Take your hand off my kids ipads

[btdg]

Good legislation is quite precise about what the lawmakers intended. This bill puts the power in the hands of a government appointed 'eSafety commissioner', and no doubt the interpretations in Federal court when this is challenged.

I think this legislation has been very clear about what the lawmakers intend - that is that people under the age of 16 do not have access to social media.

I think it has also been made clear that it is the responsibility of businesses to take reasonable steps to ensure children under 16 do not access their service. 'reasonable steps' or similar definitions are not uncommon in law, and courts will have to decide on this.

The legislation won't prevent young people from using a VPN to bypass regulations, but lets not forget that:

• their parents now know it is illegal and have a responsibility not to allow that
• schools now know it is illegal - students accessing it at school are making a very different choice (ie: illegal behaviour on campus is different to 'phones are supposed to be in your locker'

Also, lets not forget that:

• if young people do access social media, a lot less of their peers will be there. The pressure and issues will be reduced.
• the next generation of kids growing up (ie: under 10 now) won't have nearly the same exposure as primary school aged children, will be less likely to want to use VPNs to bypass it, etc.

 

[Chief]

their parents now know it is illegal and have a responsibility not to allow that

Legal responsibility?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

I'm gonna give my niece and nephew stamps and envelopes for christmas.

They start high school next year.

 

[Gough]

This existential threat to our children can continue on it's way until the end of next year by the way. Social media for kids is so damaging we're told that it needs to be banned altogether but let's give it another year in the meantime.

 

[Gough]

Kids will have more spare time, crime will go up.

So you can be held criminally responsible before your bollocks drop but you can't use social media until you're sixteen. Something has gone badly wrong here.

 

[Cmarsh]

Kids will have more spare time, crime will go up.

Teenage pregnancies too.

Geez have a look at these right wingers thinking negativity of our kids.

 

[peetoo]

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 is now law after Labor and the Coalition did a deal to ram it through the Senate with minimal opportunity for debate. It's not clear why it was rushed through when many of the details have to be worked out in the 12 months until the social media minimum age obligation commencement begins.

It remains unclear which social media platforms will be subject to the ban, but if the unspecified companies get it wrong they will be subject to fines of up to A$50 million.

It's unclear how Australian legislation applies to overseas based platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook and BigFooty.

It's unclear how the legislation will prevent under 16s using VPNs to get around the rules.

It's unclear how the age verification will work. But it is clear that for it to work, everyone who uses social media will have provide proof of their age. Tech companies can collect government-issued identification such as passports and drivers licenses after alternative age assurance methods have been provided to users. That's all very vague in legal terms.

Tech companies will have to take 'reasonable steps' to stop under 16s from having accounts. Reasonable is not defined.

Good legislation is quite precise about what the lawmakers intended. This bill puts the power in the hands of a government appointed 'eSafety commissioner', and no doubt the interpretations in Federal court when this is challenged.

Social media is a fast changing landscape though. Legislation needs to be flexible and agile to keep up.

Note that thes sites already have a nominal minimum age of around 13

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Geez have a look at these right wingers thinking negativity of our kids.

Come on man, it's not like I'm going to try and monetise it.

 

[MarcMaverick]

I am not surprised by this. Australia has been known to punish everyone for the incompetence of a few.

Well done incompetent, irresponsible, weak parents for not doing your job properly, and now we all have to suffer because of this. Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg didn't hold a gun to your heads to buy the kids smartphones,tablets to go on SM. You did and because of your negligence everyone is punished.

Parental fitness has never been so weak as it is now. This is only going to make it weaker.

And how will this address mental health problems for disabled kids, kids in rural and kids from low socioeconomic backgrounds?

 

[MarcMaverick]

I'm gonna give my niece and nephew stamps and envelopes for christmas.

They start high school next year.

Why not allow them to adopt a cat or dog?

 

[MarcMaverick]

To be abundantly clear bullies and crims are terrible people, but when you make it so easy for you kids to be in perilous situations its hard for people to take you seriously as parents

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Why not allow them to adopt a cat or dog?

They aren't my kids.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Congrats to Albanese for ramming through his election resume policy without defining what it considers social media or how it will be enforced.

Another classic case of political onanism.

 

[Richard Pryor]

I think this legislation has been very clear about what the lawmakers intend - that is that people under the age of 16 do not have access to social media.

I think it has also been made clear that it is the responsibility of businesses to take reasonable steps to ensure children under 16 do not access their service. 'reasonable steps' or similar definitions are not uncommon in law, and courts will have to decide on this.

The legislation won't prevent young people from using a VPN to bypass regulations, but lets not forget that:

• their parents now know it is illegal and have a responsibility not to allow that
• schools now know it is illegal - students accessing it at school are making a very different choice (ie: illegal behaviour on campus is different to 'phones are supposed to be in your locker'

Also, lets not forget that:

• if young people do access social media, a lot less of their peers will be there. The pressure and issues will be reduced.
• the next generation of kids growing up (ie: under 10 now) won't have nearly the same exposure as primary school aged children, will be less likely to want to use VPNs to bypass it, etc.

Being clear about intentions is entirely meaningless if every aspect of what it will impact and how is completely undefined. The whole point of legislation is to translate intentions into actionable substance. Trump has been very clear about what he intends to accomplish by putting tariffs on everyone, it doesn't make it effective policy.

This Labor government has been very good about intending things and doing **** all.

 

[Richard Pryor]

So: does this include group SMS messaging systems?

Who cares, it seems the most important thing to a lot of Australians is to just DO SOMETHING!?!?!?!?!@

 

[MarcMaverick]

If someone has any brains and spine they should repeal this law.

 

[kickazz]

To be abundantly clear bullies and crims are terrible people, but when you make it so easy for you kids to be in perilous situations its hard for people to take you seriously as parents

Yeah, when the Internet was first a thing, older people I spoke with said they would let their kids on it, but the "family computer" was in a 'public' part of the house so they could kid of supervise the onlice behaviour.

Smartphones and laptops change that.

Ask yourself these two questions:

• Would you let your child spend time with a friend in their bedroom without you watching / interfering?
• Would you let a stranger (likely an adult) or a school bully into your child's bedroom without you watching / interfering?

Perhaps that second scenario is a bit extreme - no physical interaction can take place online - but I dare say the answer to those two questions are different and all parents would have the same answers.

This new law says no to both questions unfortunately. We need laws, or better, easy to use tools, that allow us to answer "Yes" to the first and "No" to the second.

 

[Richard Pryor]

Yeah, when the Internet was first a thing, older people I spoke with said they would let their kids on it, but the "family computer" was in a 'public' part of the house so they could kid of supervise the onlice behaviour.

Smartphones and laptops change that.

Ask yourself these two questions:

• Would you let your child spend time with a friend in their bedroom without you watching / interfering?
• Would you let a stranger (likely an adult) or a school bully into your child's bedroom without you watching / interfering?

Perhaps that second scenario is a bit extreme - no physical interaction can take place online - but I dare say the answer to those two questions are different and all parents would have the same answers.

This new law says no to both questions unfortunately. We need laws, or better, easy to use tools, that allow us to answer "Yes" to the first and "No" to the second.

When I was under fifteen I never would have been allowed to have a smartphone or laptop in my bedroom, am 28 so older than the current generation but I find it strange how quickly the culture seems to have shifted where a groundrule like that is so unenforceable the government needs to step in (although not denying it is the current reality).

In isolation if the concept wasn't attached to the ID/privacy issues of enforcement I would be in favor of it as a largely symbolic general cultural reset. A lot of the population is tech illiterate and ill equipped to support their kids through navigating the online world, so the government conveying that social media is a potential danger for young teens mental health is a good idea. Chest beating and posturing from people who demonstrate very little tech literacy themselves to look tough and hardline on the issue is silly though.

 

[Saint Shags]

I think this legislation has been very clear about what the lawmakers intend - that is that people under the age of 16 do not have access to social media.

I think it has also been made clear that it is the responsibility of businesses to take reasonable steps to ensure children under 16 do not access their service. 'reasonable steps' or similar definitions are not uncommon in law, and courts will have to decide on this.

The legislation won't prevent young people from using a VPN to bypass regulations, but lets not forget that:

• their parents now know it is illegal and have a responsibility not to allow that
• schools now know it is illegal - students accessing it at school are making a very different choice (ie: illegal behaviour on campus is different to 'phones are supposed to be in your locker'

Also, lets not forget that:

• if young people do access social media, a lot less of their peers will be there. The pressure and issues will be reduced.
• the next generation of kids growing up (ie: under 10 now) won't have nearly the same exposure as primary school aged children, will be less likely to want to use VPNs to bypass it, etc.

What is social media?

 

[kickazz]

What is social media?

I think broadly speaking it is media where content is decentralised and supposedly provided mainly by its consumers in a peer to peer kind of arrangement.

At least that is how it started, and in some instances it is still more or less like that (BigFooty for example)

But once it's power was truly understood, then well organised actors started providing the content, and the peer to peer architecture became merely a conduit for those organiser's content. Those actors vary from news organisations and individuals that do proper investigation and fact checking, to bullshit factories and propagandists.

 

[Kram]

Nice work Albo and Dutts

 

[Saint Shags]

I think broadly speaking it is media where content is decentralised and supposedly provided mainly by its consumers in a peer to peer kind of arrangement.

At least that is how it started, and in some instances it is still more or less like that (BigFooty for example)

But once it's power was truly understood, then well organised actors started providing the content, and the peer to peer architecture became merely a conduit for those organiser's content. Those actors vary from news organisations and individuals that do proper investigation and fact checking, to bullshit factories and propagandists.

The question is more what will be considered social media?
Will the kids online xbox, playstation be considered social media? What about group chat through messages?

This legislation is such a poorly conceived piece of law. There is no clarity at all. It's an attempt by both major parties to be seen as doing something.

 

[kickazz]

The question is more what will be considered social media?
Will the kids online xbox, playstation be considered social media? What about group chat through messages?

This legislation is such a poorly conceived piece of law. There is no clarity at all. It's an attempt by both major parties to be seen as doing something.

They have a list, and in general, messaging and gaming seems to be excluded. I think this is because the main problems caused by SM don't manifest in these scenarios.

We need to define the list of 'problems' with SM and then see which can be fixed, and which stand a chance of being fixed (or ameliorated) by SM restrictions.

The list of problems I can think of:

• Access to age inappropriate content
• Grooming / exploitation
• Extortion (becoming a thing now with nudes etc)
• Addiction and it's related mental health issues (facebook for one actively harnesses the power of dopamine in pretty dodgy ways)
• Bullying
• Nefarious manipulation by state actors - though that is an adult problem too.

 

[Chief]

messaging and gaming seems to be excluded. I think this is because the main problems caused by SM don't manifest in these scenarios.

Comments systems on every WordPress site in the world?

 

[Saint Shags]

They have a list, and in general, messaging and gaming seems to be excluded. I think this is because the main problems caused by SM don't manifest in these scenarios.

We need to define the list of 'problems' with SM and then see which can be fixed, and which stand a chance of being fixed (or ameliorated) by SM restrictions.

The list of problems I can think of:

• Access to age inappropriate content
• Grooming / exploitation
• Extortion (becoming a thing now with nudes etc)
• Addiction and it's related mental health issues (facebook for one actively harnesses the power of dopamine in pretty dodgy ways)
• Bullying
• Nefarious manipulation by state actors - though that is an adult problem too.

That list outside of the last dot point could be gaming.
Hell they want to protect kids, but not from pr0n or gambling.