Our government intends to spruik this at the UN and get other countries on board.
Our government has said there will always be a non id method
Youtube will still be accessible it is just the account making/usership which will be banned
Posting my threaded comment higher up:
I'm an australian who completed the esafety survey which helped guide this policy. I pushed for anonymous temporary age verification tokens generated through a government app.
Social media is undermining the fabric of our societies and destroying a whole generations emotional development and institutionalising a culture of infectious insecurity. I support this- in part because I know those who want to get around enough or be private will always find a way, but it has a positive, reality affirming effect on the public.
Watch the press conference from our PM and comms minister from yesterday to make up your mind on if this is coming from a place of compassion or control. They have said repeatedly they will always ensure a non id method is ensured. I know there are flaws in that though. https://youtu.be/SCSMQUmrh38?feature=shared
It's interesting to see that the press conference felt so uniquely grounded in reality and authentically emotional- maybe that's because they are directly challenging the delegitimising impermanent reality of social media-
Yes they did bring families with children who had passed from social media abuse on stage but it felt genuine. Doesn't mean your privacy concerns aren't real but they don't always trump protecting a childs emotional development.
And the kicker is that the above app doesn't even need to exist since myGov could just use industry standard TOTP two-factor auth like the dozens of other services I use.
Aussie politicians once again conforming to their lucky country stereotype:
"Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise."
I'm not saying aus government online portals and services aren't top tier dog shit- but doing an age token through mygov is the best approach, hopefully with enough pressure to make it non shit.
The alternative is an acceleration of the negative cultural trends and atomisation we have now.
You don't get to cry about the negative effects of social media but also cry about censoring it/protecting an impressionable population from it at the same time.
> I'm not saying aus government online portals and services aren't top tier dog shit- but doing an age token through mygov is the best approach, hopefully with enough pressure to make it non shit.
This is a pure fantasy that you seem to recognise on some level.
You know all of the government apps are "top tier shit". You experience this, yourself, first hand. It's not some statistic, or report.
This, this is what any form of mandatory ID verification will be: shit. Top tier shit made by the most expensive consultancies using the cheapest possible outsourced Indian labour.
Source: First-hand experience working in the IT departments of the very same people that made MyGov ID.
Which the government doesn't care about. This may have something to do that people don't criticise the government when they are just losing their life's savings.
It's worth scrutinizing the philosophical mental model implicit in your opinion.
Do you wait for conclusive empirical evidence before doing anything? Or do you run an experiment in one country based on an informed opinion and see what happens?
I am more inclined to pursue the latter model for this question.
The case against youth social media makes logical sense, there is circumstantial evidence that it's having a negative impact, and I have enough experience with data to know how difficult it is to demonstrate that it's true empirically without a large-scale natural experiment like the one that's about to happen when this law passes.
A lack of evidence should not paralyze you on questions where conclusive evidence is very hard to assemble. Especially when action will create evidence.
For a substantial hindrance and costly compliance to be introduced then the burden of proof is on those trying to apply new law. The government has not done this.
If there is a 'mental health epidemic' caused by social media it really isn't showing.
Australia's Prime Minister did an interview where he was asked 'What would you do if you could pass one law' . His response was 'ban social media' because people are so mean on it.
Last I checked it was the parents' primary job to protect a child's emotional development. And yes some kids might not be fortunate enough to have caring parents but I'm pretty sure that alone would fuck them up more than social media. But hey let us continue to make the world a safe space lest Western parents actually parent their children.
" lest Western parents actually parent their children."
I don't understand this argument I keep hearing. What is your understanding of parenting that doesn't involve controlling what they are exposed to? It sounds like you want to say, parents should parent in any way that doesn't burden non-parents. Why would that be in a democracy?
Western parents currently spend way more time and effort directly "parenting" then used to be a historical standard. This jab is completely ridiculous.
Also, relatedly, it is uniquely modern western idea that parent has to control everything alone by himself and have the kid under perfect control every moment.
I wish it wasn't the case but have you seen how emotionally retarded (correct use of the word) this generation of children is? Compare it to even 20 years before. We wouldn't need to do this if more parents actually did their job. By the nature of the social media monoculture it's harder than ever to shield kids from anti intellectualism. Each school basically has the same culture- good and the bad.
> Youtube will still be accessible it is just the account making/usership which will be banned
Then what difference will it make in practice? Do the legislators really think that kids being able to comment on videos was the most harmful thing about the platform? YouTube will still be able to give you suggestions and send you down a rabbit hole of smoothbrain content even if you use it without an account.
> I support this- in part because I know those who want to get around enough or be private will always find a way, but it has a positive, reality affirming effect on the public.
It sounds like you admit that this has mostly signal value.
I really don't understand how you can support this.
It has some signal value, but it's also a part of creating a culture where social media isn't mandatory in the greater society and the workforce- which has a lot of benefits- and not exposing the next generation to the crushing double demoralisation of AI/Machine learning and social media hyperconnectivity which no generation has had before and could ruin them imo.
I do believe in this so ask whatever tricky questions you want.
I don't understand how age restrictions on signup should prevent that, since "greater society and workforce" largely includes people over the age of 18.
I think age restrictions are a misguided attempt at fixing the root issue. I am not against draconian legislation against social media giants, but age restrictions on the internet will negatively affect everyone other than the social media giants the most. I think the main problem with social media right now is the incentives that the tech companies have to optimize for engagement above anything else, and the reason they have that incentive is simple: targeted ads are an insanely lucrative business model. The fix is pretty simple, but draconian: ban any form of targeted advertising on any digital platform.
Age restrictions will just cause a loss of privacy, increase the risk of government censorship, increase the risk of government misusing this for imposing morals and risk causing smaller independent sites to become inaccessible to the young even if they don't actively promote inappropriate content (I will also claim that defining what is child-appropriate content on the internet is impossible). Last but not least, the proposed technical solutions for this, at least in the EU, rely heavily on technologies such as Google Play Integrity and Apple App Attest, which means that they basically require EU citizens to accept Google's or Apple's TOS if they want to participate on the internet, and further preclude them from using an alternative open source operating system such as LineageOS or GrapheneOS. This alone is enough of a reason that I am fiercely against this, but it is by far not the only reason.
Keep the internet free and open for the users, but regulate the hell out of predatory business models.
Not when the parents whose children lost their lives are the ones who organised the campaigns. These aren't the hypothetical wolves in sheeps clothing that emotionally vacuous and selfish digital libertarian types love to salivate over but are real people who have suffered real consequences.
So frustrating spending years fighting against censorship, people protested on the streets when SOPA and ACTA were a thing and now they are advocating for even more dangerous censorship. ACTA hasn't become law but internet censorship is on an unprecedented level in Europe (see Spain).
> Social media is undermining the fabric of our societies and destroying a whole generations emotional development and institutionalising a culture of infectious insecurity. I support this-
YOU are undermining the fabric of society.
With the excuse of "protecting children" you're trying to destroy the last semblances of privacy and the ability to dissent.
Fuck your using children as a shield. You're hurting them like you did supporting covid policies.
You don't help children isolating them and censoring them and their parents.
Disgusting Propaganda of the lowest form. War on terror. War on drugs. War on disinformation.
I don't want privacy to be gone. I want a free internet to still exist for those who are educated enough to bypass firewalls and monitors, I would kill to have a knowledge gated internet again, but I want barriers to harm for children. Why do we card kids for R18+ games but not the internet. It's fundamentally stupid and unhealthy for our society.
If everyone moved back to non algorithmically addictive forums and self segregated by age I would have no issues with that and wouldn't see the need for regulation. That is not the world we live in and we have so obviously seen people self select a terrible and damaging digital world that gives idiocracy a run for its money. Hysteria is sometimes a warranted reaction.
I think it is an important step making social media illegal for children to them reclaiming reality, and re seperating the adult and child social worlds like they used to be. The implementation is the main part for many and I get that.
You're so morally detached from the situation it's borderline sociopathic. Keep living your techno libertarian larp fantasy, I'm sure it's so much more important than the real world.
Peoples lives aren't just hypothetical moral scenarios to point score on. Inaction has had and will continue to have real world consequences that you refuse to address. Don't complain about how bad the world is if you wont give up a single inch of your life to accomodate others and made their childhood in this sociopathic modern hellscape any easier. Have you even seen how much more stunted this generation is in ideology, emotion and idealism. If a non regulated internet worked for children we wouldn't be here.
You're a piece of human garbage and call me morally detached. Go f yourself.
Techno libertarian fantasy? Dude. You don't know anything about history. Get some life experience. Fight real injustice some day and come back to me. Have you ever engaged in politics or been at a protest?
> Inaction has had and will continue to have real world consequences that you refuse to address.
Inaction is better than action when the action is harmful theater.
> Don't complain about how bad the world is if you wont give up a single inch of your life to accomodate others and made their childhood in this sociopathic modern hellscape any easier
You're a predator. See how easy it is to paint scary pictures? Modern hellscape? Lol
> Have you even seen how much more stunted this generation is in ideology, emotion and idealism. If a non regulated internet worked for children we wouldn't be here.
You're a zealot. Really. You've made no arguments but appeals to emotions and attacks. We're done. We're not scared of you, your accusations or your fake morals. You're exactly like a religious zealot coming to oppress us for our greater good. No one asked you. Our speech, bodies and mind, our choice. Over my fucking dead body, authoritarian parasite.
Our government intends to spruik this at the UN and get other countries on board.
Our government has said there will always be a non id method
Youtube will still be accessible it is just the account making/usership which will be banned
Posting my threaded comment higher up:
I'm an australian who completed the esafety survey which helped guide this policy. I pushed for anonymous temporary age verification tokens generated through a government app.
Social media is undermining the fabric of our societies and destroying a whole generations emotional development and institutionalising a culture of infectious insecurity. I support this- in part because I know those who want to get around enough or be private will always find a way, but it has a positive, reality affirming effect on the public.
Watch the press conference from our PM and comms minister from yesterday to make up your mind on if this is coming from a place of compassion or control. They have said repeatedly they will always ensure a non id method is ensured. I know there are flaws in that though. https://youtu.be/SCSMQUmrh38?feature=shared
It's interesting to see that the press conference felt so uniquely grounded in reality and authentically emotional- maybe that's because they are directly challenging the delegitimising impermanent reality of social media-
Yes they did bring families with children who had passed from social media abuse on stage but it felt genuine. Doesn't mean your privacy concerns aren't real but they don't always trump protecting a childs emotional development.