Australian Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 | Hacker News Reader

Australian Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024

aph.gov.au

34 pointsarunc13 comments

As someone living in Australia this law is ridiculous and basically outlaws a chunk of my childhood where I used forums, irc, and blogs.

As a parent I do share concerns for short duration video content like Tiktok, Reels, and Youtube shorts etc, but I think any sensible regulation there would be better suited to everyone.

Age verification has such terrible consequences to anonymity that it shouldn't be an option. From the Explanatory Memorandum it looks like the current eSafety Commissioner was involved which unfortunately explains a lot.

The question to me is, not how will Aussie teens fare without social media, but rather will they fare better using social media through the inevitable workarounds compared to using the mainstream platforms that are now banned? Sometimes pushing networks underground results in greater danger and unintended consequences.

We banned drugs a hundred years ago but they're still universally available and have gotten stronger and cheaper. Plus, impure drugs and black market violence leads to scores of avoidable deaths. We waged war on file sharing but I can still download anything under the sun with ease. And the increasingly clever and hardened networks that enable that also enable the sharing of vile materials. And we know that trying to suppress sex not only fails but results in unintended pregnancies and the spread of disease.

It will be very interesting to see how young people adapt. But whatever the outcome, it's bound to involve fewer guardrails, less monitoring and less accountability than we see with the startups and megacorps that young people rely on today.

When drugs were banned they were increasingly being used everywhere. Vin Mariani [1], a wine loaded with cocaine, was not only the inspiration for CocaCola's original recipe of cocaine+kola nut, but was endorsee by countless upstanding individuals. Thomas Edison was among them - praising the drink for increasing his energy levels and helping him stay awake.

Beyond this employers were giving it to workers to increase their productivity and more - we were basically turning into a nation of coke heads.

Now long after its ban you can obviously still get it, relatively easily even, but it's relegated to the darker recesses of society, like the White House, and that is undoubtedly a tremendous improvement.

Good is not the enemy of perfect.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin_Mariani

Drugs are currently being increasingly used everywhere, despite the endless fortunes spent, civil liberties curtailed and human beings caged. And drug bans aren't only not perfect, and staggeringly ineffective, their impact is well-documented as consistently resulting in the opposite of the supposedly intended outcomes.

Defending the drug war? In this decade? Get real.

How are they planning to enforce this, apart from fines?

Sounds like an indirect attempt to create online digital ids, and to kill anonymity.

Has this been implemented anywhere else in the world other than China?

[dupe] discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42264733

Is this HNs hug of death or has the website always been so slow :/

Edit: No I take it back. It was my derpy connection

I oppose the bill on principle. That said, I can see some positive that can come of it (for Australians) which has nothing to do with safety. Still, I'm not convinced that Australian politicians are actually working for Australian interests there. Also the timing seems bad. They should have done it before Elon bought Twitter. Now it looks totalitarian. Could be one of those bills pushed by foreign entities... Could be pushed to tarnish Australia to reduce the current insane levels of inbound capital flight to Australia. Many people really want to see a housing price crash, for example. Also, we shouldn't discount the desire that foreign entities have in controlling global narratives to shape global economics.

Australia has long been one of the most restrictive and ban-happy Western nations. This law isn't out of character at all given their culture and politics, and it passed with broad support across the political spectrum.

> it passed with broad support across the political spectrum

The Labor (historically centre-left, but now neoliberal centre-right), Liberal (classical liberal, right-centre-right) parties rammed it through parliament and National (right-wing agrarian socialist - i.e. handouts for farmers, exploitation for imported farm labour). Most of the cross-bench, including the Greens, rejected it or at least wanted more time for scrutiny.

Here's my rough idea of the political spectrum:

    ------------X-----0---X--X-----X---------
              Greens  |Labor |   One Nation
                    Centre  Coalition (= Liberal+National)

Labor is playing small target and ensuring that no daylight is visible between them and the Liberal party. The policy is something that Murdoch's News Corp has been pushing for months [1]. With a federal election coming next year, Labor are keen to comply with Murdoch's wishes in the hopes that it will protect them from unfavourable media coverage. After all, Murdoch owns 70% of the print media in Australia. It also has to be said that Labor are cosy with the Catholics and somewhat authoritarian on freedom of speech (remember Labor's attempt at internet censorship?).

From Murdoch's perspective, this is a form of reprisal against his new-media competition. From the perspective of the billionaire oligarch class, it's a handy way to unmask anonymous commenters so they can be sued into oblivion for defamation.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8SkLRxFRVM The media campaign to ban social media for teenagers | Media Watch

Only 13 votes against in the 151-member Australian house. The 5 member-green block was the only organized opposition. 77% of Aussies support the bill in a recent poll. This is about as close as the modern Western world gets to unanimity.

People involved are calling this the Haidt Bill. I guess the mad lad did it after all!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com