Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Australia Social Networks

Australia Plans Age Limit To Ban Children From Social Media (yahoo.com) 99

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Agence France-Presse: Australia will ban children from using social media with a minimum age limit as high as 16, the prime minister said Tuesday, vowing to get kids off their devices and "onto the footy fields." Federal legislation to keep children off social media will be introduced this year, Anthony Albanese said, describing the impact of the sites on young people as a "scourge." The minimum age for children to log into sites such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok has not been decided but is expected to be between 14 and 16 years, Albanese said. The prime minister said his own preference would be a block on users aged below 16. An age verification trial to test various approaches is being conducted over the coming months, the centre-left leader said. [...]

It is not even clear that the technology exists to reliably enforce such bans, said the University of Melbourne's associate professor in computing and information technology, Toby Murray. "The government is currently trialling age assurance technology. But we already know that present age verification methods are unreliable, too easy to circumvent, or risk user privacy," he said. But the prime minister said parents expected a response to online bullying and the access social media gave to harmful material. "These social media companies think they're above everyone," he told a radio interviewer. "Well, they have a social responsibility and at the moment, they're not exercising it. And we're determined to make sure that they do," he said.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australia Plans Age Limit To Ban Children From Social Media

Comments Filter:
  • by Baron_Yam ( 643147 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2024 @08:03AM (#64776673)

    I say make it an offense to let a minor in your care have unsupervised access to social media. That avoids the technology issue, and if your kid needs to be in touch (phones are extremely convenient for giving your kid more freedom while leaving them with an ever-present link to Mom and dad)... Dumb phones or locked down smartphones. Voice and text will get the job done.

    • by magzteel ( 5013587 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2024 @08:14AM (#64776705)

      I say make it an offense to let a minor in your care have unsupervised access to social media. That avoids the technology issue, and if your kid needs to be in touch (phones are extremely convenient for giving your kid more freedom while leaving them with an ever-present link to Mom and dad)... Dumb phones or locked down smartphones. Voice and text will get the job done.

      You must not have kids. At this point in order to do their school work they are provided with Chromebooks and/or must have to have access to computers at home, school, libraries, etc. The Chromebooks are managed by their districts, not the parents. Even video game consoles and handhelds provide internet access. I've used blacklists and whitelists at home but it's a massive pain and kids are very tenacious about getting around blocks or just use someone else's phone or computer that has access. I'm not saying I have the solution but don't just assume it's a simple problem that any competent person can easily handle.

      • by taustin ( 171655 )

        I'm not saying I have the solution but don't just assume it's a simple problem that any competent person can easily handle.

        Simple people need simple solutions, no matter how complicated the problem is.

    • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2024 @08:18AM (#64776711) Journal

      Because access to social media is literally everywhere. You can't prevent your kids from having unsupervised access to it unless you literally supervise them constantly. You talk about phones as a way to give them some freedom. So I take that to believe you think it would be alright if your 12 year old rode his bike a few blocks to library. Guess what there is a computer there with access to Meta/Google and all their online properties!

      You mention locked down smart .... guess what youtube has comments, its social media.. think you can filter it? Nope you get access to the filters and kids version and what is an isn't on it Google decides. Try to do your own content filter and you'll find there is no way to make that smart phone, or tv, or whatever else trust the certs of your personal firewall, you'll brake it entirely (THANKS https everywhere!)

      The industry willfully created a situation that actively dis-empowers parents. You are left as a parent today with choices that essentially amount to lock your kid in box in near total isolation from the real world, or let them receive whatever messages big tech decides to send them! This is one place where big tech needs its hand slapped and hard, they need to be required to age verify and do identity effectively; so that parents can apply controls or bar kids from platforms that fail to provide the control the parent believes are needed.

      • by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2024 @08:26AM (#64776741) Homepage
        You are 100% absolutely correct. As a parent myself, and someone who understands how to do IT stuff, I feel completely powerless to monitor my kids' social media. We didn't let them have a cell phone until high school, which helps, and we've warned them over and over about all the problems with social media, and that helps too, but we've had teachers post assignments on Instagram! It's ridiculous!
        • we've had teachers post assignments on Instagram! It's ridiculous!

          Thats not a teacher. Thats an addict.

          One that needs to be reminded how much of your local taxes funded dedicated educational platforms.

          • by RobinH ( 124750 )
            A lot of it's in Google classroom, but that still means they're online much, much more than previous generations, and once you're online with a web browser open, the social media sites are only a click away.
      • So, have the library's computers require that you scan/enter a library card number, and if it belongs to someone underage it appropriately restricts access.

        It's funny how when it comes to cars we generally do pretty well keeping them away from kids, guns not so much, and computing devices - forget it.

        • Well, in the US an 18 year old is not allowed to drink alcohol, but can become a porn star and 14 year old have AR 15 rifles that they use to shoot up schools. Go figure.

        • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

          We don't keep cars away from kids, and near as i can tell out in the county; taking dad's truck for a joy ride is still a right of passage for the pre-teens.

          The whole point here is that we should NOT have to bar kids from accessing the Internet completely. It is part of 'the public square' in the same way the library is and kids should be able to use it without being exposed to indecent material. I would not go as far as to ban indecent materials but they belong behind the counter so to speak; the same as

    • A better idea which is even harder to implement but which would actually work if implemented would be to make it an offense to not teach your child how to think critically. The problem isn't that they're on social media. The problem is they're on social media without knowing how to think.

      • make it an offense to not teach your child how to think critically.

        Exactly. We just need to build enough prisons for all the parents whose children fail a thinking test.

        You've already passed the test just by coming up with this brilliant idea.

        • You've already passed the test just by coming up with this brilliant idea.

          It was an illustrative ridiculous example, used in the only non-fallacious way, to show how ridiculous the idea is. You cannot successfully legislate such things without violent authoritarianism.

      • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

        The problem is adolescents are still learning to think. Hillary Clinton said exactly one (and only one, IHMO) truthful statement in her political career "It takes a village."

        If society wants to be run by responsible adults with well rounded ideas and diverse viewpoints we have to agree to make the public square generally a safe place for the young and newly/increasingly independent but not yet adult to explore.

        Otherwise you will get a mixture of kids raised by parents who don't, and children how grow up pr

        • Otherwise you will get a mixture of kids raised by parents who don't, and children how grow up preyed up and used by the most malignant forces, and parents who out of necessity isolate their children to protect them for whom odds are pretty good everyone who looks/acts/thinks differently than they do will never be anything but strange and unwelcome to them.

          Kinda like how kids have been raised since the dawn of man....even before the internet, mobile phones and social media?

          ;)

      • make it an offense to not teach your child how to think critically

        Give me the car tonight, dad. Or I'll fail tomorrow's thinking test. And the tank had better be full.

    • Real freedom is not to be on that electronic leash all day.

      Of course, that means to make smartphones unattractive to kids. Good luck with that - the "social" media apps are on purpose designed to make kids addicted. Just look into the works of B. J. Fogg [stanford.edu]

      In the end, it will be similar to how we handle all addictive substances. Part criminalisation, part social acceptance. And regulation, which has so far been missing. In an ideal world, the billions of lobbying money would be less effective than the common

      • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2024 @11:01AM (#64777125) Homepage Journal

        Real freedom is not to be on that electronic leash all day.

        Of course, that means to make smartphones unattractive to kids. Good luck with that - the "social" media apps are on purpose designed to make kids addicted.

        Since most kids are dependent upon their parents...it would seem pretty simple to NOT buy them a cell phone till they are ready, and when you do, do NOT buy them a smart phone, just a dumb phone that they actually talk to people on....eh?

        • You don't even have to go the dumbphone route. As near as I can tell, Apple did a damn good job of implementing parental controls, since short of wiping the device and bypassing the iCloud lock (which is really only doable on modern iDevices via social engineering at an Apple Store), you're not getting around it.

        • it would seem pretty simple to NOT buy them a cell phone till they are ready

          LOL you think kids won't be on smartphones simply because you didn't buy them one or they don't own one? Have you heard of friends? It's clear you don't have kids, but I actually wonder if you came into life as an adult clone from a lab and never were a kid yourself.

          Next you'll be telling me that your parents not buying you a porn magazine meant you didn't masturbate.

    • Kids are like prisoners, they have nothing but time to think of how to get around your restrictions. The perceived reward is big for them too so good luck stopping them from getting on. Then you have endless new routes to the internet, new tech constantly coming out so busy parents are perpetually behind the curve while kids are on the bleeding edge.

    • by nightflameauto ( 6607976 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2024 @10:54AM (#64777107)

      I say make it an offense to let a minor in your care have unsupervised access to social media. That avoids the technology issue, and if your kid needs to be in touch (phones are extremely convenient for giving your kid more freedom while leaving them with an ever-present link to Mom and dad)... Dumb phones or locked down smartphones. Voice and text will get the job done.

      See, here's the thing. If parents wanted to parent, this wouldn't need to be legislated at all. Parents either don't want to parent, don't have the training/tools to parent, don't have the time to parent, or just think it's easier to shove an electronic device in front of the kid rather than parent. Thinking that, "You should probably watch your kid because they're doing some harmful shit," is beyond the grasp of the average parent? Why do we think legislating it will do anything other than cause more parents to bitch that they can't do what they're being asked to do? Until parents are allowed the time to prepare for being a parent, and the expectation of parenting is put back on the shoulders of the families having children, we're going to be seeing a lot of legislation around the world designed to teach parents how to parent. That's all this is. Trying to tell parents how to parent through legislation, whether they have the time or energy to do it or not.

      It feels like society in reverse. Rather than helping parents and providing resources so they can find their feet as parents, we're starting to see legislation of shit people just absolutely refuse to do themselves. Or don't have time for. Or don't have the energy for. Whatever the excuse is. "It takes a village," has turned into "I refuse to parent." And now all of society has to adjust for that.

    • are you joking
    • Congratulations. You just turned every parent into a criminal.
      Well thought out.
    • Dumb phones or locked down smartphones. Voice and text will get the job done.

      In Australia they shut down the 2G network, and the 3G shutdown is happening this year. Dumbphones won't work anymore, the telcos have turned them all into e-waste with the flick of a switch.

      Oh, and those modern dumbphones, typically marketed at seniors? Those still run Android, albeit a lobotomised version, to match the crippled CPU. Laggy as hell, and the predictive text is worse than your Nokia from 2001.

  • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2024 @08:04AM (#64776677) Homepage Journal
    Why not just make it Adults Only and make the age 18yrs?
    • Why not just make it Adults Only and make the age 18yrs?

      Sounds absolutely fantastic. Now just tell me how you’re going to convince the digital pimps making money hand over fist off the kids.

      It would be “wrong” of US Capitalism to interfere with the addictive rights of the peddlers who designed UIs for toddlers to use for a valid reason. All that effort would be wasted. You might not even capture the same kind of addict at 18 years old.

      We might even have to (gasp!) start paying for online services again. A price tag? Charging money? Isn

    • Why not just make it Adults Only and make the age 18yrs?

      Because then you have to provide government-issued ID to prove you're at least 18 years of age, which means no anonymity whatsoever online, your posts (and preferences) are always automatically linked to your legal name.
      Meanwhile kids and criminals will use someone else's ID to get access anyway.
      It's a non-starter of an idea in the face of 1A.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by cayenne8 ( 626475 )

        Because then you have to provide government-issued ID to prove you're at least 18 years of age, which means no anonymity whatsoever online, your posts (and preferences) are always automatically linked to your legal name. Meanwhile kids and criminals will use someone else's ID to get access anyway.

        Well, we pretty much already have that in place...drivers license and credit cards.

        No one says you have to associate your ID with any posts, only to enter the social media site.

        It's a non-starter of an idea in th

        • Actually, the US has a substantial problem with underage drinking because we've made the legal drinking age so ridiculously high.

          • Actually, the US has a substantial problem with underage drinking because we've made the legal drinking age so ridiculously high.

            I agree.

            I think all "adult" things should be 18yrs of age, not some of them 21yrs.

            If you're old enough to sign legally binding contracts, and sign up for military service, you are old enough to buy beer and a pistol or rifle, etc.

        • I don't use 'Facebook', or 'X/Twitter', or similar, so I don't know this: are you saying that to have a 'Facebook' account you have to, what, take a picture of your government-issued ID card and send it to them, along with a credit card?
          If so then we've already lost.
    • Why not just make it Adults Only and make the age 18yrs?

      Australia doesn't have an single arbitrary age where everything is magically legal. Neither does America for that matter. 18 isn't some magic number, it's a number that applies to specific things such as drinking and voting. You can get a license under that age, own a car under that age, engage in legal disputes under that age. You can get fined and jailed under that age as well.

  • Since teenagers are more adept at technology than anyone in the Australian Parliament, they will get around this law with a VPN or something else.
  • Better run. Better take cover.
  • by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2024 @09:01AM (#64776839) Homepage

    I'll grant the pure intentions, but government is not your parent. Also, this is impossible. Imagine: Australia successfully identifies and blocks all social media sites.. Um...how? DNS? Are they then going to block all free DNS services like 8.8.8.8? What about secure DNS connections?

    Ok, maybe they find a way around that. Not sure how, but let's say they do. Some kid, or some kid's parent is going to know what a VPN is. Is Australia going to block all VPNs? That is basically impossible, since literally anyone, anywhere in the world, can set up a proxy service.

    Story time: The bus I take on the way home from work, on some days, is filled with 6-7 year olds on their way home from school. Last week, there was this incredibly intense discussion about (insert topic) and where to where to go (YouTube, and a couple of other places) to find out more. This is the world we live in now. Trying to forbid children from interacting with this world is not the solution. Giving them guidelines, providing advice and assistance, teaching them the dangers and how to avoid them: That's the only real way forward.

    • Trying to forbid children from interacting with this world is not the solution

      Staring at a screen is NOT interacting with the world. Especially for a child.

    • .. government is not your parent

      Out of curiosity, would you be in favor of eliminating age restrictions on purchasing alcohol? (The fact that it's easier to do age verification for alcohol purchases should not form part of a response.)

    • Easy, age restrictions on smartphones would go a long way to reducing the harm. You know, like we already do for alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling, etc..

      They can also do age verification anonymously via a trusted 3rd party service. Perfectly feasible & would be useful for many other things too.
  • by tabrisnet ( 722816 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2024 @09:36AM (#64776911)

    Why not follow New Zealand's tobacco proposal and set a birthday such that anyone born after that date won't be allowed to use social media. Kill it forever.

    • Why not follow New Zealand's tobacco proposal and set a birthday such that anyone born after that date won't be allowed to use social media. Kill it forever.

      Something tells me it’s a HELL of a lot easier to control the flow and access of taxed and regulated tobacco, than it is policing every open WiFi access point floating in the wind.

    • Why not follow New Zealand's tobacco proposal and set a birthday such that anyone born after that date won't be allowed to use social media. Kill it forever.

      he posted unironically on Slashdot, a social media platform on which he has communicated on for over a decade.

  • Put the phone away, go outside and play with the dingos.

  • Right?
    If you do you should know better, just like these kids will learn to....

    • I tend to be born on 1970-01-01, if a service that most definitely does not need to know my date of birth asks for it.

  • They'll need to remove anonymity from the internet then. Make all access require a biometric or some such route to get on, otherwise I just see this as a cash grab for fines against websites, cash grabs by lawyers and lawsuits, etc. It would verify your name, age, etc.

  • I'm fairly certain this will be more trouble to enforce than they are bargaining for, and may have some knock on negative side-effects.

    However, assuming it isn't a complete failure and social media use is decreased substantially, it may provide some interesting independent data about childrens mental health and social media use.

    • Strong agree about data gathering. Smartphone bans are already growing rapidly in popularity in schools around the world & they're already seeing some consistently encouraging improvements in well-being and academic performance.

      It may turn out that things like age restrictions on smartphones are the more feasible options, like we already do for tobacco, alcohol, pornography, gambling, etc..
  • It makes it sound like they want to restrict the rights of any child born as a result of hooking up on Facebook.
  • Presumably they mean ban people less than xxx years old.

    If they banned mental children, social media would be a barren wasteland.

  • But the prime minister said parents expected a response to online bullying and the access social media gave to harmful material.

    Because of this, something must be done. This is something. Therefore it must be done.

  • ...with stolen childhoods: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] Kevin Rudd tried to acknowledge it officially but was vetoed. At least they're willing to acknowledge when foreign companies do it to the minds of white children.
  • by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2024 @01:10PM (#64777489)

    Everyone seems to have missed the *real* reason for this initiative on the part of the Australian government...

    Recently a Digital ID was introduced to Australia and to suppress public outrage the public were told that the scheme was "voluntary". You didn't have to get a digital ID if you didn't want one.

    Now Aussies are being told that in order to "protect the children" some kind of lower age-limit is being imposed for social media access. The Prime Minister has also said that existing age verification techniques are too easy to bypass and place privacy at risk -- so what better way to verify age than to use this new Digital ID?

    That's right... the Digital ID will always be "voluntary"... unless you want to use the internet that is because unless you use your Digital ID to log in, how are social media sites going to be able to comply with this new law and block under-16's?

    Also, the Australian government is working hard to get all its services online and some will only be accessible via the internet.

    When that happens there'll be the situation where people are required by law to file their tax returns online but won't be able to get online without the "voluntary" Digital ID.

    It seems that the Australian government has already figured out how to redefine the word "voluntary" to suit its own purposes.

    Never trust a politician!

    • 100% correct - I was giving up hope on slashdot until I saw your comment - the last one (at this time).

      Yes - this is the wedge to make everyone give up privacy rights - because..."the children".

      My hero is one of my cardilologists who will nor give his (now sophomore) son a smart phone until his senior year. And he makes his son's teachers accommodate this!!! I agree, you can't control all access but you can make it very periodic. And , IMO, the need to do this for girls is even greater (on average).

      But y

  • All you people saying it's easy to restrict access have lost touch with reality. As a kid in the 90s, I was able to hide my efforts from my parents while they were away and after they moved the PC to a place with the screen visible to the rest of the house. Here's a modern guide for the people out there who crave more information on topics they're unable or unwilling to ask the people around them. It's mainly focused on PCs as that's what I have the most experience with, but I know mobile devices have th

"Ada is the work of an architect, not a computer scientist." - Jean Icbiah, inventor of Ada, weenie

Working...