Social media to be banned for under 16s

[Frank Bunn]

The Albanese government, with the support of the Coalition, is proposing legislation that would prohibit anyone under 16 from accessing social media. Meta, the company behind Facebook and Instagram, has pushed back on this, arguing for parents to have control rather than have an outright ban.

The other aspect to it is that it would force every social media platform to collect data from users that would personally identify themselves in order to prove their age.

Is BigFooty a social media platform that would require all users to prove their identity?

Children under 16 to be banned from social media under government's proposed changes

Labor has backed setting the social media minimum age cut-off at 16 years old, with legislation set to be introduced this month.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Sqotty from office works]

Ahahahah
Good luck policing that.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

What a massive waste of time this legislation is.

 

[Gough]

Good thing that they're considered old enough to go to jail at ten then, that should sort them out.

 

[Catfish Alley]

Phones, tablets, earbuds and smartwatches have been banned in schools over here which I think makes sense. Total ban on social media though? Don't see how that could be done.

 

[Frank Bunn]

I asked Chat:GPT - What is a social media platform?

A social media platform is an online service or website that enables users to create, share, and interact with content, as well as connect with others. These platforms facilitate communication, social interaction, and content sharing among individuals, groups, or communities. Users can post text, images, videos, or other media and engage with other users through likes, comments, shares, and direct messaging.​

From this definition it would seem BigFooty a social media platform, so would need all users to prove their identity.

 

[burge13]

I don't see how it could be done without some kind of government issued digital ID?

I like the idea of banning FB/IG/TikTok etc from kids tbh, just don't see how it can practically be done

 

[Scotland]

Won't work. The internet is smarter than the govt and kids are smarter than adults with this stuff.

As a bridge millennial I am lucky enough to have been a kid without smartphones, social media etc. but also young enough to be across it. I had ICQ and MSN in the late 90s. Hell, people have been posting on BigFooty since 1999 or 2000 I think. I don't know when laptops, tablets etc. became the norm in schools but it was still pen and paper in the early 2000s and if you were lucky enough to have a mobile ($10 a month credit, 25c to send a text) all you could do was play snake.

I' was talking to a high school deputy the other day who was telling me me that social media is their number 1 problem now with kid behaviour and I would believe it. Used to be there was a fight behind the sheds at lunch or some kid got dacked in front of the girls and it was funny or whatever. Now things are filmed and shared etc. and kids go home and there's no disconnect which can't be healthy. I know phones at least are banned during school hours but so were cigarettes and Discmans and plenty of other things. I also have a lot of friends with kids primary school age and younger and there's a huge differential between what some parents allow vs others in terms of screen time etc.

I don't know what the solution is other than trying to limit connectivity. If you give kids phones and tablets with 4G/5G you can pretty much give up controlling what they can and can't access. With WiFi you can at least try to control the source.

 

[MrsEddieBetts]

man I catfished so many people on mIRC and ICQ back in the day

 

[Mofra]

I don't see how it could be done without some kind of government issued digital ID?

I like the idea of banning FB/IG/TikTok etc from kids tbh, just don't see how it can practically be done

Technology is always ahead of legislation. Even if there was a workable solution today (there isn't), a solution would pop up far quicker than any amendment bill could be drafted.

 

[Xtreme]

Albo trying to be seen doing something, but in effect achieving nothing. Good stuff Albo!

Waste of time legislation, good luck policing it.

 

[The Dice Man]

How would all the social media bots prove their ID.. I guess most probably aren’t in Australia but I’m sure there will be a simple work around.

We could never know how many posters here are under 16 but I’d imagine it’s 20% or more.

This along with the great man DJT winning power and RJKs statements towards the pharmaceutical industry must have this site’s owners reavaluating their mortgages.

 

[errant bounce]

Won't work. The internet is smarter than the govt and kids are smarter than adults with this stuff.

As a bridge millennial I am lucky enough to have been a kid without smartphones, social media etc. but also young enough to be across it. I had ICQ and MSN in the late 90s. Hell, people have been posting on BigFooty since 1999 or 2000 I think. I don't know when laptops, tablets etc. became the norm in schools but it was still pen and paper in the early 2000s and if you were lucky enough to have a mobile ($10 a month credit, 25c to send a text) all you could do was play snake.

I' was talking to a high school deputy the other day who was telling me me that social media is their number 1 problem now with kid behaviour and I would believe it. Used to be there was a fight behind the sheds at lunch or some kid got dacked in front of the girls and it was funny or whatever. Now things are filmed and shared etc. and kids go home and there's no disconnect which can't be healthy. I know phones at least are banned during school hours but so were cigarettes and Discmans and plenty of other things. I also have a lot of friends with kids primary school age and younger and there's a huge differential between what some parents allow vs others in terms of screen time etc.

I don't know what the solution is other than trying to limit connectivity. If you give kids phones and tablets with 4G/5G you can pretty much give up controlling what they can and can't access. With WiFi you can at least try to control the source.

I started high school with a pen and paper and your uncle's old Motorola and finished it with an iPhone.

Dunno, you could put in some legwork with a girl in science but ultimately at some point you had to boldly sit next to her and cop the 'oi you like her man?' jabs and jibes.

When there was a scrap, everyone from all the schools would hang out at HJs and swap 30 second clips of it. it was like a supercut; investigative journalism, alternative angles.

Probably all too easy these days. you can race a burger and a root on getting to your door.

 

[emuboy]

When will people learn that with some obvious exceptions - such as hard drugs, illegal pornography and dangerous weapons - prohibition is never the answer?

If anything it makes people desire the forbidden activity more and tends to drive supply and demand underground where it can't be controlled. Look at how prohibition of alcohol in the USA in the 1920s turned out.

If kids/teenagers under 16 are banned from social media, I'm sure that many of them who are extremely tech-savvy will find a way to cheat the system, and how to effectively police such a ban anyway? All it will do is tie up resources that could be of better use elsewhere. There will also be lots of adults ready to step up and meet the demand for IT restricted minors. Unfortunately these adults who lurk in the dark corners of the internet are not the sort of people you ever want around your kids.