787
Australia bans social media for under 16s (www.theverge.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
224 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 43 points 2 years ago (5 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [+] 16 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    Oh I agree. I wouldn't want a stronger law. I'm just not too concerned with this one. I think if there are concerns with social media we should discuss how to solve them for everyone.

    We generally say 16-21 you are an adult so fuck it, whatever happens to you is your fault and ignore the predatory nature of organizations.

    We should outline the specific concerns and determine what, if any, steps we can take.

    As an example, gambling. I think it's fair and reasonable to allow gambling. I think ensuring gambling isn't predatory is a reasonable limitation. I expect for most people it isn't a problem but I think providing help to gambling addicts is also reasonable. Social media should be viewed through a similar lens.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

    I doubt it, and if they do, they'll classify a whole bunch of nonsense as educational content in order to do so, e.g. religious content as science.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I mean YouTube has educational content, but that is far from its primary purpose. Assuming YouTube is completely unrestricted it wouldn't be hard for Facebook to add enough content to be arguably educational.

    Hell plenty of people use TikTok for educational reasons. I'm not saying it's right, but you could argue TikTok is educational in the same way you can argue YouTube is educational.

    Now if YouTube is forced to classify it's educational content the same way they classify children's content (aka poorly), maybe that'll work.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

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

    No, it merely requires the sites to provide an alternative, such as face scanning using a mobile phone unlock. Using a computer ? Then you'll have hand over your ID.

    The law also explicitly gives sites the right to onsell private information if its outlined in the terms of agrrement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Re verification per AP,

    The amendments passed on Friday bolster privacy protections. Platforms would not be allowed to compel users to provide government-issued identity documents including passports or driver’s licenses, nor could they demand digital identification through a government system.

    So it sounds like an ID will not be a requirement.

    I suppose a face scan is possible, but I find it unlikely. Obviously if it heads in that direction then the law should be amended to clarify that is also not acceptable.

    In terms of selling information I assume that just clarifies the status quo and isn't new. Not that that makes it acceptable, it just means that's something to tackle.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    So it sounds like an ID will not be a requirement.

    Sure, but gov ID is permitted as an option if another non-ID option is also available.

    Simply choose between submitting your government ID or, say, switch on your front facing camera so we can perform some digital phrenology to determine your eligibility.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    People should lie about as much as possible to most companies they interact with online anyway (obviously don't lie to your bank, or doctor, or whatever). Do always, without fail, lie randomly about your age, gender, address (if it's not relevant) or anything else that's not actually needed to provide the service.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent