day ago (2 children)

We should make a bet how long it will take before the ID databases get leaked.

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 28 points 21 hours ago

Australia requires mobile phone providers to verify IDs before providing cell phone service. As a result, in September 2022, Optus leaked the records of 10 million Australians including passport and drivers license details.

So negative 2 years, 2 months.

But this is just asking for more.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 35 points 1 day ago

It would take too long.

Making the bet that is, it would be leaked before you are done setting up the betting system.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 16 points 20 hours ago

Papers, please!

[–] plactagonic@sopuli.xyz 67 points 1 day ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] gnuplusmatt@reddthat.com 18 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

I work tech in schools (in Australia) there are definitely tech savvy enough kids that will probably spool up their own fediverse instances

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

I work with tech security and once a corporate blog post I wrote got from 1,000 monthly views to 100k because kids were looking up proxy tool guides and it was for Roblox lmao

This law is incredibly illiterate

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 12 points 21 hours ago (11 children)

I know right. I used to be a kid who bypassed school firewalls and restrictions all the time. This is going to make no difference.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 12 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Obviously there are workarounds, but I suppose it provides a good justification for parents to deny their kids access to social media.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago (5 children)

why would parents need a justification to parent?

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 4 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Not a bad idea all things considered

Edit: Save for the "Showing your ID" part, anonymity is healthy for the net and far too rare these days

[–] WhatYouNeed@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

Good. Now block Shitter.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›