As usual, the problem with this is that it assumes a way to perfectly identify somebody on the internet, which in turns mean a way to perfectly identify, in real time, somebody carrying permanently a tracking device with GPS, microphone and camera.<p>It's crazy that all the things we considered the worst of dystopia in the 80's, thinking nobody would be stupid enough to do, and that those societies in SF books were only distant fictions, are things we are actively seeking now.<p>Things like "Find my" and "air tags" are already beloved my millions, people use it to track loved ones and they swear by it. Even very intelligent, educated people.<p>There is such a cognitive dissonance between people swearing the last election meant a likely dictatorship and the same people setting up a tech rope around their necks in case a dictatorship does happen.<p>My now-dead Jewish grandfather met my grandmother during the French occupation because she was making fake papers. He would be horrified if he knew what we are doing right now with our data.<p>My German ex was born in East Germany, 11 years before the fall of the Berlin Wall. She thinks people are mad to believe that tracking is not going to be abused.<p>What the hell is going on?
The government, and big tech companies, don’t need air tags or “find me” to track almost everyone, they have a mobile phone constantly chatting with local towers.<p>I don’t understand what is dystopian about knowing where I left my keys, and seeing how my wife’s commute home is doing without phoning her while she is driving, assuming we always both have mobile phones.
Watching your wife's commute also makes me uneasy. Maybe she wants to get you a surprise birthday present or something. Anyway, I wouldn't want to track someone like that (including children) or be tracked like that.<p>EDIT: toned down the term I used.
The dystopian bit is the corporation having this data, not you. And having this data for all users. Pretty much everyone has a mobile phone.
No, I think you having the data is also creepy. I wouldn't want my wife to follow all my steps, and neither would she.
Isn't this the point they were trying to make? The corporations already have that data, it comes with the platform.
The bit where you can use some of it for own purposes is not really the offending part.
As you immerse yourself in technology, you hand over privacy, signals to act, and the framing of reality to an adversarial third party. It is an adversarial relationship as corporations and governments are not interested in your well being (if they appear to this is merely the 'candy' to draw you in) - they are interested in divesting you from your resources (time, money). If they are able to intermediate reality for us, the very means to experience a natural/unmanipulated mode of existence will be no longer be available.
> As usual, the problem with this is that it assumes a way to perfectly identify somebody on the internet, which in turns mean a way to perfectly identify, in real time, somebody carrying permanently a tracking device with GPS, microphone and camera.<p>It's Australia, who often rank very low for a western country on human rights.<p><a href="https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/south-east-asia-and-the-pacific/australia/report-australia/" rel="nofollow">https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/asia-and-the-pacific/sou...</a><p>Secret trials <a href="https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2023/4/19/secret-trials-have-no-place-in-modern-australia-witness-js-sentencing-finally-revealed" rel="nofollow">https://www.hrlc.org.au/news/2023/4/19/secret-trials-have-no...</a><p>Secret laws <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/mar/28/more-than-800-secrecy-laws-keeping-australian-government-information-from-the-public-paper-shows" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/mar/28/more-than-800-se...</a><p>Secret ministries <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/19/scott-morrisons-secret-ministries-were-they-legal-and-what-happens-next" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/aug/19/scott...</a><p>Secret backdoors <a href="https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/12/new_australian_.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/12/new_australia...</a><p>Introducing Digital ID system that may be enabler for this <a href="https://www.oaic.gov.au/digital-id" rel="nofollow">https://www.oaic.gov.au/digital-id</a><p>While trying to introduce laws to weaken encryption an ex Australia prime minister famously said:<p>> "The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia" Malcolm Turnbull.<p>What's crazy the west look at places such as China as dystopian with the great firewall etc, it appears China was just ahead of the game.<p>Australia is probably the easiest place to introduce a system to block social media, a experimentation ground for five eyes. Easy to push things through, protesting isn't an Australian pass time, not that big of a country, not that small of a country.
Australia has been a petri dish for the testing of totalitarian-authoritarian policies and populist dogma since its inception as a nation.<p>Never forget that the Western worlds first, most successful racist genocide occurred in Australia, and the same racist reasoning that allowed it to maintain White Australia policies into the 80's are still being used to justify the slaughter of innocent human beings all over the world.<p>When the USA wants something dirty done, in yet another illegal war, Australia is ready with hat in hand, willful and subservient, to commit yet more crimes against humanity and get away with it.<p>Australia is where the apparatus designed, with intent, to massively violate the human rights of over a billion human beings currently operates, at insane scales, every second of the day. Australians are fine with it.<p>(Disclaimer: White Stolen Generation Australian.)
SocMed / AdTech cos. can already ID and target users with precision. Knowing someone's pregnant before their family does, per the canonical example from 2012.[1]<p>Impose an insanely steep tax (say, 10,000%) on all ads revenue tied to underage individuals.<p>Now it's possible to pursue the Al Capone prosecution: tax fraud.<p>SocMed cos. will avoid anyone underage like the plauge.<p>________________________________<p>Notes:<p>1. "How Target Figured Out A Teen Girl Was Pregnant Before Her Father Did" <<a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-target-figured-out-a-teen-girl-was-pregnant-before-her-father-did/" rel="nofollow">https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2012/02/16/how-targ...</a>>, discussed on HN at the time: <<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3601354">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3601354</a>> (17 Feb 2012).
Given my experience with ads today is that they frequently get my gender, language, nationality, and country of residence wrong (and in mutually incompatible ways), I suspect that the famous pregnancy story was dumb luck rather than a reflection of quality.<p>But yes, the Al Capone solution seems like it would work.
More on mechanism (and why <i>specific</i> mechanisms should not be <i>legislated</i>) here:<p><<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42075146">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42075146</a>>
They don’t have to be right all the time, just enough to make ROI positive.
> worst of dystopia in the 80's<p>Huxley's "Brave New World" was published 1932
They figured out that if they get a load of hot girls, and cool goofy guys to entice people, and don't mention the spying part - it works a lot better than a bunch of government goons in badly fitting suits telling you to betray your friends and neighbours, or else.
They surf on smartphones anyway, so it's enough to identify the device itself. Luckily the devices are already authenticated and identified, for your safety.
"What the hell is going on?"<p>"...way to perfectly identify somebody on the internet..."
Isn't a smartphone exactly designed to track and surveil individuals on the internet. I only see legal limitations here, and the costs.
And there is a super obvious solution to this,assuming children can't buy phones then the parents should setup the account for the children and enter the birthdate. Now the OS the browser int eh phones know if the user is an adult in that country, or whatever age level needed.<p>If say an adult is incapable to setup a phone/tablet, then a person at the store would help them set the initial part but skip the login with Google/Apple etc.<p>No idea why this was not tried and then see if it fails.
not enough good/grand/noble characters in software engineering, management, leadership and so on.<p>nature-nurture x game-theory anxiety/thrill VS. consciousness & planetary/colony-wide awareness; and I'm not talking about some esoteric spirituality or whatever the fuck.<p>we are always in a natural balance, established by those who do and those who don't. all of us compartmentalise. and good/noble/grand people in law are rare and entirely absent in politics.<p>TV & the radio made a lot of destructive behaviours look cool (all that finboy shit) and so did feel-good literature like Siddharta.<p>and then there's the myth of "hard decisions" that can only be made by certain kinds of characters.<p>young ppl are easy to bend towards hierarchies that reward certain kinds of behaviour and convictions. makes em feel proud.<p>and in the end we are all just doin our job ^^
God was a dream of good government.
this is fake legislative action, there is no way to legaly enforce this, short of a
complete and total policing of the internet and peoples phones,and the quiet
part is that by seperating the "law" into
all of its beurocratic bits,such as needing to "ratify" it later....., and then actualy create and fund some sort of enforcement body at some further and impossible to predict time
which all then points to a desperate and floundering government, resorting to the lamest kinds of tacticts to buy a bit more time at the trough
oink oink
This is awesome. I have been telling that social media is like smoking. When cigarettes came, even doctors were advertising the benefits of cigarettes. Now we know the harmful effects. Same is the case with social media. We just dont know they harmful effects completely yet.<p>Ban this. I am addicted and can't stop. Or put a warning on social media apps like they do on cigarette packets. Using this app maybe harmful for your mental health.
No we need to kill the advertisement based monetization model, so there is no incentive to produce addictive content.
[flagged]
They'll pick the biggest ones. They won't block them. It'll be up to the platforms themselves to prevent access to children under 16.
This place is no better
Weak minds love government intervention over parental responsibility. It’s awesome! Get your IDs out, everyone, think of the children. JFC.
Here's the reality: some significant % of parents will have zero parental responsibility and are ill suited to be parents.<p>This is just a fact.<p>How to solve this?<p>1. Only allow suitable responsible people to be parents. Would you like this? This would be highly unpopular and wouldn't happen.<p>2. Or alternatively you enforce uniform rules across all population of minors, thus children without functional parents have limitations and protections in place as if they had parents with resposibility.<p>The second option is simply more palatable and feasible to be implemented.
Then parents all over the world have failed.<p>Even the successful ones have limited shelf life before the kids get isolated from the friends and losing out the actual real world Social Life.<p>The tone of your response signals that you're definitely Americans. Americans have a different culture and perspective when it comes to Freedom, Government intervention given your history.<p>That doesn't mean your perspective fits in other countries.
Absolutely, and if people can’t be good parents they shouldn’t be.<p>Maybe people should be given permission to have kids. Then the only people who have kids are the ones who can carry that responsibility.<p>So many parents today dont have the education, time or knowledge to truly understand what their kids are doing. Just imagine, we need to curtail our freedoms, so that these weak parents can not screw up their kids because of their inability to adapt to the world.<p>/s<p>PS: for what it’s worth, I doubt this bill will pass.
Creating verifiable IDs for children is a failed dream, and cannot be achieved; even the most draconian interventions will have errors.
[flagged]
This is an attack on freedom.
I don't know what to tell you... Minors are supposed to lack freedom compared to adults in a society.
Let kids have guns, can drink booze, and smoke too while we're at it?
I mean you could make an argument that outlawing murder is also an attack on freedom. That doesn't mean it isn't a silly argument however.
Yes and rightly so
Good, but not enough if you ask me. Mainstream social media make money out of angering people and the addiction it creates, and it affects everyone, not just kids: had a few grown ups among friends and other people, even over 60 and older, completely ruined by that crap. I don't see any reason why corporations that don't obey any moral obligation should be motivated to change their business model anytime soon, unless forced from above.
What about non-mainstream social media? What about news services? What do you think would happen if we banned both, those people that get angry and addicted will just be happy and healthy? Or do you think corporations will find another avenue to try and manipulate people, which those people will happily flock to?
I wouldn't have said this a few years ago, but I think this is a good idea.
prohibition never worked and won't ever - the only way to make it work is by implementing a total surveillance state with draconian punishment for noncompliant citizens. but given that i'm more or less the only one realizing that i just make peace with what is coming.
'Prohibition didn't work' is an almost meaningless statement. It's always some variation on 'yeah, drastically fewer people drank, but it didn't eradicate it <i>entirely</i> and cost a nonzero amount to maintain'. Same as banning anything ever, like murder, or unregistered securities.
That assumes "make it work" means making it work 100% with no gaps or misses. If it only works 90% of the time then it's still working quite well and you get most of the benefit from it without needing <i>"a total surveillance state with draconian punishment for noncompliant citizens"</i><p>For instance, it has always been possible for sufficiently motivated kids to acquire hard liquor. If nothing else they can steal it from their parents. To stop this you would need surveillance inside every home and extremely harsh punishments. But we <i>don't</i> actually need that, because an imperfect prohibition works reasonably well.<p>The whole premise that if a law isn't perfectly enforceable then it's a bad law is a weird thing that techies on the libertarian/autism spectrum come up with a lot, but it's not the way the world actually works.
I wonder how can you implement such a law without forcing people to identify online ? Will they enforce a digital ID that you need to use to access the web or social media ?
No comment on the implementation, but I wonder if there's some value in just allowing parents to be able to point to this and say "No, little Fred, you're not allowed to have an Instagram account until you're 16. It's the actual rule."
Yep, the "everyone else has BLAH" argument is a strong one. If we collectively take action through government to set a standard it is MUCH easier to shut down those self-fulfilling claims.
Seems to me that the better solution is to give parents the ability to observe their kids' activities, and for <16 accounts to be able to operate only when tied with an adult account, which can observe activity...<p>Of course many will say this can be abused, but <i>all technology can be abused</i> and the reason we're in this mess in the first place is because OS designers haven't figured out that the relationship between parent and child is an important one which should be strengthened, not made weaker ..
I'm listening to Australian radio right now and a group of mothers just made this exact point.
> allowing parents<p>What? Why would parents need permission from their government to forbid their kid from having an Instagram account? They're parents, so they can engage in parenting.
Not allowing as in "giving them permission", but "allowing" as in enabling them to do so.<p>Right now if a parent says "You can't have instagram. Because I say so." the kids answer will be "But I will be a looser noob if I can't. All my friend are on it. Jenny has 5k followers!"<p>Vs after the ban: "You can't have instagram. This is the law." "But mom! Some of my friends are on it. Jenny has 1k followers!" "Is that so? I will ask Jenny's mom if she knows about that."<p>It is not going to stop absolutely everything. (Same as prohibiting underage alcohol drinking is not stopping teens from drinking any). But it will put a serious damper on it and fracture the social networks into smaller more underground ones.
Because not everyone has a computer science degree.<p>They probably want to allow their kids to use a computer, so it would be very easy for the kid to go to instagram when they dont look.
Allowing as in “enabling”, obviously.
I’m guessing you don’t have kids
The government currently tendering for providers of different systems. See here [1] and here [2]:<p><i>Tender documents released on Monday show the technical trial is slated to begin “on or around 28 October”, with the provider also expected to assess the “effectiveness, maturity, and readiness” of technologies in Australia.</i><p><i>Biometric age estimation, email verification processes, account confirmation processes, device or operating-level interventions are among the technologies that will be assessed for social media (13-16 years age band).</i><p><i>In the context of age-restricted online content (18 years or over), the Communication department has asked that double-blind tokenised attribution exchange models, as per the age verification roadmap, and hard identifiers such as credit cards be considered.</i><p>[1] <a href="https://www.innovationaus.com/govt-readies-age-verification-tech-trial-for-social-media-ban/" rel="nofollow">https://www.innovationaus.com/govt-readies-age-verification-...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.biometricupdate.com/202409/australia-launches-tender-to-trial-biometric-age-estimation-and-alternatives" rel="nofollow">https://www.biometricupdate.com/202409/australia-launches-te...</a>
The source for "double-blind tokenised attribution exchange models" is this report from July 2024, from the Australian eSafety Commissioner: <a href="https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-07/Age-Assurance-Issues-Paper-July2024_0.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-07/Age-A...</a><p>They note that existing age verification setups largely either rely on providing ID, or on a combination of manual and automated behavior profiling (face recognition, text classification, reports from other users), both of which have obvious privacy and/or accuracy issues. The "double-blind tokens" point to a summary by LINC explaining how they _could_ be implemented with zero-knowledge proofs, but I could not find an article or a practical implementation (could just be a mistake on my part, admittedly)<p>At _best_ you end up with a solution in the vein of Privacy Pass - <a href="https://petsymposium.org/popets/2018/popets-2018-0026.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://petsymposium.org/popets/2018/popets-2018-0026.pdf</a> - but that requires a browser extension, a functioning digital ID solution you can build on top of, and buy-in from the websites. Personally, I also suspect the strongest sign a company is going to screw up the cryptographic side of it is if they agree to implement it...
Sales of stick on mustaches will skyrocket
It's a bit wild that instead of parents just being responsible and teaching their children properly, we'll resort to neutering privacy and freedom on the Internet.
Making it illegal could make it taboo, kids are less likely to talk about it in fear of "getting caught" and less talking means less usage.<p>This is not like porn which is a solitary activity: on social media you have to be social and let everyone know… at least for traditional actually-social media, not content-consuming apps like TikTok.<p>It's similar to alcohol usage: you can't stop it completely, but also you don't have 50% of kids bringing it to school.
I don't think lawmakers should describe HOW things are done necessarily. Here it's enough to say that "unless you can be 100% sure your user is above age X, then you can't provide them service Y or feature Z".<p>It might not even be the desired outcome to have identification, the better outcome could be to have feature Z stripped for <i>all</i> users (for example video feeds based on past watching behavior).
RE ".....how can you implement such a law..."<p>Request the social media platform to implement the restriction.
The large social media platform have billions $ cash , so if that "really want to implement it" it should not be a problem.<p>However, I expect social media companies to "drag out every reason , why they can ot implement it..." - since it does not benefit the social media company. ... and would reduce its user base ...
<i>> Request the social media platform to implement the restriction. The large social media platform have billions $ cash , so if that "really want to implement it" it should not be a problem.</i><p>I'm sure that Facebook, Google and TikTok will be <i>delighted</i> to make it mandatory that Australians send in photos of their face, passport and driving license.<p>But is it good for <i>Australia</i> to have their citizens hand such mountains of PII to unaccountable foreign megacorporations?
A drop down list of birth dates/years "works" for most age restricted sites - I guess the logic is that if a user is lying about their age, it's not the sites problem.<p>Article states that sites must demonstrate they are taking reasonable measures to enforce this though - a lot will come down as to how courts interpret that. If they go to the extremes of the KYC laws in australia I imagine a significant fraction of adults will not want to verify their age.
> I guess the logic is that if a user is lying about their age, it's not the sites problem.<p>If the law is to have any teeth at all, it should be the problem of the service provider.<p>Say for example that a banned feature for minors is having media feeds based on past watching behavior. Lacking a reliable age verification it's simple for social media companies to remove the feature entirely for all users, if it's unreasonable or impossible for them to implement age verification.
<p><pre><code> > extremes of the KYC laws in australia
</code></pre>
Can you provide more details about this statement? I never heard anything about it on HN discussions.
I’m not sure how unusual it is internationally but KYC laws in Australia will generally require 100 points of identification, usually satisfied by showing your passport and drivers license. Other options include recent utility bills, your birth certificate, medicare card etc.<p>The system wasn’t really designed for the internet era and I think a lot of people would not be happy about handing all the personal info over to TikTok or Facebook
As much as I am grateful for most of GDPR, it has shown that leaving the implementation of anything to websites is a recipe for disaster.<p>It's gonna be cookie banners 2.0.<p>I bet a lot will just ask for a credit card number, like in those old scam fake-porn websites from the late 90s/early 2000s.
Well, funny you should mention that - the AU government ID system (used to access govt services like medicare and tax), has very recently been rebranded from MyGovID to MyID. Most states have already got digital drivers' licences.
You don't necessarily need to actually attempt to globally enforce it. It's like speeding, right? Everybody knows the law, and a lot of people choose to break it. We can't check everybody's speed all the time, so instead we selectively enforce.<p>The real change though comes from parent's perceptions. Right now there's age limits of 14-years-old on most social media platforms, however most parents just see this as a ToS thing, and nobody cares about actually violating it. Once it becomes law, the parents are suddenly responsible (and liable) for ensuring their children are not breaking the law by accessing social media. It's not going to stop everybody, but it'll certainly move the needle on a lot of people who are currently apathetic to the ToS of social media platforms.
You don't!<p>That's exactly what they're aspiring to here, following on from a well-established pedigree of Australian lawmakers and their dysfunctional relationship with the Internet.
Law should <i>not</i> be excessively prescriptive, <i>especially</i> in the case of rapidly-evolving technologies (and business sectors) for all the obvious reasons.<p>What's far more useful is to propose effective <i>incentives</i> and <i>disincentives</i>, and let the participants work this out for themselves. There are some useful principles and examples which come to mind:<p>- Business is profit-oriented. Attack the basis of profits, in a readily-identifiable and enforceable way, and activity which pursues those markets will tend to dry up.<p>- Business is profoundly risk-averse. Raise the risks of an activity, or remove protections or limitations on threads (e.g., Section 230 of the CDA in the US), and incentives to participate in that activity will be greatly reduced. Penetrating corporate and third-party veils would be particularly useful, in this case, of service providers (aiding and abetting in a proscripted commerce) and advertisers (profiting by same). Lifting any limitations on harms which might occur (bullying, induced suicides, addiction, or others) would similarly be crippling.<p>As to how age might be ascertained:<p>- Self-reporting. Not terribly reliable, but a decent first cut.<p>- Profiling. There are <i>exceedingly</i> strong indicia of age which can be made, including based on a particular account's social graph, interests, online activity, location data (is the profile spending ~6h daily at an elementary school, and not lunching in the teacher's lounge?), etc. One strong distinction is between <i>legislation</i> and <i>regulation</i>, where the latter is imposed (usually with rulemaking process) through the <i>executive</i> branch (SCOTUS's Loper <i>v.</i> Raimondo being a phenomenally stupid rejection of that principle). Such regulation could then on a more flexible basis identify specific technical means to be imposed, reviewed, and updated on a regular schedule.<p>- Access providers. Most people now access the Internet through either fixed-location (home, work, institutional) providers, <i>or their own mobile access provider</i>. Such accounts could well carry age (and other attestation) flags which online service providers could be obliged to respect as regards regulation.<p>Jumping in before a few obvious objections: no, these mechanisms are not <i>perfect</i> but I'll assert they can be <i>practically effective</i>; and yes, there are risks for authoritarian regimes to abuse such measures, but then, those are already abusing <i>present</i> mechanisms. I'd include extensive AdTech-based surveillance in that, which is itself ripe for abuse and has demonstrated much of this already.<p>(That said, I'd welcome rational "what could possibly go wrong" discussion.)
The government is being deliberately non-prescriptive about that, as they are about what qualifies as 'social media' (statement of fact - no comment on the approach itself). Ideally the legislation is accompanied by a government digital service that allows 3rd parties to verify age _without_ divulging full identity, but I don't see that side of things being discussed anywhere down here :(
They seem pretty clear [1] about what social media is:<p>Social networks, public media sharing networks, discussion forums, consumer review networks.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-12/Phase-1-Industry-Codes-%28Class-1A-and-Class-1B-Material%29-Regulatory-Guidance.pdf?v=1730953002185" rel="nofollow">https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-12/Phase...</a>
They haven't got the competence to implement it even if they wanted to.
It’s happening on porn sites in some states in the US right now. When you visit the site, they ask you to validate with your ID.
Same as alcohol. If you supply your kids with alcohol, or even have it at home and they get drunk without your knowledge, you'll be in trouble.
While I dislike social media, this ban is as stupid as Australia's laws enforcing bicycle helmets.
Will this mean I will have to register as my real name on Hacker News? Not a chance
How is a bicycle helmet a bad idea? Many countries have that for minors. And obviously most(?) western countries have seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmet laws.
It's also a natural effect of having publicly funded healthcare I guess.<p>> Will this mean I will have to register as my real name on Hacker News?<p>First of all, age verification shouldn't mean the social media provider gets true identities. They shouldn't be trusted with that info. There needs to be services that allows verifying your age against one service, and the media service just getting the receipt of that verification. Whether such a service exists already or not shouldn't matter. The law should be written so that social media companies are restricted in what they can do when they can be sure someone isn't a minor, and when they are sure. For extra safety, perhaps it should say they <i>can't</i> be allowed to see for example physical ID:s. Because otherwise you'd risk privacy issues.<p>Second, I think it's better to formulate these laws the way the new york draft did: that specific <i>features</i> are restricted for minors. Such as: enless media feeds based on past behavior (such as any video "shorts" feeds in all the major platforms today).
As sibling comments seem to have missed the point: laws mandating helmets reduce the general rates of cycling, as people without helmets don't cycle at all. Cycling is so good for your health that the risks associated with not cycling are actually greater than those that go along with cycling without a helmet.
Don’t many US states have laws requiring bicycle helmets for minors?<p><a href="https://www.iihs.org/topics/pedestrians-and-bicyclists/bicycle-helmet-use-laws-table" rel="nofollow">https://www.iihs.org/topics/pedestrians-and-bicyclists/bicyc...</a>
Enforcing bicycle helmets is a good idea. It's about protecting your health and reducing the burden on the public health system.<p>I've fallen off a bike before and my helmet definitely saved me from a serious head injury. Would I have worn one if it was not compulsory and drilled into me as a child that's what you do when you ride one? Maybe not.<p>It saved me that day and I expect it saves many people in this country every day too.
> Would I have worn one if it was not compulsory and drilled into me as a child that's what you do when you ride one?<p>Yes. Because this is a false dichotomy. The latter does not depend upon the former. I can say that with certainty because I received the message growing up in a country with a cycling proficiency programme in schools instead of mandatory helmet laws.<p>Everyone should wear a helmet when riding, but <i>criminalising noncompliance</i> is an inefficient, reductive, expensive, heavy-handed, unnecessarily punitive, and ultimately counter-productive approach to achieving it.
How about over 60? That's more likely to have a positive effect on society
Last I checked if you're over 60 then you're an Adult and can do adult things. You have long since stopped growing into your body by then. Children are not finished yet, and continue to have their brains mature and grow into the early 20s
Banning <16 year olds from social media is for their protection. Banning >60 from social media (and I’d add voting) is for everyone else’s protection.
I think there is a better argument for banning anyone under the age of 30 from voting than there is for anything as low as a limit of 60 for voting.
So as a compromise only allow people between 30 and 60 to vote?<p>(Which would be hilarious, as it means, allmost no one voted in office would be allowed to vote themself anymore, unless of course that would change, too)
On the flip side, it seems evident that younger people tend to vote for the betterment of all, while older people tend to shift toward voting for «themselves».
Why is that evident? Any evidence for it?
I’m talking of the typical left/right split. Where leftist policies tend toward redistribution of wealth to the benefit of broader swathes, while right oriented policies tend to at least lead to more concentration of wealth. Maybe it is an outdated bias, but until now at least my impression is that young people have had a greater tendency toward some form of humanistic idealism.
Not true; young, childless people don't think about the next generation, because why would they? It's game-theory optimal for them to maximize laws which benefit them personally, as they don't have to worry about their children growing up with the consequences.<p>Frankly, society would be a lot better if the childless couldn't vote; leave voting to people who have a stake in society's future!<p>(And yes, adoption counts, doesn't need to be biological -- not excluding anyone here.)
>Frankly, society would be a lot better if the childless couldn't vote; leave voting to people who have a stake in society's future!<p>Whoa now. Just because I am childless doesn’t mean I don’t care about future generations. I still have friends and family that do have children and I vote with that in mind.
Maybe idealism is dead and even the youth have been corrupted these days.
Hard to tell whether you are being sarcastic or not; just in case you aren't, it's trivial to confirm that few people vote in a game-theory optimal manner.
>I think there is a better argument for banning anyone under the age of 30 from voting<p>Please expand on this.
Damn ageism. There’s some amazing 60yo assembly devs out there.
This is akin to speed limits. Doing 50 km/h on a 20 km/h street isn't going to kill you, but can kill people outside your vehicle.
and in advanced age there is cognitive decline<p>the median seventy-five year old’s brain is not in the same condition as the median thirty year old’s
It doesn't matter because the 35 year old isn't using his brain to vote anyway. He's just going by what social media, the news, and peer pressure leads him to. If anything, an older person has better established understanding of the world even if they're not better at working things out.
75 and 60 are vastly different.
Banning those over 60 is a funny jab against an older generation who are susceptible to conspiracy theories and who are not media smart. They have lots of trouble differentiating sound and noise. I doubt this person was serious. Nevertheless, it was funny.
If at “over 60 you can do adult things”, why do we take their drivers licenses away from and make them sit a drivers test every year unlike adults under 60?
They don’t take their license away, they just test more frequently to watch for deterioration of vision, etc.<p>Also, people under 60 still need to test and qualify for a license. So I’m not sure why you went down this comparison route.
Because it's in society's best interest not to have impaired people driving; whether it's due to substances taken, illness or age.
Thats too simple.<p>The problem is that a lot of democracies have a demography skewed towards old people and at the same time a simple majority can dictate over s.th. like a minority of 30% of the voters.
Stupid, snarky comment intended to create division, that belongs in a trash heap like Reddit or Twitter, not here.<p>We have evidence that social media harms children. As in, studies.<p>We don't have any studies showing that old people harm society using social media or whatever this vaguely ageist snark is saying.
> We don't have any studies showing that old people harm society using social media<p>an an american who just watched the recent election go down, I have to strongly disaagree with this.
How can you justify that view? Harris lost because of voter turnout. I don't see how >60s are to blame for that. I also don't see how >60s are to be blamed for young people moving right.
> <i>I also don't see how >60s are to be blamed for young people moving right.</i><p>Rebelling against the perceived establishment as presented to them by their teachers (some of whom are that old) probably had something to do with it. (Their parents too, but their parents aren't >60)<p>Young men particularly have been getting dosed with idpol messaging about men by their predominantly female teachers from a young age. Anecdotally, there's also a general thing where the older a teacher gets the more embittered by experience they become, and they become more likely to fall into negative behavior patterns like having "nemesis students" they like to pick on, or exhibiting flagrant bias in the classroom against an entire gender.
That's obviously a biased statement. I happen to share your bias toward the election outcome, but I'm afraid analysis shows that GenZ has moved towards Republican in comparison with similar aged voters 4 and 8 years ago, while people over 60 have moved towards Dems. So your assumptions are not correct, apart from the fact that they're not even relevant to the discussion about the influence of social media (and mobile phones) on young people.
[flagged]
Yes, after years and years, we only recently have solid studies showing that social media harms individual children. I expect it’ll take a bit longer to finalize studies showing the harm to <i>society</i>.
> Older adults are relatively more susceptible to impulsive social influence than young adults<p><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00134-0" rel="nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00134-0</a><p>The number of test subjects is small, but hopefully this will lead to more funding for larger projects.
>Stupid, snarky comment intended to create division, that belongs in a trash heap like Reddit or Twitter, not here.<p>This also doesn’t belong here.
Hot take: most reddit discussions are every bit as good as HN comments. There is no need to make HN "not Reddit".
[dead]
The claim is that it protects the mental health and welfare of young people. Young people have special protection from the law in many regards including sexual consent, contracts, employment etc.<p>A 60 year old is expected to have the capacity to make informed choices. Whether they do is down to personal responsibility. Many of us will be 60 one day.
What sort of positive effect would you expect?<p>What do you think is wrong with people over 60?
Countries around the world need to bite the bullet and implement that for voting too.
Do you attribute the Trump victory to people over 60? What about German right wing parties? I assume similar can be found in the U.S., but I did not have time:<p><a href="https://www.nzz.ch/english/why-are-young-germans-voting-for-the-far-right-ld.1846613" rel="nofollow">https://www.nzz.ch/english/why-are-young-germans-voting-for-...</a><p>The most insane left culture warriors who wanted to relive a second spring on the other hand are indeed approaching or over 60. Fake culture warriors like Pelosi and Biden are over 80.<p>Fake culture warriors in software organizations like Python are approaching or over 60. You know, the exact same people who read Ayn Rand and supported ESR when it was politically expedient for their careers 20 years ago, because they always go with the herd, no matter how stupid it is.<p>These culture warriors, through their purges and insane statements, have so thoroughly destroyed any trust in the Democrats that there is a landslide victory for Trump now. It will take years to restore that confidence.
How's that?
How about we only allow those who have our same ideas? That's great for democracy, true democratic values
Even better, how about <16 to >16?
I've always been a supporter of those, my view on democracy is not to be mature enough, but to be a part of society with needs and ideas, school students neee to be represented because they're part of a society
Start with 16. Increment it every year.
Tasmania tried doing that with smoking and it kind of didn't go through due to technicalities.<p><a href="https://www.smokefreetasmania.com/new-law/" rel="nofollow">https://www.smokefreetasmania.com/new-law/</a>
I'd suggest 61 as well, and closing the gap ;-)
And make the home page an ugly green with disgusting pictures of health problems?
Love this!
I would remind everyone that the ban of porn below 18 is not enforced, but it is enough to ensure it is not consumed openly or at school. That is how this will play out too.
If a kid wants to find porn then so be it. If an adult Australian citizen or media company wants to show them porn then that is probably a criminal offense.<p>Kids also find alcohol. Can't supply as an adult or company.<p>The problem for the social media companies is that their recommendation algorithms and content make it very clear they know exactly what ages are watching and what they are showing them. They are multi-billion dollar multi-national operations and not some kid running an iffy image board. I usually hate the Australian government's dumb takes on anything tech or Internet (cryptography, internet filters) but in this case I think pushing regulatory compliance on large companies is what makes this doable.
Not sure what kind of maniac would "consume" porn openly at school. In contrast, I doubt most kids will have any such misgivings about social media, especially if not enforced.
Porn isn't consumed openly or at school because of social effects (read: it is embarrassing), not because of laws. If schoolchildren are the pliable rule-followers you imply, why do they all vape?
It's crazy that human beings with the new fandangled ability to communicate in ever easier ways have created this problem. This is your enemy. Social media, government rules are not the enemy. Nor the saviour you think it might be.
I put in a submission to the committee for this issue[1]. The big issues from my point of view are widespread ID validation and the security and privacy consequences of that, definition of social media, lack of controls provided by social media websites, and further risks to centralisation (like ID providers requiring an app that can only run on an iOS or Google Play device).<p>Many of the ID verification services that have spun up over recent years like AU10TIX are private companies that don't have their users' interests at heart. It wouldn't surprise me if they become more involved with the so-called data economy (data broker ecosystem)—if they aren't already.<p>Meta itself causes harm to users of all ages with their algorithms (like suggested content on the feed) which can't really be turned off, and fueled the misinformation crisis which really took off a few years ago. The social media companies have done a good job of convincing the Australian government to overlook these harms.<p>1: <a href="https://roffey.au/static/submission-social-media-2024.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://roffey.au/static/submission-social-media-2024.pdf</a>
Why about Sky News?
I support the ban.<p>In terms of enforcement, social media platforms already use algorithms and gather huge amounts of data on their users, enough to make a good estimate of age even if a user has signed up with a fake age.<p>So, when the algorithm detects that a user is likely to be underage, that's when they'd be required to show ID.
Such a shame of a news, sad to see the level of Australian govt when they are trying to ban for "safety" in the year 2024. Good thing one smart Digital Industry Group representative already told them they are not thinking straight. Of course giving young people something better and more exciting thing to do is not in their plans.<p>In their dreams is to BAN, take ID VERIFICATIONS and FINE private companies for the rest of their days, any Australian should be ashamed of such dull and unsophisticated policies, and BRAVO to Sunita Bose.
And this is why we try our best to have minority governments.<p>The bills being put forward lately are really concerning and I have no idea how to get a party in that would kill the eSafety Commissioner and put in strong freedom of speech laws.<p>I'm pretty content seeing the web destroy their website blocking measures. Thank you DoH and ECH!
What even counts as social media? Is Hackernews social media? Is my future platform where people can talk to each other social media?
It's all pure desperation, they could instead force social media companies to only promote useful educational, pro-science, pro-fitness, documentaries, family style content and then social media would be helpful. Forming communities around learning, robotics, science? What could possibly be better for children who look for purpose in life? It would be fantastic. But of course half the grifters on social media are also already hiding in those tags and serving the most shallow, useless, fake content about e.g ancient pyramid aliens or discussions about how veganism will help your body. As you can tell by my last little insertion here, half the problem is that even all the adults can't come to a shared understanding of what is "good" or true.
> What even counts as social media?<p>I think the way the EU approached this with their "digital gatekeepers" is smart. Recognize that policing the entire internet isn't possible or even desirable. Focus on those few companies with the largest capacity for harm. Different criteria might be appropriate when focusing on potential harm for children (e.g. Roblox rather than Twitter) but besides a few changes you'll probably end up with roughly the same list.<p>I'm not sure I'd support an outright ban, but rather very strict monitoring and requirements around moderation, in app purchasing, gambling mechanics, and so on.
In a way it shouldn't be tied to size either, it should be tied to results. If a social company is clearly only interested in profit to the exclusion of societal benefits then they deserve to be regulated.
Australia takes a different approach and says (in their Basic Online Safety Expectations 2024) that <i>every online account</i> must be linked to a phone number.<p>This is the same country that brought you "the laws of mathematics are very commendable but they don't apply in Australia".<p>I foresee a two- or three-tier Internet in the future, and Australia will probably be the first "western" country to block Tor.
> Australia will probably be the first "western" country to block Tor.<p>The Australian way would be to "ban" tor without any particular concern for enforceability or technical feasibility. Any actual blocking would be pushed onto industry somehow, which would then proceed to half-ass it, doing the absolute minimum possible to demonstrate they are complying with regulation.<p>I like Australia a lot, but a lot of the time it feels like political priority is to "make it look like something is being done". No one would actually care if the blocking worked or not unless the media made a big song and dance about it.<p>I also wonder how much of this ban is about "punishing" X and Meta in particular - Meta for it's refusal to pay for news and X because they didn't jump to immediately remove stuff the government wanted taken down.<p>> What even counts as social media?<p>Anything the government needs more leverage over or wants to shake down for money.
> The Australian way would be to "ban" tor without any particular concern for enforceability or technical feasibility. Any actual blocking would be pushed onto industry somehow, which would then proceed to half-ass it, doing the absolute minimum possible to demonstrate they are complying with regulation.<p>Just because it wouldn't be well-implemented doesn't mean it's nothing to worry about, not to mention that such things are almost always just 1 step on a path of many.
Where in that document [1] [2] does it mention every online account must be linked to a phone number.<p>Because it mentions that an account must be linked to an email address or phone number.<p>Which would be the standard for almost every online service.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2022L00062/latest/text" rel="nofollow">https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2022L00062/latest/text</a><p>[2] <a href="https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-07/Basic-Online-Safety-Expectations-regulatory-guidance-July-2024.pdf?v=1730953089680" rel="nofollow">https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-07/Basic...</a>
> every online account must be linked to a phone number<p>They seem to be learning a lot from the Chinese.
I would say anything with algorithmic personalized feed is a social media, and that's I would stop kids having access to.
I think the main danger is in the engagement maximisation done through these algorithmic feeds.
> What could possibly be better for children who look for purpose in life?<p>They sort of naturally do that if you have the appropriate challenges and opportunities around them.<p>> ancient pyramid aliens or discussions about how veganism will help your body.<p>There used to be a tabloid called "News of the Weird." This stuff just exists. You'll find it anywhere people gather. We're story tellers. When we don't have a compelling story we just make stuff up. It's identical to the point above.<p>> even all the adults can't come to a shared understanding of what is "good" or true.<p>It's not possible. If the children are intended to inherit the future then this is a flawed and reductive strategy. You will not achieve what you seek through parochial means.<p>Really.. I think your biggest problem should be advertising. It should be nowhere near children. Ban _that_ but keep the social media.
I think the proposal is fundamentally flawed because of this reason.<p>Facebook, Instagram and X/Twitter are probably what's intended here, but what about Tumblr, DeviantArt or Discord? What about Reddit or a generic forum? What about VRChat or Webfishing?<p>If this is about protecting children from harmful depictions of body image or misogynistic content, then why not instead propose a law that states online services that allow children to join need to appropriately moderate the content that is shown to children or could face massive fines. I don't necessarily agree with that approach, but at least it would make sense with what their stated objectives are.
Yes. Does Roblox count? What about Minecraft?
Start with the big 4 or 5 and add more in there as and when they become problematic. Who decides which one? Some agency.<p>I think the real solution is banning under 18s from having smart phones period.
Also note that the government is attacking social media on a second front.<p>Last night they took advantage of the population being distracted by the US election by having an extended parliamentary session to push forward with a second reading of the controversial misinformation bill.<p>The government and state media apparatus are of course both immune from any penalty under the bill.<p><a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-11/acma-crackdown-social-media-disinformation-bill/104339144" rel="nofollow">https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-11/acma-crackdown-social...</a>
I really hope you sort this out.<p>When I have my masters degree finished I would like to live in your beautiful country where a lot of wonderful people live.
Part of the concerted effort against social media is the (sudden?) loss of ability to control the narrative by the established power base. Politics and Print / Television Media used to have the last word on "facts", but now every man and his dog can create their own narrative.<p>Methinks they're, again, using "think of the children" as a bulwark against the inevitability of their own waning power. The more things change...<p>Can we also prevent under 16s from being exposed to religious teachings?
They’re protecting the children.
Yeah I’m not against it. Please EU follow suit.<p>What really needs to happen is tough regulators digging through the algorithms. Why are boys on YouTube getting served so much manosphere crap? Etc.<p>We have enough studies about what these algorithms are trying to do to people to keep them engaged. It’s not healthy for society.
lol, probably because they have a propaganda leak.
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
The main reason for this ban, like the attempted TikTok ban in the US, is the overwhelmingly anti-zionist views of the younger generation due to repeated social media exposure to the genocide in Gaza. Fundamentally social media facilitates the faster and broader spread of information than ever before in human history, which is a threat to the gatekeepers who for decades have tightly controlled what information the people of Australia have access to.
It's so sad seeing how many people think its on the government to raise kids.
Completely unenforceable
All of these <16s will be voting in a few years, and Australia has compulsory voting. I hope they remember this on their first visit to the ballot box.
Kids in schools which forbid phone use for everyone are often happy with the result. Banning social networks for everyone may be popular with them by the time they vote.
This will be wholly supported by both parties of our primarily two-party system. There's no alternative but a protest vote to one of those fringe parties that will never get any real power anyway.