What we know so far about how the government's social media ban for under-16s will work
www.abc.net.au
The government has taken a big step towards its goal of getting children and young teenagers off social media and revealed who would be covered by the ambitious ban.

The government is being pretty coy about the details, so most of the article is necessarily conjecture.

Selected excerpts from the article:

The definition of a social media service, as per the Online Safety Act

An electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:

  1. The sole or primary purpose of the service is to enable online social interaction between two or more end users;
  2. The service allows end users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end users;
  3. The service allows end users to post material on the service.

Under the proposed changes, it will be the responsibility of social media companies to take reasonable steps to block people under 16.

How will your age be verified?

The government’s legislation won’t specify the technical method for proving a person’s age.

Several options are on the table, including providing ID and biometrics such as face scanning.

The government’s currently running an age assurance trial to assess all the methods, and it’s scheduled to continue into 2025.

Based on the results of that trial, eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant will make recommendations to platforms.

It’s possible that Australians will be asked to provide their IDs or biometric data directly to social media companies in order to use their platforms, but that’s not guaranteed.

Many of the big players, including Meta, have instead argued for the age verification onus to be placed on app stores, rather than individual platforms, as that would mean proving your age once — rather than every time you sign up to a platform.

It’s also possible that a third-party company that specialises in ID verification will act as a go-between between users and social media platforms.

No matter which model is adopted, the prime minister has said privacy protections will be introduced to cover any data people end up providing.

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      13·
      6 days ago

      just like religion; you gotta indoctrinate them while they’re young & impressionable so that they will more easily accept your biases as reality; otherwise they’ll be corrupted by information from unapproved sources like tiktok

      • pineapple@lemmy.mlEnglish
        2·
        5 days ago

        Well tiktok is one of the worse sources to obtain information from in my opinion because you pretty much guaranteed to only get information and opinions from people who align with your ideologies.

      • Dave.@aussie.zone
        51·
        6 days ago

        you gotta indoctrinate them while they’re young & impressionable so that they will more easily accept your biases as reality;

        Lol and social media companies are just such complete white knights too and would never engage in such tactics.

        • eldavi@lemmy.ml
          3·
          6 days ago

          They’re no more nor less white knight than facebook; but facebook is on the approved list because it complied willingly where tiktok can’t.

  • biggerbogboy@sh.itjust.works
    9·
    5 days ago

    After hearing about this proposal for three months now, I still believe it’s fucked up, especially the fact they don’t even know what method they’ll use, whether it’s digital IDs (which will take likely at least a decade to become mainstream), facial scanning (authoritarian as fuck), or some other shitty proposal.

    There’s also the fact as a child I wasn’t able to go out very much, so social media was useful to me, especially to give me time with friends digitally, and as a time burner, which can be detrimental for a child in a similar place to have it all banned.

    In all ways this happens, this will either be extremely authoritarian or would not be necessary as all people set their birth dates to their exact one every time without any variation, like magic, as if that shit would ever happen.

  • Matt@lemmy.ml
    8·
    5 days ago

    If they want to employ bank-style KYC, then no. >!Fediverse is better.!<

  • rcbrk@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
    20·
    6 days ago

    What will this mean for Lemmy instances? XMPP servers? Email servers?

    What if a 15 year old runs their own personal Mastodon server? LoL this is gonna be yet another entertaining Australian government shitshow.

  • GolfNovemberUniform@lemmy.ml
    13·
    6 days ago

    No matter which model is adopted, the prime minister has said privacy protections will be introduced to cover any data people end up providing.

    Sure. Now stop thinking of ridiculous legal aspects and fight for your privacy.

  • PirateMike94@lemmy.world
    8·
    5 days ago

    The same way porn and alcohol is banned for those under 18? Mkay mate, I doubt anything will come out of this.

  • fubbernuckin@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    153·
    6 days ago

    I can’t believe how fucked this is. Social media isn’t always the healthiest thing, but banning it? I was hardly allowed to leave my house as a kid, i have no idea what i would’ve done if i couldn’t talk to my peers online.

  • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
    11·
    6 days ago

    Maybe kids will start learning how to use a desktop properly… The Linux variety 🐸

    WTF is AU government gonna about that haha

  • pineapple@lemmy.mlEnglish
    2·
    5 days ago

    I think there needs to be some legislation done in terms of limiting commercial social media platforms although I’m not sure how someone would go about this. Would they ban social media cites that take peoples data? maybe they should ban cites that display ads? What about making all social media cites to support an open protocol like activity pub or similar so your not locked into using there scummy closed source apps.