Privacy News Australia to Ban Social Media for Children Under Age 16

[enaph]

Content source

https://archive.is/WXXmj#selection-1637.0-1681.331

Children in Australia under the age of 16 will be banned from social media as part of a push to protect young people’s mental health, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said, with firms involved required to enforce the new regulations or face potential fines.
“Social media is doing harm to our kids and I’m calling time on it,” Albanese told reporters in Canberra on Thursday, pledging to introduce legislation later this month. “The onus will be on social media platforms to demonstrate they are taking reasonable steps to prevent access. The onus won’t be on parents or young people. There’ll be no penalties for users.”

The long-anticipated age limits for social media are part of a suite of measures from Albanese’s center-left Labor government to crack down on technology giants, which the prime minister blames for a surge in misinformation and mental health problems.
Australia has a history of taking on large technology companies that run social media sites, including a push in 2021 to make Facebookand Google pay for news content. More recently, the government took Elon Musk’s X Corp. to court over a failure to remove a video of a terrorist attack in Sydney.
Labor is also weighing new legislation to force social media sites to crack down on misinformation and disinformation on their platforms.
The government said it had consulted with social media companies on the age limits “through a variety of means.” However, officials did not specify which services the changes would apply to, whether they had received assurances that a ban could be put into effect or what the potential size of the penalties for companies could be.

 

[marg]

When the Government fears the people... Look Out.

 

[Digmor Crusher]

Good. Social media probably causes more harm then good and younger minds get influenced way too easily.

 

[Cleo]

This will be ineffective at protecting younger people as that is not its purpose. It is purely to smuggle significant government powers into operation. To quote a Grok prompt and answer:

What are the concerns about Australia's new proposed internet laws?
Answer
The concerns about Australia's new proposed internet laws, particularly those related to internet regulation and online content, include:

1. Freedom of Speech:
   • There's significant worry that these laws could infringe upon freedom of speech. Critics argue that the broad definitions of "misinformation" or "harmful content" might lead to censorship of legitimate debate, scientific dissent, or critical journalism. This could mean that any content authorities deem as misinformation could be censored, potentially stifling diverse opinions and free expression.
2. Overreach of Government Powers:
   • The legislation grants expansive powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), allowing them to demand content removal or even impose blocks on social media platforms. This has raised alarms about government overreach, with critics pointing out that these powers could be used to control public discourse or suppress dissenting voices under the guise of combating misinformation or harmful content.
3. Impact on Journalism and Content Creators:
   • There's concern over how these laws might affect journalists and content creators. For instance, the differentiation between "professional news content" (which is exempt) and other forms of content might lead to a chilling effect on independent journalism or content that challenges official narratives. This has been highlighted as potentially creating an uneven playing field.
4. Privacy Concerns:
   • The introduction of proactive content monitoring, especially in private communications, is viewed as a significant privacy violation. Technologies like digital "fingerprinting" for content detection could be misused or overly broad, capturing content that isn't harmful but is misinterpreted by automated systems.
5. Technological and Economic Impacts:
   • Critics argue that mandatory filtering or content removal could degrade internet performance, affect the quality of service for users, and place undue financial and operational burdens on smaller tech companies or ISPs. This might lead to a tech environment where only large entities with resources to comply with such regulations can thrive.
6. Digital ID and Surveillance:
   • There are discussions around implementing a Digital ID system, which some see as a step towards increased surveillance. This could potentially be linked with content regulation, where access to certain platforms or the internet itself might be tied to identity verification, raising significant privacy and freedom concerns.
7. International Precedent:
   • The global tech community has expressed worry that laws like these set a precedent that could influence internet governance worldwide, potentially encouraging other countries to adopt similar restrictive policies, which might not respect the internet's open and global nature.
8. Lack of Public Consultation:
   • The speed at which some of these laws have been pushed through with minimal public or expert consultation has been criticized, leaving stakeholders feeling that their voices are not adequately considered in the legislative process.

 

[jackuars]

I wish our government would intervene and ban social-media for all ages, just so I can break free from the mindless scrolling cycle and avoid the constant temptation to mindlessly scroll through my feeds 'just in case' I miss something earth-shattering...

.....like my aunt's dog's birthday.

 

[Sorrento]

The parents are usually the enablers for young people using Social Media by giving them a phone/tablet in the first place often to keep their children quiet while they watch TV or scroll though Social Media themselves?

 

[Victor M]

1. Freedom of Speech:
   • There's significant worry that these laws could infringe upon freedom of speech. Critics argue that the broad definitions of "misinformation" or "harmful content" might lead to censorship of legitimate debate, scientific dissent, or critical journalism. This could mean that any content authorities deem as misinformation could be censored, potentially stifling diverse opinions and free expression.
2. Overreach of Government Powers:
   • The legislation grants expansive powers to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), allowing them to demand content removal or even impose blocks on social media platforms. This has raised alarms about government overreach, with critics pointing out that these powers could be used to control public discourse or suppress dissenting voices under the guise of combating misinformation or harmful content.
3. Impact on Journalism and Content Creators:
   • There's concern over how these laws might affect journalists and content creators. For instance, the differentiation between "professional news content" (which is exempt) and other forms of content might lead to a chilling effect on independent journalism or content that challenges official narratives. This has been highlighted as potentially creating an uneven playing field.
4. Privacy Concerns:
   • The introduction of proactive content monitoring, especially in private communications, is viewed as a significant privacy violation. Technologies like digital "fingerprinting" for content detection could be misused or overly broad, capturing content that isn't harmful but is misinterpreted by automated systems.
5. Technological and Economic Impacts:
   • Critics argue that mandatory filtering or content removal could degrade internet performance, affect the quality of service for users, and place undue financial and operational burdens on smaller tech companies or ISPs. This might lead to a tech environment where only large entities with resources to comply with such regulations can thrive.
6. Digital ID and Surveillance:
   • There are discussions around implementing a Digital ID system, which some see as a step towards increased surveillance. This could potentially be linked with content regulation, where access to certain platforms or the internet itself might be tied to identity verification, raising significant privacy and freedom concerns.
7. International Precedent:
   • The global tech community has expressed worry that laws like these set a precedent that could influence internet governance worldwide, potentially encouraging other countries to adopt similar restrictive policies, which might not respect the internet's open and global nature.
8. Lack of Public Consultation:
   • The speed at which some of these laws have been pushed through with minimal public or expert consultation has been criticized, leaving stakeholders feeling that their voices are not adequately considered in the legislative process.

Your points may be relevant to adults. But we are talking about under 16 yr old kids. Kids this young will swallow anything and perhaps be swayed to join pro Nazi groups. The Australian gov is doing the right thing. Parents cannot supervise their kids 24x7. The government is trying to help.

 

[Cleo]

Your points may be relevant to adults. But we are talking about under 16 yr old kids. Kids this young will swallow anything and perhaps be swayed to join pro Nazi groups. The Australian gov is doing the right thing. Parents cannot supervise their kids 24x7. The government is trying to help.

The government are the last people I want to have such a job. The way they have set this up will mean banning VPN usage and requiring a digital ID for all online activity. More government power and interference is never the answer.

 

[marg]

The government are the last people I want to have such a job. The way they have set this up will mean banning VPN usage and requiring a digital ID for all online activity. More government power and interference is never the answer.

When the Government says I'm here to help... Watch out.

 

[Victor M]

this up will mean banning VPN usage and requiring a digital ID for all online activity

When my government comes to that I will be out on the streets waving a banner and attending marches. But one issue at a time. This particular legislation targeting under 16 yr olds is actually good and makes sense. And they are just making the social media corps enforce this, and not using methods like banning VPN or issuing digital ID's.

 

[trott3r]

When the Government says I'm here to help... Watch out.

or to put it another way:
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)

 

[bazang]

Good. Social media probably causes more harm then good and younger minds get influenced way too easily.

The problem is that people cannot cope with social media. They take it as the same as face-to-face human communications and interactions.

The Golden Rules of Human Psychology:

1. If you permit anything to get to you (upset you, make you angry, outraged, etc), then you are the problem and not what triggered you.
2. If you want to blame anything outside of yourself for 1 above, then again, you are the problem.

So many people in this world give others the power to upset them through words and pictures, and then blame those triggering sources instead of themselves.

Nothing has, and shall continue, to insidiously and deeply divide people. Social Media is a nation and world killer because it preys upon the weak, easily enraged human. And humans just love to lash-out when they are emotionally and mentally hurt.

The series of world wars to come will be instigated on social media.

Just watch how butthurt people become over Trump's daily stream of tweets. Those butthurt people don't realize he is trolling them.

 

[Marko :)]

I love how some of you claim this is against freedom of speech. What does freedom of speech mean to you? If someone comes to you and says he/she "will kill you, slit your throat"; is that a threat or just casual freedom of speech? If you count it as a freedom of speech, why are you immediately reporting the person to police? No need to report it; the person just exercises its rights, after all...

Let me tell you how freedom of speech works. It isn't here to and doesn't let you bobble about everything and say whatever is on your mind, no. It's here to give you ability to express your opinion on a topic freely, without being prosecuted for it. It allows you to go straight in front of the White House and yell "Donald Trump is a criminal!" without being arrested. If it was banned, you'd be immediately handcuffed and thrown into jail (like in Russia). This is what free speech is.

I'm all for banning social networks for younger than 16 year old. Heck, I'd raise the bar to 18 years. Back when social networks were becoming a thing, they were used for socializing with others and making your friend circle bigger. Today, they are used to build complexes to other people, and for pretending of living perfect lives. Because of this, a lot of people are becoming depressed, some even commit suicide. We have no idea how many young lives were turned off because of social media platforms. It's a huge problem that should have been solved long time ago. And it's becoming worse and worse because the main source of news for enormous amount of people... is social media. That's bad, REALLY BAD.

I'm looking at colleagues at work and my friends, they are obsessed with Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok. Sure, they are all adults, but they literally can't live without social media. It's like... phones are glued to their hands.

For all of you social media lovers, an appropriate song. The music video tells it all.

 

[Sorrento]

I've banned myself from so called 'Social Media' & still I survive

 

[TairikuOkami]

When the Government says I'm here to help... Watch out.

Exactly, considering that schools literally require kids and parents to have an online account. 16 years old is too much of a gap, 6 years maybe, but 16, that is a crazy talk.

Telegram is "dead" after recent events and VK is so-so, so people will move to SimpleX or something else. Banning social accounts will simply force people to move elsewhere.

 

[Digmor Crusher]

I love how some of you claim this is against freedom of speech. What does freedom of speech mean to you? If someone comes to you and says he/she "will kill you, slit your throat"; is that a threat or just casual freedom of speech? If you count it as a freedom of speech, why are you immediately reporting the person to police? No need to report it; the person just exercises its rights, after all...

Let me tell you how freedom of speech works. It isn't here to and doesn't let you bobble about everything and say whatever is on your mind, no. It's here to give you ability to express your opinion on a topic freely, without being prosecuted for it. It allows you to go straight in front of the White House and yell "Donald Trump is a criminal!" without being arrested. If it was banned, you'd be immediately handcuffed and thrown into jail (like in Russia). This is what free speech is.

I'm all for banning social networks for younger than 16 year old. Heck, I'd raise the bar to 18 years. Back when social networks were becoming a thing, they were used for socializing with others and making your friend circle bigger. Today, they are used to build complexes to other people, and for pretending of living perfect lives. Because of this, a lot of people are becoming depressed, some even commit suicide. We have no idea how many young lives were turned off because of social media platforms. It's a huge problem that should have been solved long time ago. And it's becoming worse and worse because the main source of news for enormous amount of people... is social media. That's bad, REALLY BAD.

I'm looking at colleagues at work and my friends, they are obsessed with Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok. Sure, they are all adults, but they literally can't live without social media. It's like... phones are glued to their hands.

For all of you social media lovers, an appropriate song. The music video tells it all.

100% my friend.

 

[Cleo]

When my government comes to that I will be out on the streets waving a banner and attending marches. But one issue at a time. This particular legislation targeting under 16 yr olds is actually good and makes sense. And they are just making the social media corps enforce this, and not using methods like banning VPN or issuing digital ID'

I love how some of you claim this is against freedom of speech. What does freedom of speech mean to you? If someone comes to you and says he/she "will kill you, slit your throat"; is that a threat or just casual freedom of speech? If you count it as a freedom of speech, why are you immediately reporting the person to police? No need to report it; the person just exercises its rights, after all...

Let me tell you how freedom of speech works. It isn't here to and doesn't let you bobble about everything and say whatever is on your mind, no. It's here to give you ability to express your opinion on a topic freely, without being prosecuted for it. It allows you to go straight in front of the White House and yell "Donald Trump is a criminal!" without being arrested. If it was banned, you'd be immediately handcuffed and thrown into jail (like in Russia). This is what free speech is.

I'm all for banning social networks for younger than 16 year old. Heck, I'd raise the bar to 18 years. Back when social networks were becoming a thing, they were used for socializing with others and making your friend circle bigger. Today, they are used to build complexes to other people, and for pretending of living perfect lives. Because of this, a lot of people are becoming depressed, some even commit suicide. We have no idea how many young lives were turned off because of social media platforms. It's a huge problem that should have been solved long time ago. And it's becoming worse and worse because the main source of news for enormous amount of people... is social media. That's bad, REALLY BAD.

I'm looking at colleagues at work and my friends, they are obsessed with Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok. Sure, they are all adults, but they literally can't live without social media. It's like... phones are glued to their hands.

For all of you social media lovers, an appropriate song. The music video tells it all.

This is all correct. Now, why can't the government make such a law restricting children's use of social media without #####ing it up for everyone else with their power grab and misinformation omnibus provisions in the same Bill?

 

[Marko :)]

Exactly, considering that schools literally require kids and parents to have an online account. 16 years old is too much of a gap, 6 years maybe, but 16, that is a crazy talk.

Telegram is "dead" after recent events and VK is so-so, so people will move to SimpleX or something else. Banning social accounts will simply force people to move elsewhere.

The only online account you need to have for school here is CARNET account, and the school administrator creates it for you. You get your e-mail address, Microsoft Office package, e-Journal (so you and your parents can see your grades), access to online library with all books you need for reading and more. No Facebook or any social networks here required for school.

And Australia isn't banning the account on social media. They are banning the use; meaning if you're under 16 years old, you won't be able to use any of them because all will have to implement measures to prevent children from creating accounts. 16 years is alright because teenagers are most affected in this area and are most vulnerable. 6 year old kids start the first grade elementary school here. They don't know what social networks are, all they care are games on PC or phones.

This is all correct. Now, why can't the government make such a law restricting children's use of social media without #####ing it up for everyone else with their power grab and misinformation omnibus provisions in the same Bill?

There are ways to make that private and secure, but all depends on what kind of government the country has.

 

[bazang]

It is too little, too late. The parents raising children today were damaged, influenced, and radicalized by social media decades ago. So they are just going to pass-down their messed-up perspectives, attitudes, and beliefs while raising their children. No social media needed.

Social media is a global cancer and should be abolished. It has done more harm than good. The world got along without social media.

 

[Marko :)]

It is too little, too late. The parents raising children today were damaged, influenced, and radicalized by social media decades ago. So they are just going to pass-down their messed-up perspectives, attitudes, and beliefs while raising their children. No social media needed.

Social media is a global cancer and should be abolished. It has done more harm than good. The world got along without social media.

Social networks shouldn't be abolished. I'm more for heavy regulation. I think no one would have anything against social networks from the past. It's in human nature to socialize, both, physically and online.

What it needs to be done is force social networks to disclose how their algorithms work and make them more private by forbidding them to learn from you. Currently, the algorithms are company secrets, they are easily manipulated to push fake news, propaganda, and made to target you only with the content you like. This is dangerous because it divides us as people (we vs them).
And don't be fooled; companies love this because it benefits them, helps social network being active and rises the engagement; which makes you addicted and makes platform stay relevant.

I'd gladly use Facebook if it was like from early 2010s. In fact, I really miss this era. No bullshit, just you, your friends, bunch of games which you played together and chat. All you really need. And all of that without shady algorithm. This is also why Facebook became popular in the first place, but then... enshittification began.