Althouse: "Australia has imposed a sweeping ban on social media for children under 16.... But many details were still unclear..."

November 28, 2024

"Australia has imposed a sweeping ban on social media for children under 16.... But many details were still unclear..."

"... such as how it will be enforced and what platforms will be covered.... The law... uts the onus on social media platforms to take 'reasonable steps' to prevent anyone under 16 from having an account. Corporations could be fined... for 'systemic' failures to implement age requirements. Neither underage users nor their parents will face punishment for violations. And whether children find ways to get past the restrictions is beside the point, [Prime Minister Anthony Albanese] said. 'We know some kids will find workarounds, but we’re sending a message to social media companies to clean up their act,' he said...."

From "Australia Has Barred Everyone Under 16 From Social Media. Will It Work? The law sets a minimum age for users of platforms like TikTok, Instagram and X. How the restriction will be enforced online remains an open question" (NYT).

37 comments:

Assistant Village Idiot said...: Lots of rumors that social media is bad for children, but no actual evidence.
Like violent or sexy video games.
Like Dungeons and Dragons.
Like pornography.
Like TV.
Like dime novels.
Yes you got trouble, right here in River City.; 11/28/24, 10:09 AM
Leland said...: Teaching the young that speech is no longer a freedom.; 11/28/24, 10:09 AM
RCOCEAN II said...: UK and Austrailia Governments are in a race to see who can be the most totalitarian. No freedom of speech, thank you very much!; 11/28/24, 10:12 AM
RCOCEAN II said...: IRC, Candance Owens was barred from entry to Austrailia because she's been labeled "a bigot". LOL.; 11/28/24, 10:13 AM
RCOCEAN II said...: If you don't want your kid doing social media, handle it yourself. I think this is something a parent can easily do. Of course, with girls you run into the problem that they MUST have an Iphone and whatever to talk to their friends. Heaven forbid they should go five minutes without talking or texting their girl friends.; 11/28/24, 10:17 AM
rehajm said...: Ripe for abuse…; 11/28/24, 10:22 AM
EdwdLny said...: So, fascist tyrants being fascist tyrants. Who'd a thunk. These people have definitely lost the plot.; 11/28/24, 10:30 AM
Mary Beth said...: With COPPA here, a person must be 13-years-old or older to sign up for any online service. Kids lie. The only check is asking for a birth date.

I can't think of a way to have verified proof that doesn't take away anonymity. but perhaps that's the real goal.; 11/28/24, 10:31 AM
Eric the Fruit Bat said...: It's going to greatly complicate the job of those detectives who go online pretending to be underage looking for sex.; 11/28/24, 10:40 AM
Zavier Onasses said...: A law or regulation with no penalty? Cannot but lower general respect for the rule of law. Is that genuinely intent of Govt - to create chaos?; 11/28/24, 10:42 AM
tim maguire said...: People keep saying this, but I can only think that’s people who don’t have kids. Teenagers’ social lives revolve around social media. Any solution has to be group-based because if you simply do it for your own child, you are condemning them to social ostracization.; 11/28/24, 10:50 AM
rhhardin said...: Minorities who are 16 may not be able to pass the CAPTCHA test of being 16 so there will have to be grading on a curve in those neighborhoods.; 11/28/24, 10:57 AM
n.n said...: Government steps in where females who identify as the feminine gender with reproductive carbon runts need to be kept reusable, affordable, available, and taxable (RAAT) in liberal Democrazis.; 11/28/24, 11:03 AM
Yancey Ward said...: Bet there will be exceptions for government approved social media directed to minors.; 11/28/24, 11:07 AM
David53 said...: "The law specifies that users will not be forced to provide government identification as part of the verification process, a measure that the conservative opposition said was included after they raised concerns about privacy rights."

I can't see how this will work. What kind of verification, other than government identification, would suffice?; 11/28/24, 11:13 AM
Leland said...: I’d like a ban on politicians sending text messages. Better yet, I want to impose a tariff on political text messages if the receiver demands it. Yuge tariff.; 11/28/24, 11:25 AM
john mosby said...: How does the statute define social media? What about the comments section on YouTube educational videos? Or various get-homework-help sites? Or newspaper websites? If the statute is too broad, it keeps kids away from genuine developmental opportunities. If it's too narrow, then kids will find easy workarounds.

Although "my so-called friends on the Special Relativity message board all ghosted me!" would be an improvement, I guess.

JSM; 11/28/24, 11:34 AM
Mike (MJB Wolf) said...: Social media companies are incapable of meeting that requirement without a gross intrusion of personal identifying information. To do that effectively violates EU privacy laws, meaning companies would if pushed simply not operate in Australia.; 11/28/24, 11:42 AM
Jupiter said...: Weird. My daughter has a phone, but I don't think it really plays a very large role in her emotional life. My son borrows my flip-phone when he needs one, which is mostly for Boy Scouts. I think the real problem is school. School is where kids learn to be deeply concerned about the opinions of some random collection of assholes. My kids were never subjected to that.; 11/28/24, 11:46 AM
rehajm said...: The OzzyMan commentary on the issue about sums it up. Unenforceable. Not that that will stop them…; 11/28/24, 12:06 PM
RCOCEAN II said...: Social Ostracization - lol. Sounds like a southpark cartoon, not real life.; 11/28/24, 1:01 PM
RCOCEAN II said...: If you're going to ban social media for 16 and under, then you should ban Cable TV too. The amount of perversion, and toxic ideas spewing out of the idiot box cannot be measured. But I suppose the Aussie Government believes TV is on their side.; 11/28/24, 1:03 PM
Rabel said...: "1) For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted social media platform2
means:3
(a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:4
(i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service5
is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more6
end-users;7
(ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with,8
some or all of the other end-users;9
(iii) the service allows end-users to post material on the10
service"; 11/28/24, 1:07 PM
Rabel said...: So any service which facilitates comments like Blogger, Wordpress, Discus, the NY Times comment section?; 11/28/24, 1:10 PM
Hassayamper said...: Only a fool would accept the assurances of these despicable politicians that they are doing this with the best interests of the children at heart. It has nothing to do with the children. It has everything to do with these scumbags and their lust for power and control. They want everyone going onto the internet to have to use some form of ID so Big Nanny Government can monitor what they say and punish them for unapproved opinions. Our own government is also full of this sort of tyrannical filth.

No matter how much you hate the government and the kind of people who love it, it's not nearly as much as they deserve. With apologies to Ronald Reagan, it is government that is the "Focus of Evil" in the modern world.; 11/28/24, 2:12 PM
Kakistocracy said...: Great initiative. Social media is as harmful to the mental health of young people as smoking is to their lungs.; 11/28/24, 4:01 PM
Kakistocracy said...: A good initiative; there is little value to be gained from being on SM.

Aside from being outdoors, participating in some form of sport, reading books, playing board or card games, can you imagine the skills gained in having a phone (or face to face) conversation? Having to think and verbalize your ideas and responses in real time; learning to choose words carefully as it's harder to 'take them back' than it is to delete them.; 11/28/24, 4:02 PM
mikee said...: Once government decides what one can see, government soon decides they should be able to control what one thinks. To hell with that, to hell with them, and this is a tar&feathers moment for Australia. I'm betting they let the government win. China will have a cakewalk taking over the continent whenever they want it.; 11/28/24, 5:27 PM
Paul said...: When I go to sites that sell guns or ammo they ask if I am 'underage' or below '18'... Of course I click 'no'... I guess that is what Australia will require... or not. Or maybe places like X or Youtube will just ban all Australians from their sites...; 11/28/24, 6:00 PM
paminwi said...: Sooo…will they also ban gender transitioning since those children know not what they do?; 11/28/24, 6:23 PM
Gospace said...: 'We know some kids will find workarounds, but we’re sending a message to social media companies to clean up their act,'"

Act? What act? Social media is a communications venue. Content providers are the act. Which includes everyone with an account. And the executives of social media do their best to insulate themselves from any responsibility for what users post- like, for example posting videos saying you're going to hurt or kill Trump. Those videos get left up for days... Yet,, post a simple truth- "There are two biological sexes!" and one of the newest social media companies, Bluesky, will ban you within 30 seconds for violating their terms of service. It's been tested and verified. (Facebook takes a little longer...)

Then, what exactly is a social media site? Is it something with "free access"? Like Facebook or Gab or Wimkin, or even Myspace, which is still around? How about Onlyfans? Is it social media? Or thinly disguised porn?

And Althouse- what if a minor wants to peruse the comment section and actually comment? Who is responsible for restricting minor access to the comment section- google or Ann? Or is the comment section not social media?

If you want social media with a guarantee of free speech- incorporate in the USA, have no overseas subsidiaries, and let people anywhere sign in on the dot com or dot US website. Australia wants to take you to court? They'll end up holding a trial in absentia- no court will extradite you for allowing free speech on a US based platform. Having servers in Australia will make it faster for Australians to connect, but then, those servers and employees servicing them have to play by their rules. Ones here don't. F___ them and the horse they rode in on! is a perfectly proper response.; 11/28/24, 6:55 PM
Rabel said...: No. Initially they wanted submission of government issued ID and they are considering other forms now. But just clicking "no" isn't the plan.; 11/28/24, 7:12 PM
Zev said...: "Will It Work?"
Yeah, sure it'll work, why not?
But the NYT doesn't want it to work.; 11/28/24, 8:06 PM
Aggie said...: Let me guess: If someone violates this law, the Storm Troopers will show up and arrest their parents.; 11/28/24, 9:11 PM
Craig Mc said...: This has nothing to do with teenagers. It's to force everyone to register with the digital ID and therefore extirpate anonymity on the web. How can you prove you're an adult otherwise?; 11/29/24, 2:39 AM
boatbuilder said...: Unlike other 15-year olds everywhere in the world, Australian 15-year olds are not smart enough to create fake 17-year old accounts.; 11/29/24, 7:30 AM
PM said...: I still use a flip phone. It's limitation is liberating.; 11/29/24, 1:52 PM