New Zealand Introduces Under-16 Social Media, AI Companion Ban (jurist.org) 80
New Zealand has introduced legislation that would ban children under 16 from social media platforms and AI companion services. "We have protections to keep children safe in the real world and we need them in the virtual world too," said Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in announcing the bill. Jurist.org reports: The Online Safety (Minimum Age and Child Safety Risk Assessment) Bill would require an age restriction on platforms with harmful features for children. These features include recommender systems, endless feeds, feedback features and time-limited features. The bill also seeks to restrict underage users from accessing AI companion services. However, it explicitly excludes messaging apps, professional networking sites, gaming and music platforms, and other educational and health tools.
Notably, age verification through self-declared dates of birth and formal identification does not satisfy the platforms' duty under the law. It also requires platforms to verify their users' age through other methods such as facial scans and user activity patterns. The bill would also require platforms to conduct child safety risk assessments for all users under 18 and protect them from harmful content such as bullying, violence, and sexually explicit materials.
Notably, age verification through self-declared dates of birth and formal identification does not satisfy the platforms' duty under the law. It also requires platforms to verify their users' age through other methods such as facial scans and user activity patterns. The bill would also require platforms to conduct child safety risk assessments for all users under 18 and protect them from harmful content such as bullying, violence, and sexually explicit materials.
This is a roundabout way to get rid (Score:1, Interesting)
Not that the ruling class of Europe really particularly cares about billionaire propaganda but they aren't going to let foreign countries billionaires spread propaganda inside their borders because what kind of fucking stupid person would allow that?
I mean besides America.
This is always been how Facebook survives. Young people inevitably bail on Facebook because they don't want to be on the same social media Netwo
Re: It's about destroying privacy and security (Score:5, Insightful)
Not doing this has already resulted in the violation of the privacy of billions of people.
I guess it is a compromise choice between:
1. Let the government track you only, with the hope that you can pry back or limit the scope of that information by petitioning your representives (for those of you in a functioning democracy)
2. Let silicon valley tech firms track you. Sell your data on the open market. Limit what you can even find out about the private data they have leaked. And when you go to petition your legislature, have them spend hundreds of millions or billions in lobbying against the best interests of typical voters.
I think you're missing the point (Score:1)
The point I'm trying to make is this isn't your upstanding up for privacy or the rights of children or any of that this is just standard run of the mill international politics enacted by the same ruling class we should be getting pissed off at but we nev
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe as Americans we should stop voting for the "track people and round them up" party who are currently in power.
Sorry but the idea such a thing would happen under a Harris or a Hillary or any Democrat administration is just conservative propaganda at this point.
Re: It's about destroying privacy and security (Score:1)
It has happened under both.
Re: It's about destroying privacy and security (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, show me your best example compared to the 2024 Trump admin, don't forget the rounding up part, that's kinda key here.
Re: It's about destroying privacy and security (Score:5, Informative)
Internment of Japanese Americans by the greatest Democrat ever, FDR?
Re: (Score:3)
This was widely criticised as an incredible atrocity and recognised as one of the darkest moments in American history. The fact of the matter is people are using this dark period of the past to excuse the acts of the present is a major issue which just shows that America has learned nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
This was widely criticised as an incredible atrocity and recognised as one of the darkest moments in American history. The fact of the matter is people are using this dark period of the past to excuse the acts of the present is a major issue which just shows that America has learned nothing.
American history is filled with such moments, trail of tears, Wounded Knee, et al. up to Mai Lai.
Kiwi history only has a few smudges in comparison.
Covering up such crimes is as American as selling beads to natives and then force marching them.
Re: (Score:3)
If we have to go back to WWII I think that makes my point.
Re: It's about destroying privacy and security (Score:2)
Democrats overwhelmingly supported the Patriot act, the creation of ICE, etc etc. We don't have to go back even a day, they still support these things, still vote to increase defense funding... Stop pretending!
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the entire nation supported the Patriot Act at the time, we all went nuts after 9/11. Did Obama or Biden utilize the surveillance state to say, deport American citizens like Trump has in the 2024 term?
The patriot act is a bit like the 94 crime bill, yes it looks bad now but at the time it had broad, bipartisan support and in particular from African American leaders and communities but one party is open to reform just like Democrats are far more open to Patriot Act reform than Republicans would be.
"Bo
Re: It's about destroying privacy and security (Score:2)
That's my point, yes Republicans are way worse, in that fascism is worse than lesser authoritarianism, but the majority of Democrats ARE anti-freedom, anti-privacy, and pro-corporation! Voting for the Patriot act and claiming insanity is pure shit.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's what you want to take away from it, sure but that's not enough for me to say a majority are anti-freedom particularly when that attitude is what has contributed to having fascists in charge.
Having 3 more liberal justices after 2016 sure would have helped too but Hillary is a warmonger amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
Having 3 more liberal justices after 2016 sure would have helped too but Hillary is a warmonger amirite?
I voted for Clinton but yes, she is a warmonger just like the majority of Democrats are. I don't care even a little bit what they say, only how they vote, and the majority of them consistently vote for more money for bombing brown people. Her husband was an even bigger piece of shit. It's disgusting to see either of them celebrated, ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Biden didn't, he held steadfast on pulling out of Afghanistan even though he had to do it with Trump's shitty deal but he still did it even though it was a huge hit to his reputation but we are out of there today. He also effectively ended the so called drone war [jabberwocking.com].
At the very least we can say that after Iraq the Democrats changed tune and followed public sentiment because I don't think Harris or any of the potential candidates would enter Iran or do any offensive conflicts.
Re: It's about destroying privacy and security (Score:2)
Harris couldn't even bring herself to condemn genocide even though she clearly knows that's what it is, she ALMOST did but her campaign made it very clear that she did not.
So no, Harris is still crap. And yes, I voted for her, because I'm not a fucking moron and I know how first past the post works. But I didn't do it because I wanted to. I just didn't want to vote for the worst person imaginable.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you do know quite a few people who share that opinion didn't vote for her and many of those media figures in fact made it clear you really didn't have to support her. She had to fight off both the right wing and also the lefty-socialist wing. Rough spot, if only Trump had to deal with that.
Little empathy there because that crowd basically voted for more genocide, I mean how many of the same folks who demand everyone say the G word won't even accept the idea of a 2-state solution. It's fantasy politi
Re: It's about destroying privacy and security (Score:2)
Yes, refusing to vote for Harris because of Israel was just voting for faster genocide with no hope whatsoever, so people who did that are stupid.
But I also understand losing hope.
Re: (Score:2)
If some people's lost hope have led them to such apathy to be complacent or supportive of a Trump 2024 victory they should either just become Republicans or just don't concern themselves with politics anymore because they probably dont have a grasp about what politics is.
Yelling about Genocide Joe and Copmala Harris for the 6 months before 2024 certainly didn't help anyone with hope.
Re: It's about destroying privacy and security (Score:2)
Joe and Harris supporting genocide didn't fill anyone with hope either. But make sure to blame everyone else instead of the voters who didn't care about those issues and are happy to see genocide as long as gas prices stay low, and the inhuman politicians who are the best the DNC can come up with, and of yeah the DNC that made sure to destroy Sanders' campaign so that we came to this pass in the first fuck place.
The Democrats' actions are indistinguishable from throwing elections. At what point do we stop l
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but Sanders campaign was destroyed by getting less votes in the primary because he was unable to appeal to minority voters and the fact that while I like Bernie himself he surrounded himself with some of the worst people (BJG a glaring example) and did nothing with his post 2016 momentum to build actual political capital, instead happy to just revert back to an I on his name so when 2020 rolls around does Bernie have a younger heir ready to run? Does he put his weight behind his supposed progressive a
Re: It's about destroying privacy and security (Score:2)
There's only one party here in California, and if this is true, then when the hell are they going to get rid of flock? All they ever do is talk about how great it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Just a quick Google search [google.com] and it looks like a bunch of cities in California have dropped Flock and and it looks like the state is looking at restricting some of their methods, I dunno if a full statewide ban has happened anywhere yet.
Now a real interesting thing would be to cross reference which cities banned it along with voter data because a lot of California is quite red just not red enough to overcome the coastal cities. Santa Cruz, El Cerrito, Mountain View etc, probably a trend.
Also the real blackpi
Re: (Score:2)
All of about four California cities did the closest thing to "banning" it by either actively voting to not install it to begin with, or voting to terminate the contract. The rest didn't renew for some unspecified reason (for example, the LAPD didn't renew theirs, so LA will show up on "ban" lists.) So just to ensure that we're on the same page: There appear to be 14 cities in all that had a flock contract at one point, but no longer do.
As you can see here, most of the cities using flock in California are in
Re: (Score:2)
For sure the public sentiment on Flock is exactly the same in 2024 as it is today and sure, if we want to get really semantic about what a ban is, if only the town pasing a specific ordinance with the word ban, than sure.
I don't like to examine this stuff in terms of blue or red, primarily because those colors typically only look at what president they voted for, which doesn't tell you a whole lot. But if you want to do that anyway, go for it, however I don't believe that's going to correlate quite the way you're hoping it will.
But you did and I think while the sample size is small but it leans towards my assertion. I mean, Republicans have made crime and immigration their #1 issue even supporting the man who promised to eschew rights and break laws to deport immigrants, why wouldn't they support such things? It'
Re: (Score:2)
But you did
Where? You mentioned coastal cities, so I gave you a map.
I think while the sample size is small but it leans towards my assertion
How so?
Re: (Score:2)
Are all those cities primarily coastal, blue areas? Are there more central red counties and cities with flock legislation? Why would we expect there to be?
We tried (Score:1)
When your crackhead neighbor who owns a fuck ton of guns is going through a thing letting your other crackhead neighbor fuck with him because you're hoping the two of them are going to off each other is not actually a sound policy. Because instead of getting two dead crackheads you usually get one of them
Re: (Score:2)
What immigration bill did Obama or Democrats pass?
Re: (Score:2)
Why are all the posters making this comment downvoted as troll? The part about the roundups is getting ahead of itself but I think the part where everyone is made permanently identifiable on the web in order to control them should be central t the discussion
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
New Zealand is not Europe
New Zealand is not Europe (Score:2)
At one stage it was classed as part of Europe (for DVD regions)
Is that still a thing?
Re: (Score:2)
New Zealand was Region 4: Oceania, Latin America and the Caribbean.
Europe was Region 2.
Maybe you're thinking of Blu-ray regions, where New Zealand was grouped with Australia, Africa, West Asia and Europe?
Re: (Score:3)
New Zealand was Region 4: Oceania, Latin America and the Caribbean.
And it sucked. It was blatant cash-grab by the studios, and also meant that we missed out on a bunch of releases that simply never got released in region 4. They won't make the same mistake again, which is why these days many releases are only streamed and it's hard to get hold of any physical copy of the media in any region. At least for the popular stuff it can usually still be found on the high seas.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
New Zealand is not Europe
Forget it, he's rolling.
Too bad for Slashdot (Score:2)
Re:Too bad for Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
My inner pedant has been awakened! I must insist you stop mixing measurement units forthwith, or there will be further comments!
A UID is measured in bits, not years. ;-)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In the 2000s, the average /.er was probably two decades younger. Now there's a lot of grumpy old people well set in their ways ;)
The SNR of the low ranked comments is still too much for me to handle perusing at -1.
Re:Too bad for Slashdot (Score:4, Informative)
Have you tried registering an account? There's a pretty unfriendly message in big letters that looks discouraging:
https://slashdot.org/my/newuse... [slashdot.org]
Would anybody under the age of 40 even be interested in registering?
Re: So no free speech in New Zeland (Score:2)
I'm only here for the (Score:2)
I'm only here for the libertarians frothing at the mouth at the loss of freedom. Free speech died today, or something.
Must get me some popcorn.
Re:I'm only here for the (Score:4, Insightful)
The LP is dead as a doornail and 80% of libertarians became MAGA as soon as they felt like that they could be the boot and just let the Tea Party movement wash over them like ocean waves. It was mostly Republicans who didn't want to be associated with the Iraq War when Bush was wildly unpopular anyway so MAGA fits most of them like a glove.
The issue of free speech has been ceded to the Democrats in the national divorce, along with free trade, American football and the Constitution in general.
Re: (Score:2)
"Just let me live the life I want to live, by fucking up others' lives way more than the other party may have mildly inconvenienced me for sound policy. Wait, why is this affecting me now?"
It's a tale as old as time.
Re: (Score:2)
It's sweet justice that all of them have to eat this Iran war now after crowing so hard about how Clinton and Harris would have done it and that's why we just had to support Trump the Dove.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not the problem. The problem is that a) children need protection on social media but b) this will not give them that protection because children will be on social media anyways.
Are any Social Media sites based in NZ (Score:1)
And what stops NZers from using social media from places like China
Re: (Score:1)
We don't want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you looked at Company NZBN 3043328? FACEBOOK NEW ZEALAND LTD? Or maybe TIKTOK NEW ZEALAND Ltd, NZBN 9429049467055?
Yes every western (and some non-western) social media sites are based in NZ. If you want to be a multi-national and do business in a country you need to obey the laws of said country.
They are more than welcome to leave, but they will have to give up that sweet sweet revenue if they do.
Won't somebody please think of the children? (Score:1, Troll)
Centre support this, minor parties don't (Score:1)
NZ has a MMP political system where the two centre left/right parties fight for about 65% of the vote, and the rest hang out somewhere else.
It's the two big parties that support this and no one else. They have enough votes to get it over the line so it will most likely happen.
Another one wanting to kill anonymity (Score:2)
> Notably, age verification through self-declared dates of birth and formal identification does not satisfy the platforms' duty under the law. It also requires platforms to verify their users' age through other methods such as facial scans and user activity patterns.
No matter if they say social media or AI, they want you to show your ID. It's not about the kids, they don't have an adult ID anyway. It's about the adults being required to identify. Stop such initiatives while you can, soon the web as we kn
Re: (Score:2)
No matter if they say social media or AI, they want you to show your ID. It's not about the kids, they don't have an adult ID anyway. It's about the adults being required to identify. Stop such initiatives while you can, soon the web as we know it will be locked behind "age" gates, that only open when you tell them who you are.
I live in Australia, where similar bans were enacted a year ago. I have continued to bank, do business, browse the web and visit the Pirate Bay just like I have for decades. At no time in the last year have I been asked to submit any form of ID or biometrics.
I agree that anonymity should be protected, but I simply haven't seen it threatened by putting an age limit on social media. It makes me wonder if it's a strawman pushed by the social media companies themselves, to trick internet privacy advocates into
Re: (Score:2)
"I have continued to bank, do business, browse the web and visit the Pirate Bay"
Did you also use Facebook, X, Discord, and whatever services should now be restricted? Pirate Bay never talked about introducing age verification and therefore they also won't ask for a Selfie or ID. Discord on the other hand is already asking people. And if it is not asking you, then because they also use behavioral fingerprinting to estimate your age done by a company with ties to Palantir.
Your bank knows who you are. Your bus
Re: (Score:2)
Did you also use Facebook, X, Discord, and whatever services should now be restricted?
No, I don't use that trash because those arseholes had been nagging users for years to supply a phone number and photos. It wasn't the government that made them do it.
Re: (Score:2)
We're all on the slippery slope. The companies are all in to know you better. Now the government wants as well. First calls to ban privacy VPN or have them collect user data are already there with the (not that wrong) argument that people use them to circumvent age bans. So next they try to destroy privacy services justified with their hard to enforce age control law. And who knows which kind of sites will need to check your identity soon?
Why on earth.... (Score:2)
...is it always the countries that have no ID cards, so it will inevitably fail?
Dumb laws in New Zealand? (Score:2)
How pathetic. They should have taken a look at how well such a ban works. And what the implications are.