It's interesting that elements in the government are "so concerned" about what these children see online, and are exposed to.
All over the country, there are trams, trains, buses, billboards, TV and newspaper ads plastered absolutely everywhere for all types of alcohol and every gambling platform under the sun... but apparently thats not a problem for the kids.
This is just paving the way for more privacy-invading mechanisms the government will use to spy on its citizens.
15
Salvo - 6day
Not to mention the garbage on TV.
I’m not a prude, but WTF is “Love Island”.
If you want to watch Soft-Core, watch Soft-Core, it is more cerebral than this rubbish.
5
Insekticus - 6day
Exactly, shows like that surely show healthy relationships and how normal people behave. Including the incredibly normal and easy to obtain perceptions of beauty they show. That definitely won't ruin teenagers self images at all.
4
No1 - 6day
Sadly, they are missing the point.
It's not about age. The goal is that you will have to submit ID so that you will be fully identifiable anywhere.
None of them addressed this -and security and privacy- concerns, even in passing. Which they will all be required to do to access social media once they turn 16.
11
Zagorath - 6day
The goal is that you will have to submit ID
The law actually specifically forbids any social media site from requiring ID as their only acceptable proof of age. There was certainly a lack of care for the security and privacy implications of the law, but I do not for one second believe that this was because the intent was to gather ID. That sounds like cooker conspiracy nonsense.
9
No1 - 6day
Laws are not permanent. You can get to your final destination one step at a time.
Let's see what the alternatives to ID are. If they are worse, or much more difficult than providing ID, then it's effectively the same thing.
5
melbaboutown - 6day
Unfortunately the other methods don’t necessarily work. Face scans are unreliable (and equally unacceptable to me) and age of account means little if you kept changing them or made it more recently.
5
Zagorath - 5day
I am genuinely appalled that the government even considers face scans an acceptable method. It's such an insane ill-informed lazy AI-techbro-inspired BS notion.
But anyway, I'm not defending the legislation itself. It's completely misidentifying the actual problem, and thus aiming itself at a solution that does not address that problem. Which is tech companies building algorithms that are specifically designed to cause harm. What I am doing is dispelling the ludicrous notion that this is part of some deliberate intent to invade people's privacy and gain information that, by and large, the government already has access to.
6
melbaboutown - 5day
Debatably not the original intention on the part of the government… probably. Incredibly convenient and will be used for surveillance and data brokering? Very likely.
2
blind3rdeye - 5day
Notice the method used by this website, aussie.zone. It's very informal, it is flexible, and it does not require any ID or face photo. Until informed otherwise we can only assume that this does comply with the law. It is a set of reasonable measure to ensure that underage children do not have an account.
Obviously none of these methods are reliable. Obviously. But it is also not the point. Very few existing laws of any kind can be enforced with total reliability, including traffic laws, drug laws, firearm laws, sexual consent, software piracy, and basically every other kind of law you can think of. There are always work-arounds and blind-spots. But that doesn't mean the laws are not helpful.
For the social media ban, I think the lightest touch enforcement is all that is required. A token effort, just to communicate that yes this is an actual law. Before by and large, children will follow the law - and parents will help their children to follow the law. It obviously will not eliminate social media usage, but it will reduce it - and that's the goal.
The privacy concerns are very important, and its a major legitimate sore-spot on this law. That's why the law is written such that ID cannot be required. I personally would not have supported the introduction of the social media ban, but I also don't think actively opposing it is helpful either. We do know with great confidence that social media usage is harmful; and so it does make sense that we should try to address that harm. The ban is the proposed solution. I don't think we need to fall-over ourselves to defend the right of companies to manipulate our youth. The privacy issue is real though. Efforts must be made to avoid creating a new problem while trying to fix the existing one.
1
melbaboutown - 5day
Oh yeah, the companies are actively manipulative and unethical. Even predatory. And excessive social media or internet consumption is terrible for anyone. I certainly know that.
2
blind3rdeye - 4day
Yeah. I'm only just realising now that although my post was in response to yours, very little what of what I wrote is directed at you or even related to what you said.
I'm sorry if it kind of sounds like I'm disagreeing with you, or posting a counter argument or anything like that. That wasn't my intention. It's really just that your post got me thinking a little bit and so I typed up some thoughts and posted them.
2
melbaboutown - 4day
It’s all good, I do that myself
2
eureka - 5day
I really do hope we see a silver lining of less children being sucked into predatory social media platforms.
While I have issues with this law and privacy implications, and whether it could possibly be enforced with most teens, there are serious benefits to kicking people off of commercial social media.
5
melbaboutown - 6day
There’s one conversation that’s glaringly absent. Why are there so many kids spending so much time online? Other than it being addictive and the easiest option.
Why is it the easiest option? If kids and teens aren’t meant to be chronically online, where are they allowed to be outside of structured activities? Where are they supposed to hang out informally?
Obviously I don’t want to share the same online spaces as minors. There’s actually been a lot of problems with disruptive behaviour and harassing adults as well as the predatory behaviour of adults to kids and teens. It’s a bad mix and not even getting into what they access.
But if I had kids I wouldn’t want to let them hang out at Northland or near Elizabeth st. I’d be a bit worried to let them roam around the local area after Bung Siriboon. Neither would I be able to drive them around everywhere. I don’t even know if parents working a lot could arrange a carpool to take them because nuclear families seem a lot more isolated now.
Some might have good options (safe parks, friends house nearby with willing parents that aren’t working from home/are safe to be around/can afford to feed them or have space for hosting more bodies, public transport to things or to even meet up) and others might not. Friends might live quite far apart because of where whose family could afford to live, or have to move frequently if renting.
Not every kid is into sports, not every family can afford activities or pocket money to do things with friends, not every place is walkable or has many amenities (I’m looking at those new estates with nothing but houses and very car dependent) and there’s always going to be unstructured time.
(Which might equally be spent drinking in parks or hanging out in the woods. But whatever.)
Also I think a bunch of kids games and online gathering spots died so they breached containment into less appropriate parts of the internet.
I’m not saying kids and teens on the internet is good because it seriously isn’t.
Just saying that cultural and economic factors have changed a lot since the norm was for kids to spend a lot of time in meatspace. Late stage capitalism and the pandemic probably magnified it.
So the root causes of the problems might need to be looked at rather than just make something illegal and dubiously enforceable.
4
Gorgritch_Umie_Killa - 5day
I'm going to engage in some rather shameful self promotion of a post about the Solid project, which aims for social linked data thats decentralised and owned by its creators. Solid - on RTFA. I think the subject around age verification, and its associated increased requirements of identification could be managed by the Solid network more succesfully, (for the users and data creators), than each of these monolith social media companies.
Wulsko in australia
‘Everyone will miss the socialising – but it’s also a relief’: five young teens on Australia’s social media ban
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/dec/07/five-young-teens-on-australia-u16-social-media-banIt's interesting that elements in the government are "so concerned" about what these children see online, and are exposed to.
All over the country, there are trams, trains, buses, billboards, TV and newspaper ads plastered absolutely everywhere for all types of alcohol and every gambling platform under the sun... but apparently thats not a problem for the kids.
This is just paving the way for more privacy-invading mechanisms the government will use to spy on its citizens.
Not to mention the garbage on TV. I’m not a prude, but WTF is “Love Island”. If you want to watch Soft-Core, watch Soft-Core, it is more cerebral than this rubbish.
Exactly, shows like that surely show healthy relationships and how normal people behave. Including the incredibly normal and easy to obtain perceptions of beauty they show. That definitely won't ruin teenagers self images at all.
Sadly, they are missing the point.
It's not about age. The goal is that you will have to submit ID so that you will be fully identifiable anywhere.
None of them addressed this -and security and privacy- concerns, even in passing. Which they will all be required to do to access social media once they turn 16.
The law actually specifically forbids any social media site from requiring ID as their only acceptable proof of age. There was certainly a lack of care for the security and privacy implications of the law, but I do not for one second believe that this was because the intent was to gather ID. That sounds like cooker conspiracy nonsense.
Laws are not permanent. You can get to your final destination one step at a time.
Let's see what the alternatives to ID are. If they are worse, or much more difficult than providing ID, then it's effectively the same thing.
Unfortunately the other methods don’t necessarily work. Face scans are unreliable (and equally unacceptable to me) and age of account means little if you kept changing them or made it more recently.
I am genuinely appalled that the government even considers face scans an acceptable method. It's such an insane ill-informed lazy AI-techbro-inspired BS notion.
But anyway, I'm not defending the legislation itself. It's completely misidentifying the actual problem, and thus aiming itself at a solution that does not address that problem. Which is tech companies building algorithms that are specifically designed to cause harm. What I am doing is dispelling the ludicrous notion that this is part of some deliberate intent to invade people's privacy and gain information that, by and large, the government already has access to.
Debatably not the original intention on the part of the government… probably. Incredibly convenient and will be used for surveillance and data brokering? Very likely.
Notice the method used by this website, aussie.zone. It's very informal, it is flexible, and it does not require any ID or face photo. Until informed otherwise we can only assume that this does comply with the law. It is a set of reasonable measure to ensure that underage children do not have an account.
Obviously none of these methods are reliable. Obviously. But it is also not the point. Very few existing laws of any kind can be enforced with total reliability, including traffic laws, drug laws, firearm laws, sexual consent, software piracy, and basically every other kind of law you can think of. There are always work-arounds and blind-spots. But that doesn't mean the laws are not helpful.
For the social media ban, I think the lightest touch enforcement is all that is required. A token effort, just to communicate that yes this is an actual law. Before by and large, children will follow the law - and parents will help their children to follow the law. It obviously will not eliminate social media usage, but it will reduce it - and that's the goal.
The privacy concerns are very important, and its a major legitimate sore-spot on this law. That's why the law is written such that ID cannot be required. I personally would not have supported the introduction of the social media ban, but I also don't think actively opposing it is helpful either. We do know with great confidence that social media usage is harmful; and so it does make sense that we should try to address that harm. The ban is the proposed solution. I don't think we need to fall-over ourselves to defend the right of companies to manipulate our youth. The privacy issue is real though. Efforts must be made to avoid creating a new problem while trying to fix the existing one.
Oh yeah, the companies are actively manipulative and unethical. Even predatory. And excessive social media or internet consumption is terrible for anyone. I certainly know that.
Yeah. I'm only just realising now that although my post was in response to yours, very little what of what I wrote is directed at you or even related to what you said.
I'm sorry if it kind of sounds like I'm disagreeing with you, or posting a counter argument or anything like that. That wasn't my intention. It's really just that your post got me thinking a little bit and so I typed up some thoughts and posted them.
It’s all good, I do that myself
I really do hope we see a silver lining of less children being sucked into predatory social media platforms.
While I have issues with this law and privacy implications, and whether it could possibly be enforced with most teens, there are serious benefits to kicking people off of commercial social media.
There’s one conversation that’s glaringly absent. Why are there so many kids spending so much time online? Other than it being addictive and the easiest option.
Why is it the easiest option? If kids and teens aren’t meant to be chronically online, where are they allowed to be outside of structured activities? Where are they supposed to hang out informally?
Obviously I don’t want to share the same online spaces as minors. There’s actually been a lot of problems with disruptive behaviour and harassing adults as well as the predatory behaviour of adults to kids and teens. It’s a bad mix and not even getting into what they access.
But if I had kids I wouldn’t want to let them hang out at Northland or near Elizabeth st. I’d be a bit worried to let them roam around the local area after Bung Siriboon. Neither would I be able to drive them around everywhere. I don’t even know if parents working a lot could arrange a carpool to take them because nuclear families seem a lot more isolated now.
Some might have good options (safe parks, friends house nearby with willing parents that aren’t working from home/are safe to be around/can afford to feed them or have space for hosting more bodies, public transport to things or to even meet up) and others might not. Friends might live quite far apart because of where whose family could afford to live, or have to move frequently if renting.
Not every kid is into sports, not every family can afford activities or pocket money to do things with friends, not every place is walkable or has many amenities (I’m looking at those new estates with nothing but houses and very car dependent) and there’s always going to be unstructured time.
(Which might equally be spent drinking in parks or hanging out in the woods. But whatever.)
Also I think a bunch of kids games and online gathering spots died so they breached containment into less appropriate parts of the internet.
I’m not saying kids and teens on the internet is good because it seriously isn’t.
Just saying that cultural and economic factors have changed a lot since the norm was for kids to spend a lot of time in meatspace. Late stage capitalism and the pandemic probably magnified it.
So the root causes of the problems might need to be looked at rather than just make something illegal and dubiously enforceable.
I'm going to engage in some rather shameful self promotion of a post about the Solid project, which aims for social linked data thats decentralised and owned by its creators. Solid - on RTFA. I think the subject around age verification, and its associated increased requirements of identification could be managed by the Solid network more succesfully, (for the users and data creators), than each of these monolith social media companies.
Since that post i've also found this article which gives a nice description of the network. Tim Berners-Lee's Solid explained: What you need to know - Andy Patrizio
Oh look, more selective shit to spread propaganda. Guardian full of idiots again.
It seemed like there were differentiating opinions?