Australia's social media ban has failed | Hacker News Reader

Australia's social media ban has failed

reuters.com

35 pointsBlueBerry2001127 comments

It has been banned for a few months. Hardly a failure.

It will be a failure if 10 year olds continue to join social media at the rate they have done so in the past.

It’s not likely to get 15 year olds who have been addicted for 5 years off it, anymore than smoking bans have any impact on teens who have been smoking or vaping for years.

There is some effect however. Many kids including mine used to have there first phone around their 10th birthday. Now I see parents around me waiting longer due to the ban.

Sure if you are 15 you can get a phone yourself, but for younger kids the ban has a positive effect.

Exactly. This is a pathetic excuse of “journalism”

That goes too far in the opposite direction.

Here in Australia, every parent I have spoken to is happy about the ban.

The media is predictably unhappy since they lose eyeballs, advertising revenue and money.

Previous approaches like expecting parents to educate children failed miserably.

Most parents lacked at least one or more of motivation, time or knowledge.

> The media is predictably unhappy

this is an article by reuters, they are not affected by the ban.

Haha. I clicked the link and they wouldn’t show me the article until I disabled my ad blocker.

worked for me

Exactly. This is a propaganda piece from the social media platforms

Except, the report they are quoting is from the Aus government tasked with this.

https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-07/Early...

There's been a few surveys, some better than others ... but the reality is they don't matter that much. The ban was just another way to skin a cat - that cat in particular were the algorithms that were targeting specifically young kids which the public became alarmed about - iirc making the news on and off late 10s.

Social media needs not strive to ban every under 16 child ... but they surely will now be careful not to deploy those specific algorithms the public had complained about especially in regard to some of the harms it was said to be doing.

Using social media under 16 could be considered like driving without a licence ... and not too many under 16 children in Australia have a licence to drive on the roads - but in rural and remote areas, on those that are relatively safe roads, a number do, with or without their parents knowledge. Many years prior to the ban, social media could be considered to be vehicle rental companies which never saw any issue with hiring out faster and faster racing stock cars and motorbikes to kids ... and later when accidents happened, asked to perhaps be more mindful. Social media companies shrugged and said too hard. Now there is a ban [1] for under 16s, yes many children are going to still do it, but now, though it's technically against the law, some parents will evaluate their child is capable enough. The ban effectively ensures social media will need to be sure to rent out safe vehicles just in case because if there is a bad accident that an under 16 wouldn't be expected to avoid, mandatory consequences now apply. Social media companies are very well aware of this fact. They don't like it and as such running numerous campaigns - more often threatening in a roundabout between the lines manner that the only way for them to enforce a ban is to go down the road many folks fear, being all out full identification required to create / keep an account with them.

[1] Those parents who've wanted to pry their kids fingers from the phone that only visits social media areas, can finally put their foot down hard telling their kids no way until they are older when it's legal, and not have to put up with any bargaining when they lock down the wifi.

> Previous approaches like expecting parents to educate children failed miserably.

Did you read what the article said?

> parental awareness of their [children] online habits had actually declined.

From that perspective, it's even worse now.

I've said this to every single person who pushed for this.

"Imagine you're a teenager, and your parents and government tell you to not do something... What will happen?"

The answer is of course that they keep doing it anyhow. But hide it.

As an Aussie, and a parent. What I wanted was that the government mandate that in order for your website or app to launch in Australia, that if you want to allow kids between certain ages on the website/app. Then you need to have robust parental controls. Create family accounts where you can link parents and children, share whatever tracking/tracing you have with said parents and make it as good as you can. Mandate specific minimum controls based on what kind of type of app/website it is.

Put the control in the hands of the parents, and not this stupid one size fits all approach.

Won’t kids just make a new secret account that doesn’t belong to the family? Like you said, they will do it anyway

Still better than what we have now.

Nice idea but how are you going to prevent the kids from creating their own parent accounts while preserving people's privacy and without being too invasive?

You introduce it at a really young age, which is what we did for our daughter. She doesn't get access to anything that doesn't have good parental controls.

So far it's working fine, I expect that to change in the future. But it's also both the carrot and the stick at the moment.

As for creating parent accounts themselves. Imagine you've got a kid, you've created an account for you and the kid.. you have stats, data, usage etc. And suddenly the kids on their device all day, but you see nothing. That's how you know.

Will the kid find a way around it. Probably.. I expect them too. But it's still a hell of a lot better than what we have. Because it puts more control and visibility in the hands of the parents than it does the state and people like Peter Thiel.

Will there be idiot parents who just don't care. For sure. But thats already happening. You can't stop that.

That's what I meant... good parenting aside, I would wager the vast majority still need a way to get blocked because the parents aren't going to do it. As a country, that's what they're struggling with, and what I was asking for a better solution for.

We're at the point now at least in the US where pre-teens already have (secured) starter credit cards they got from a joint account with their parents and can now order anything online they want. And don't forget, companies automatically assume valid credit card = over 18.

We just need to go back to telling kids they cant go outside and cant have sex.

Here some types of small motorize vehicles can be used by persons under 16. Of course, they have built-in speed limiters.

What if we had this kind of distinction for mobile devices with Internet access? Adult's smartphone vs kid's smartphone?

It could be some sort of combo of a specific "for kids" SIM card (with, say, DNS blocking at ISP level and/or date of birth of the user) and a "kids hardened" OS that prevent bypasses and the parental monitoring tools you mention. The OS (in a wide sense, that could extend to the browser and other mission-critical programs) could be certified by some national agency; commercial products have to pay for the test, FLOSS projects could tested for free on request.

It'd be the sensible non-surveillance option. All that would be required is that the OS or SIM sold is a tiny bit different with a flag that the browsers/apps respect and that each website that accepts underage users sends a header that browsers can check and allow/disallow access. Compliance with child friendly legal requirements would still be with the company owning the website.

Of course it's not as attractive to the governments as putting in place a full scale surveillance aparatus that puts KGB to shame.

Well if one assumes "Never attribute to malice..." for a moment here, it's quite understandable that they'd like to kill 3 birds with one stone, and one would agree that having ways to fight against pedos and mafias is actually helping with one of the "mission statements" of most states.

However, laws are a delicate matter, especially those that have to limit some rights to guarantee others (here privacy and security). Making distinct laws for children protection and against online activities related to crime certainly should allow more fine tuning of each framework.

They're providing for lowest common denominator.

You already said you've got your own solution.

Yes. But there's holes in the solutions available. What's been interesting is watching a lot of these apps and sites try and add in some form or parental controls in an effort to try and dissuade other countries from doing the same.

What I'm asking for, is a mandated minimum set of controls. Which is far better than the sparse/spotty/nonexistent controls we have now.

You’re probably too young to remember when anti smoking laws were introduced to Australia. It took decades to change behaviours and attitudes. The cigarette industry did everything in their powers to undermine the laws. The social media giants are playing the same game.

I was running club and pub nights in Sydney when those laws came into effect. You're right, but one can argue given the current state of affairs things are now out of control.

Berlin is 20 years behind and has been phasing out smoking over the past few years. People still smoke in pubs and clubs. But less. It used to be inescapable that you'd leave the place with your hair and clothes smelling strongly of cigarettes. It's no longer that bad even though some people defy the rule.

> The answer is of course that they keep doing it anyhow. But hide it.

Not only hide it, but develop a (suddenly healthy) contempt for the rule of law.

What if that's the point? What if having to hide it means you do it less?

I haven't met a teen who behaves like this.

How many cigarettes did you smoke per day as a teen? Would you smoke more or less if you could do it anywhere anytime?

Banning social media for kids before banning junk food for kids when you have a childhood obesity/health crisis just shows which companies greased the hands that made the laws

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_obesity_in_Australia

Well, they have been trying to fight childhood obesity. It's just that as usual that's difficult too. Ultimately the failures will continue unless parents are the ones implementing meaningful change at home.

Of course it is going to fail especially if the social media networks are incentivized to make sure that it fails. The penalties should have been set at a per user basis.

The smoking laws took a long time to break through, this is the same.

I wish I can promote this to the whole internet. this is not the way to control the internet :)

Anecdotally, all the parents I know and have discussed this with are desperate for this to work.

How it should work I'm unsure in the big scheme of it, but we limit access to various things until age 18 here in Australia, and I think this is one long term battle that I believe the tech sector will lose.

I got bullied at school, but I'm not sure the solution would be to not let anyone in school talk to me :/

Reducing bulling isn't the primary goal with this kind of thing, more a secondary benefit.

Did you know that heroin (at the time, that was a registered trademark) was originally sold as a "non-addictive morphine substitute" to be used as cough suppressant?

People weren't at all sure how to even regulate substances in the early years of the 20th century, which is why when the US got Prohibition it was via a constitutional amendment rather than a mere law, even though they already knew about drugs laws and the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act predated Prohibition by about 5 years.

Right now, we're not sure how to even regulate social media.

They're not stopping anyone from physically talking to you(what's important).

They're stopping you/others from sending DM's/Tags/Meme's(what isn't important).

Rather than applying more bans, perhaps we should consider ways of living that allow parents to spend time talking to their children. Understanding what their days are like and the problems they face. For me much of this discussion and the excessive demand it takes from parents sounds more like a problem of the society as whole. That we are not having enough time to raise children since both parents are forced to work, best if they do it over 40 hours a week.

I know! How about new technology that "automates" stuff, letting them pay us lower wages to work more hours (if we're lucky to keep a job)? Maybe it should even be trained on our work

This feels a bit like whatboutism. While the transition might be hard this will sort out if it comes to that point. You (and in a possible future the AI) are producing stuff for people to consume. If no one is consuming stuff you earn no money and there is no reason to produce. So you want people to have money such that they can spend it.

It's not whataboutism, it's pointing out that your idea how parents should have more time and energy to make sure their children aren't badly affected by social media, instead of just banning it, is rosy-eyed when you consider reality. We are heading in the opposite direction.

This is a different problem, and law makers are in charge to change this direction.

How is it a different problem if your argument against the ban needs it to be true

I don't understand what you're trying to say sorry.

My proposition is that parents should have more time for their children. If they would have more time with them, they could fix issues and show to their children how to live a better life instead of becoming a social media controlled zombie. Someone else in this thread mentioned that obesity should be fixed first, different issue, same solution. Since parents are expect from our current society to work both over 40 hours a week they can not, and will not, educate their child. Since they can not they search for the simple solution that someone else has to do it and impose laws to solve the problem.

I feel like your point is tangential to this.

We don't think parental education wholly stops underage drinking or smoking, hence we have laws against it.

And it also does not stop underage drinking or smoking, despite having the law. I understand why we have this law as it has a physical impact and literaly no upsides.

However, smartphone usage and also the use of social media can have positive impact and is not inheritly damaging. Which is why I argue that a ban seems like the wrong direction.

>However, smartphone usage and also the use of social media can have positive impact and is not inheritly damaging. Which is why I argue that a ban seems like the wrong direction.

I'd be curious to see some literature on this. My understanding is A LOT of metrics/scores etc are tanking because of smartphone usage.

You seem to assume that if a single child still smokes or drinks, the law is a failure? That is not the case.

if i’m understanding what you’re saying correctly, it sounds like you think parental involvement is a) lacking, and b) would be effective in its own. i’m not sure either of those holds true.

it takes a village, even with fantastic family life, and these companies are trying to tell us they’re exempt from the village yet they still want to be part of it. this is how we got here to the government (us, the people) taking it to the next step.

had these companies done the correct thing and acknowledged their responsibilities as members of the village, other solutions may have been found. they have no one but themselves (and their cultists incessant defense of them) to blame.

in the real world, good kids from good families in good areas fall too. it’s naive to an extreme to believe those alone are enough.

Are you confusing some apps with the internet?

So we should just allowed big tech to do whatever they want because they can?

When we give everyone a computer and want to restrict a group of people from some of its capabilities (for their own good), the consequence is a restricted computer. Not giving everyone that computer in the first place could help ensure it stays a true general purpose computer.

Wow. Banning things actually doesn’t work and only makes everyone more secretive. What a surprise!

So banning CFCs didn’t work?

What about the FDA‘s bans on food ingredients?

They don’t work, companies just become more secretive?

These things you can check and penalize companies for violations.

As I said in the sibling comment, I’m talking about people’s own will. You can’t say “Ban smoking” and expect that all smokers quit.

You can ban smoking but you also have to fine the tobacco companies and smoking will drastically reduce.

You can’t ban something without severe consequences for the producers and just hope the consumer will follow the ban.

This. I should’ve clarified that

No one is expecting all the kids to quit social media. Just that less kids will use it and they'll use it less. And more kids won't use it at all.

I'll take one of these two. CFCs.

The problem with your example, is that any government body can randomly test the products from a company, and test for compliance. The government can also measure the CFCs in the atmosphere and look for a decrease year over year.

Right now, the Aus government isn't fining the companies, hopefully they will.

Did you ever hear of anti smoking laws? They took decades but have been extremely effective in Australia.

These ones help people to stop or avoid smoking. If you want to smoke, you still will.

As for social media, people don’t really want to stop or avoid using it

Everyone wanted to smoke. And then less people did. And the nobody did, apart from the ones who were already addicted. How do you attribute that?

Except ones who were already addicted make social connections with those who aren’t (yet).

You are right in the sense that less and less people smoke. You just can’t exclude that we are people and do stupid things to look cooler or something

Perhaps one can dream that we have a social media ban that affects HN and bans 35 and below. One can imagine if a ban is successful on one site then the kids flood another. It’ll be some kind of Thundering Herd Eternal September.

Parent of a Year 7 kid here (that's the first year of high school and a very common age at which all kids have phones).

The social media ban has been a wild success in preventing 11-year-olds having their social connections locked into the major social media platforms. Prior to the ban, if you weren't on insta you weren't connected. Now my kid talks to other kids on the phone or sends SMS, but also doesn't really stay in constant contact with their peers outside of school hours, they do their own thing or organise socialising themselves.

It's been hugely positive for interrupting the hostile social media companies from hijacking kids' social connections for the purpose of addictive algorithms to drive ad revenue.

From what I hear, once social media use is embedded in the older teenagers, they are all working around the ban very easily. The social media companies have made no real effort to enforce the ban or comply at anything more than a minimum level, and I wouldn't expect them to as they have absolutely no concept of social licence.

It's beautiful to see civil society take back one little bit of freedom from psychopathic oligarchs.

This is pathetic, it is like saying anti smoking laws failed because within a few months teens were still smoking. This is a generational change. No sane person ever expected teens already using social media would stop using social media. It is the next cohort that it is going to make a difference to.

I expect better from Reuters than to be the propaganda mouthpiece of social media platforms.

Ban the hardware, not the software.

Agree but the parents want the hardware for the kids' safety, and it has to be a smartphone specifically so the parents can GPS track them and to do facetime calls to prove they're OK...

So, are you suggesting that the legal use of smartphones should be banned for anyone under the age of 18? What kind of society do you want to live in?

A smart phone is a human right, according to you? Of course you can ban them. The addicts will have to wean off, but after that, there's no disadvantage.

Considering it's how many people engage in speech, yes.

And look where that has taken us. Perhaps that was true for the last few decades. But now that period is over, and our ability to exercise our right and to coordinate without it has atrophied to our great detriment.

<tangent>And then we look at AI and think "surely this time it will be different"</tangent>

What does that mean? The form suggests disagreement, but the content doesn't connect.

I think it is a human right that I decide for myself what is good for me and what is bad for me. I have for example Instagram and Facebook, but only to look what kind of Magic the Gathering Events are at the weekend, do I look at reels and doom scroll? No. So I would not say I am addicted despite having a smartphone.

Technology is in most of the cases not bad, and their use can enrich lives.

That's even worse than saying: fentanyl helps me overcome pain, so it should be felt available to everyone. You're either a hardcore contrarian or a hardcore libertarian. Or living under a rock?

Believe it or not, there are other ways for dealing with drug abuse then just banning everything. If one thing has become clear, it is that the war on drugs has failed. Instead of banning these products, they should be sold under a regulated and taxed system, with the tax revenue used to fund support programmes for those wishing to quit.

For example, in many countries that legalized Marijuana the number of addicts did not significantly rose. Further the police now have even less to do, as they do not need to control these people if they are taking this drug.

The drug dealers, i.c. Meta and consorts, do and will oppose regulation strongly. Didn't they get the blooming president of the USA himself to intervene on their behalf? That will lead too far too much leniency.

Furthermore, the supply chain isn't comparable to drugs: you cannot illegally import facebook, and you cannot make a ton of money out of it.

And legalization, i.e. the status quo, just keeps the problems too.

It's a bad metaphor.

BTW, I explicitly mentioned fentanyl. It is regulated. And we all know what happens when you release it for free. Now that I think about it, you didn't reply to the argument at all. You just mention war on drugs, then shift to marijuana in a kind of gotcha style and hope no-one notices.

I'm not sure the fentanyl argument works at all. People weren't informed or warned about the risks it could pose, and it was often given without their exact knowledge of what they were taking. Unlike social media, where many of the risks are widely discussed. So if you say the war on drugs is a bad metaphor I guess I could say the same about fentanyl?

The one we lived in 1995?

And why not the one 1895? Some people seem to prefer this as well, but you perhaps would not like it.

If you prefer living without a smartphone its completly up to you and I would always stand for your right to not have one, but on the other side I am also standing for the right to have one if someone desires one.

I mean there was a time where only adults would typically have a mobile phone.

Times change. There was also a time where only man were allowed to vote, I do not get your point.

Point is banning phones for kids might be the kind of society I want to live in.

Are you also standing up for the right of 12 year olds to access porn and graphic violence though?

That's a somewhat loaded question, I'll assume you're not (correct me if I'm wrong) and move on to the question of should 12 year olds have smartphones and if so how should they limit access to porn and graphic violence when used by 12 year olds?

Please don't fob this off by requiring that all parents should have CS degrees or IT qualifications, that's not a thing.

Do you think 12yos have a right to stab each other to death? Why don't you support a knife ban if you don't want this to happen?

No.

What if I were in the UK and supported the UK's zombie knife bans and general principle of police right to stop and question people carry knives?

You seem to be making assumptions here.

I think this is a very funny question. Since different countries seem to answer this very differently.

In countries like the US the first Season of The Walking Dead was aired with an age rating of TV-14. At the same time the same in Germany this season was rated with an Rating of 18 (Germany uses 0,6,12,18 as ages for rating). So I am somewhat puzzled. Similar when a movie shows a pair of boobs or at least implies some sexual elements the US tend to rate the movie often with their MA-rating. However, in Germany thats different. It seems we have different children in both countries. As the ones in the US are more okay with violence and it does not affect them, where the childs in Germany are more okay with sexual elements.

This was just an example how stupid many rating systems are, their are very dependent on the country and the society you live in. So there is no inherent universalism to what a 12 or a 14 or a 16 year old should see or not.

My point, and I tried to argue this multiple times in this post, is that a goverment should not simply impose more and more bans and restrictions. This seems like the easy way out, but has always drawbacks. One is already described in the article, namely that the parents already start loosing awareness that the internet might be a dangerous place. Since they think: Yeah, there is a ban so its solved!

We should rather give the parents the time such that they can communicate often enough with their child to understand what problems its facing. In what kind of world the child lives and what they are consuming. If both parents are working 40 hours+ each week, they are not able to do this. Someone also mentioned in this thread "why is obesity not first fixed.", it might be a different issue, but the solution is the same. More time for parents mean that they can cook more healthy meals and do not rely on garbage food because they are stressed out.

> a goverment should not simply impose more and more bans and restrictions.

Fair point. I'd argue that a government should work to the benefit of that governments employers, aka its citizens.

eg: In the instance where parent citizens want more control over phones that flood in from outside, particularly when

> both parents are working 40 hours+ each week, [and] they are not able to do this

for themselves.

I can see the appeal of a UBI income and a minimum wage guaranteed to support parents and families on 20 hours of work per week but that doesn't seem to be as immediate and practical a solution as, for example, a government requiring foreign actors to adhere to certain standards, or requiring foreign hardware suppliers to issue child safe smart phones, or opening a tender for functional parental control software for phones, etc.

I do not think we will come to an agreement here. For me the current solution feels like patchwork and through this behaviour, which goverments all around the world follow, we postpone urgent policy changes further and further.

Especially that once rights are taken they are much harder to get back.

It's a real problem fumbling for a solution - there is a business to be made here.

> Especially that once rights are taken they are much harder to get back.

American?

I'm Australian and more inclined toward keeping a foot on the neck of government and on task with what the citizens appear to want.

The current lot aren't doing a great job on limiting child access so far, but the situation is evolving.

Should it get to the point where I feel I have to take up arms and go and shoot the people we elected I'd see that as a failure on our part.

>American?

Nope, German. Would I be American I would probably phantasize of taking up arms to overthrow the dictatorship, without the realization that I probably just would die since the military is much better equipped than me.

As Australians we veer toward large unarmed crowds and telling 'em to get on with the job or get the f' out so we can re elect new ones.

We have a hybrid UK / US "Washminister" system with mandatory voting, obligatory BBQ's, proportional voting and relative isolation.

That isolation is now being punctured and we're seeing unpopular parties that tank whenever they're asked questions in public suddenly get a boost from being "social media" only and trading on "algorithmic" boosts courtesy of unpopular billionaire backers.

That one is more of a pressing issue, albeit related, than parental control of media access.

Do you think we don't do the same in Germany? Might be a bit different system, but I would appreciate if you would not treat me as if I don't know anything about democracy. Voting and protesting might seem nice on paper, but people are stupid or kept stupid, for example crime rates are dropping for years but people feel unsafer because of higher media coverage.

However, now we are talking about something different and this is also something I can support much more. Algorithmic boosts and these slot machine like systems are a problem, which I highly agree. Then a ban of all of these systems would be something you would rather advocate then advocate for selective bans. For example, yeah social media can continue to exist but only a very simple algorithm can be used where a user can subscribe to topics he/she chooses. No recommendation, no trending stuff.

> Do you think we don't do the same in Germany?

My apologies, I was unaware that Germany had a Washminister system with mandatory proportional voting.

> I would appreciate if you would not treat me as if I don't know anything about democracy.

My assumption was that the implementation of democracy varies by country. It was foolish of me not to know that you know everything about every democratic system on the planet and I apologise again for that.

> for example crime rates are dropping for years but people feel unsafer because of higher media coverage.

Well, some people do feel that here, for sure, although it hardly feels like a majority; is that a universal feeling in Germany, that Germans are stupid and easily led by media?

> For example, yeah social media can continue to exist but only a very simple algorithm can be used

The issue there is belling the cat - who are we, in Germany and Australia, to tell a US billionaire such as Musk or Zuckerberg what it is that they must do?

Do you read what I wrote?

>Might be a bit different system, but

I specifically said that we have different systems. However, the overall process does not differ so significantly that we would not be able to vote people out of power if we want to, which was your original point where you argued about systems.

>that Germans are stupid and easily led by media?

Not everyone, but enough are such that similar to the americans we start to vote for right-wing politicans which promise much, but will not solve the problems. From what I heard you Australians have the same issue with "One Nation".

>who are we, in Germany and Australia, to tell a US billionaire

For what are we having a goverment if they are not impose laws that are binding for companies? A US Billionaire can do whatever they want in a country as long as its legal. The EU recently ruled that Google has to pay 1 billion since they seem to favor their own apps and thus creating a monopoly. In the end Google will comply as the EU market is large enough.

Yes I did indeed read what you wrote, and the tone- you noticed I matched the tone? Probably best we both drop that, 'eh? I'm enjoying the general exchange.

> Australians have the same issue with "One Nation".

Hell yeah - they had no real public traction other than a proportional representation in government (enough to show up as a body, not enough to carry any real weight in big decisions) until external agents of chaos decided to boost them via social media for the fracture value (divide, conquer).

The EU has economic weight on par with the US, neither Australia nor Germany alone have that.

Mayhap we should pull a political Eurovision* and join the EU to fill that UK shaped void?

I agree that a US Billionaire can do whatever they want in a country as long as its legal, unfortunately that includes drawing things out for a very long time, folding and reforming under another business name, etc.

Making laws stick for those with the resources to dodge is akin to nailing jelly to the wall.

Returning to thread topic, Australia's social media teen and preteen ban, that's got a long way to go before it sticks, if at all - it's a law that asks US billionaires to not treat children as future product to be groomed and exploited.

As a citizen I'm more than open to other approaches.

* Australia | Grand Final | Eurovision 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo5H62mCIsg

>Probably best we both drop that, 'eh?

Agreed.

One thing I like to ask ... compared to EU and Germany Australia has already a very strict (from our point of view) system for immigration. What is then the point of One Nation? Since you are already so demanding in what a foreign has to bring with them, like education, money, not being to old. What else do they really want?

Australia and Germany itself are not a match to the US or China. This is why we have to unite to larger organisations like the EU. And from my perspective Australia SHOULD fill the UK void. I liked the Australians always more than the British ;).

The next problems about the billionaire's is that they lobby very long and institutions are very slow. For example this Google Lawsuit took over 10 years ... we can not wait this long when we are talking about controlling social media. Yeah I think in general we agree on the overall topic, but have a bit different ideas how to achieve it.

There are degrees to it. The current problem has a "perfect storm" aspect to it, with multiple pieces working together in perfect harmony.

1. a "small" device that a person can use while moving

2. cheap/free internet access (wifi and/or mobile data)

3. high fidelity display with high refresh rate

4. a camera (I would probably group this together with 3)

Disabling 2 or 3 of those would short circuit the delivery mechanism of the "opioid" while still allowing the device to fulfill its more "useful" purposes.

Examples:

- A small internet device without a hi-res display _and_ a camera is still useful for "knowledge at your fingertips", communication, navigation, payments, etc.

- A device with a hi-res display, with a camera, with internet access, but not "small" is either a laptop or a tablet. That breaks the mechanism of one-half of social media addiction, which is the capability to instantly create and upload content right on the spot. (Although I would argue a tablet will still have that problem)

- A camera that doesn't have internet access can still allow a user to record events, but uploading the content will have to be delayed to a later time. A fair trade-off in my opinion.

And this is all possible with current hardware, by extending Parental Controls to disable the camera, and/or internet access, and/or handicapping the beautiful crown jewel displays.

100% agreed. Restricting possession of physical items is less tyrannical than restricting communication. Social media is only harmful when it's ubiquitous and inescapable. When you have to make a conscious effort to "go on the computer", and when there are significant opportunity costs to doing so, you naturally put it into its proper perspective.

The whole idea of excluding teenagers from social interactions because you can't police how shit people are is absurd.

Isn't that a mischaracterisation of the goal and the actual implementation? Avoiding social networks is restricting away from unhealthy spaces, not preventing social interactions per se.

That is such a dishonest representation of the ban that I think that even the majority of people that’re against it would admit that it’s BS.

I've got news for you - this is how we've protected teenagers since forever in the real world! What do you think age restrictions on movies, casinos, or porn are for? Why do you think children have to be home before a certain time in the evening? Why do we not let them roam anywhere alone until they are old enough?

I bet it succeeded in identifying more adults in order to go after people for speech. Anonymous speech should be protected.

The law doesn't require identifying anyone

Being forced to cough up ID or taking a selfie to verify age sounds like something that could be used identify you.

That's not what the law requires

The 16 year olds are goners already so who cares about them. It will definitely work for the younger ones who haven't been mindrpd yet.

The fact that they'll ban kids from accessing every social media except Reddit tells you everything you need to know about the real motives behind this "ban".

I'm not on social media. But reddit seems slightly more intelligent than tiktok, instagram, X. What's the real motive then, according to you?

Reddit is also a dedicated porn website.

if it’s “also” a porn website then it’s not “dedicated”.

hah. As far as my girlfriend knows, it's dedicated only to cats and people behaving badly at Walmart.

And here I just called it more intelligent, lol. I should qualify that. I've seen her instagram feed too, and somehow it's even more absurd...

It also requires no form of ID, age verification, or even an email address. Furthermore, the bad porn on Reddit is far more heinous than anything on any regular porn site. Stuff that shouldn't even be legal - and may not be. So that's all the proof you need to know that this ban had nothing to do with protecting children.

Reddit requires age verification for NSFW in jurisdictions with laws for it.

I am not the parent, but there is a view that this was, alongside the earlier News Media Bargaining Code in 2021, the under-16s ban legislation was at least partially motivated by an interest in benefitting the legacy or mainstream media in Australia.

The Prime Minister's announcement of the policy included, unusually, a callout to one of the major news organisations (Newscorp) for their campaign (called Let Them Be Kids) in favour of such a ban[0]:

> I do want to pay tribute to the campaign that's been run by media organisations on this. I do want to single out NewsCorp for the campaign that they've run, Let Them Be Kids. It's an example of a media organisation being engaged in something that's of concern to the community.

[0]: https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-46363

Huh. I mean, that's interesting (that legacy media lobbied for the ban). So but Murdoch doesn't own Reddit, what's the upshot there? More links to Sky/Fox?

I am not sure why Reddit was excluded, but the implied reason for the view I outlined in my comment is not about preferential treatment for one of the mainstream media firms so much as about a tool to drive a return in advertising dollars to traditional media, and away from technology firms. There is also more explicit work being done to do this.[0]

Having said all of that, the social media ban polled well and I think that the popularity of the policy is the parsimonious explanation for why it was developed.

[0]: https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/labor-finalises-tech-gi...

Reddit isn't more intelligent than tiktok, Instagram, X.

Definitely not.

The motive is because it's easily gamed for propaganda. It's the easiest platform to bot, and thus exploit, for psychological manipulation.

Text is also the cheapest way to influence people - making videos is much more challenging.

Here's a revolutionary idea.

Instead of mandates, why not lower the tax burden on citizens. That would give move freedom to parents to decide not to work, and actually, parent their kids.

Don't force parents to both be absent from home because the burden of the bureaucracy salaries is too great without sucking blood from the middle class

Houses don't need to cost 0.5M AUD with long mortgages that force 2 parents to work. They cost that because the government is spending like a drunken sailor and destroying the value of money held by everyday australians.

What houses cost under $1.5m?

Plenty of single income families had their children on social media.

This is just a conflation of different issues to push an unrealistic narrative.

Any tax reduction on the average household will just become a rent increase, and nothing will change for the household.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com