My kid (with a little help from Claude) ended up creating his own social network just to get around the bans. The name of his network makes his opinion of the bans pretty clear. For his birthday, all he wanted was his domain name and and "merch pens" printed with the domain on it. I suppose I'm proud!
Read the under 16 ban in Australia as ideally their presence on certain social media platforms as being against the law. Parents though very much like the ones that let their under age kids drive on roads despite illegal, will trust those in their judgement will probably be safe, while being able to enforce restrictions of their child if they feel it's robbing their kid of time, self respect or other.
The difference with the ban is unlike back in 2019 when social media were ignoring requests (too hard etc) to remove some of the bad algorithms that were targeting and funnelling teenagers into dark topic areas ... with the change it's on social media to ... well remove targeting algorithms that focus on the 10 to 14 year olds for a start ... else if anything bad outcomes happens - the law I'd imagine will throw the book at them. It also works the other way as well, parents who knowingly permitted their child to engage, won't be rushing off to their lawyers to sue whomever.
The main issue with the ban has been where some people would like to use the under 16 ban as an excuse to do age verification by the most intrusive means as possible - but I could only imagine it only benefits platforms scraping as much PII as they can get.
Yeah, there’s nothing more objectionable than a law that is not seriously enforced. It need not be perfectly enforced (what law is?), but anything that doesn’t come with real teeth should just be repealed, regardless of the merits
That depends on the purpose of the individual law. Laws against murder must be enforced as much as possible, but the war on drugs has done a lot of unnecessary damage through excessive enforcement - drugs being illegal would still reduce drug use if that was only lightly enforced. The law is not like a segmentation fault.
Maybe I'm misreading their point...but I'd think that OP was being intellectually consistent and saying that the drug laws should be enforced as written for everyone, or repealed and replaced by more sane laws... because of you were to enforce them as written, you'd have 20-30% (wild ass guess) of the country serving prison time.
Yes, laws should be repealed if they’re bad. And I think strict enforcement makes it clearer when laws are bad. I would much rather everyone get the same treatment by the criminal justice system every time they violate the law, so everyone knows the true cost of the law, not just those that are unlucky
You cannot talk about absurd absasing laws and fixate about enforcement. It is excusing satanism. It is diverting attention. It is "if dystopia is to happen, it would be defensible that it be done seriously".
With the approximately zero quality of current administrations the difference between "legitimate" and "legal" has become bewildering and well beyond damaging.
The problem is might see the solution is to not have such laws in the first place if they are not enforced. But another solution is to give the government more and more and more enforcement power which will, eventually, be used against the people instead of for them. Just as bad is all these enforcement people have to continually justify their pay so the bar for what constitutes an infraction starts dropping in order to keep the prosecution rates up.
The real solution to this has always been as much about education. Teach the kids about social media the way we teach about drugs and sex. It’s in many ways more ubiquitous to many teens than the other two these days.
(Oh and regulate the companies, not what consumers are allowed to do)
The only places that seem to be doing well with teaching about sex are those that are not all too concerned about teenagers having sex. And places that do a good job teaching about drugs seem even rarer
I'm all for teaching about social media. But if that is supposed to have any success it should be more like teaching about politics and literature than like teaching about drugs and sex. Give them literacy, discuss which motives and forces are at play so they can see beyond the obvious and make good decisions
If this is the cokamany bullshit Child Safety Act that the AU Gov put in place with the social media ban and age verification shit™ -- I knew this would happens inevitably. The whole thing was stupid as fuck. Not a single one of us that _actually_ work in this industry were consulted to ask whether we _thought_ this was a good idea, no sir. -- Be careful my fellow Aussies, or we end up letting the government build the Great Wall of Australa!
It applies a 'duty of care' to 'online services', which include 'internet carriage services', 'social media', 'relevant electronic services', 'hosting services', 'search engine services', generative AI services, among others. And for encrypted messaging (which would probably come under 'social media' or 'relevant electronic services'), it only excludes 'lawful communications occurring in private solely between consenting adults'.
And the other big thing is it gives approved researchers authority to use sock puppet identities in contravention of any 'agreement, contract or deed', and gives them immunity from civil consequences.
Reliable sources inform me that the government is never going to abuse this act.
I'm sorry, but what I have to say to that is simple this; Parent should teach their children better, teach them virtues, how the world works, protect them from the horrors that exists. Love and nurture them. Not wash their hands and shrug and expect some lousy politicians to protect their children. Geez fuck.
Forgive me for being passionate. But this isn't the way to solve the problem.
Going "entrance forbidden to the libraries and bookstores: they are full of bad texts (and there are people scribbling dumb harmful things on the billboards there)" is not "protecting children".
(With reference to YouTube, chiefly, but not necessarily excluding other repositories. And not to mention the actual intention to block access to encyclopedias.)
I think that depends a lot on the age of the child in question. I absolutely would simply forbid an 8 year old from entering a library or book store with neo nazi writings or aum shinrikyo literature or Ted Kaczynki’s manifesto easily accessible. Trying to provide appropriate context for everything at that age is simply not feasible.
-- You have treated the «8 year old» as a newborn without previous protective formation - so a sad case already;
-- You have defended barring access to all decent libraries and bookstores - which in their hundreds of thousands of volumes do have lots of trash and biased texts. They also contain the good ones.
It's not entrance forbidden to libraries and bookstores though, it's closer to entrance forbidden to bars and casinos. Modern social media is quite low value and quite predatory.
Right now just for you. I clicked on the app and the first thing it displays is a short, of a guy (probably AI) reading a Reddit post about someone's grandpa wanting to be called Bloodfang, overlaid on Subway Surfers. Not the worst content on there but definitely mindless brainrot.
Unbelievable. I do not really know how to reply politely.
I will repeat: go and hunt the wealth that it does contain. It is not a sign of mental development to pick one piece of trash and say that it exhausts the content. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50140206
Are these authors bought and paid for by big tech? This assertion, with nothing to back it up and zero mention of the negative side effects, calls the entire article’s legitimacy into doubt for me:
> It’s important for kids to do this online, an arena where they often develop social skills and refine their identities.
Later on they say:
> Rather than attempting to block young people from online services that allow them to access information and engage in age-essential communication
The fact being “social media online” is taken as a given for under 16s is laughable. Kids do not need to socialize like this, they do not need to be online, they can and should go outside. When they turn 16 their brains will be slightly more fully formed and I could go on and on but it seems these authors just want the kids exposed to the algorithms.
Substitute "online" for "on predatory social media", which is what this is actually restricting. Do you really put predatory social media on the same level of importance as basic reading?
YouTube is also predatory. Have you noticed how it now defaults to showing you a short when you first open the app? Maybe make your own video museum that's separate from the slop machine.
Sorry can you explain that a bit more literally? They must be online at the same level as they must read? I didn’t see any other posts referencing this elsewhere in the page.
I will not post the hundreds of channels I follow on YT for privacy reasons, but you can check yourself (if you never did that): think of some cultural matter of the past or the present, in video form, and it will be on YT.
Already that the MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Yale etc. have an important presence there is telling of the foolishness to block access. Add things like the "Curiosity Show" and Julius Sumner Miller and all daily published new divulgation, and you can see how blocking access to kids and students is near the most stupid idea ever.
Where? See the start of the submitted (which does not mention youtube, but if you follow the news it is there):
> In July, France joined Australia in restricting minors from accessing social media—barring children under 15 from major platforms, before the ban was blocked by the country’s top court on human rights grounds. The UK aims to forbid kids under 16 from accessing Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms in early 2027, and the EU has announced its own plan to prohibit social media for kids under 15
Explain the difference. Because if something declared "Age verification for entrance into cultural venues", my first matter of care is not about the point in the future where the liability would happen - the core liability is already there, proposing the satanic.
The proposal has already happened. You are not understanding what you reply to.
> the core liability is already there, proposing the satanic
We cannot be in a situation in which ___trash___ is making proposals and our reassurance should be "maybe they will not". The reassurance happens when they are called with their deserved name by a critical mass.
Sorry, I still cannot tell what is the central thrust of what you’re saying. I’m also having a hard time telling the difference between what is quoted from the article and where you’re quoting yourself looking at that comment that you linked.
My general position is that assuming that children ages of 10 to 16 _need_ to be or _must_ be online to communicate with their peers, without considering the negative impact on developing brains, is intellectually dishonest at best.
No, you misunderstood. Online "for the purpose of communication" was not defended. Online "for the purpose of cultivation" is morally mandatory.
I do not see how there can be a misunderstanding: they blocked and/or are planning to block and/or trying to block access by minors to crucial resources like YouTube. Kids are mandated to read good books, and they are similarly mandated to watch good video material. Do you understand what I mean for "good video material" or would you like me to improvise a list with some examples?
If you are maturing in a place without access to libraries or without access to independent theaters (a dispersed, rural area or under a shoestring or autocratic government) then I will concede this. But if you live in a city that provides these things, then access to YT does not provide an adequate ROI (in terms of the negative consequences it introduces) over a library or regular visits to the art museum
You clearly have no idea about what YouTube contains, to compare it to what can be met in local collections.
And a similar wild comparison is that about the «negative consequences [YouTube would] introduce» - and without even considering the easy circumventions. Which «negative consequences»?!
Everyone knew it when these sort of measures were first discussed here way back when and everyone knew that they would be bypassed as soon as they were implemented.
But politicians, lobbies, and everyone else who gains from this do not care.
> But early lessons from Australia, which enacted a ban in 2024, show that these sorts of age restrictions are easily circumvented. A study published earlier this year found that four in five teens under 16 made their way onto barred platforms.
No offense but did you read the article? if not, maybe go do that.
Why do you infer that if it can be bypassed, it's not working? In a lot of places where it's illegal to smoke weed, people do it anyway - but the law still makes a big difference, because it adds friction and because it doesn't happen in public.
Yeah, either you are a bot or you don't care about reading an article that you are commenting on even after I posted a direct quote from said article in my reply so I am not going to waste time responding to your comments.
Im not surprised, the Plattforms have 0 interest in kids not accessing. If they could make money from this i would bet my left Hand 99.5% of kids would not manage to enter.
FaceID works pretty good. I dont see any law of physics / math forbidding a proper biometric, privacy compliant age filter to work at scale.
I suppose Wikipedia needs to go to the dark net for allowing British kids (and adults) to read it freely. One might reckon that reading Wikipedia would be good for kids (and adults), but I suppose the Soviet Uni... err. disagrees. I mean, sarcasm aside, that is the real, fundamental danger here; VPN use has already seen big increases in Australia and the UK, and the dark net is the last place no one should go but may have to. Soon in the EU too, I suppose.
> Social media bans suppress kids’ access to information, including information that’s essential to their development, identity formation, and socialization, especially during adolescence.
Indeed children were deprived of their potential for development for all of humanity up until the early 2000s, thank god we finally closed the gap with social media algorithms...
Kids in the 90s were growing up in a different world. And that world did have a lot less dissemination of information and experiences. From today's perspective there were vast gaps that were later filled by Tumblr, Reddit and now TikTok
Which is not to say that there aren't major drawbacks too
> deprived of their potential for development for all of humanity up until the early 2000s
Exactly: before that age I had to travel a very long distance to reach information collections that were a tiny shard of what is available now from anywhere, anytime, freely, with a few clicks. (The reference is still YouTube.)
1. https://idiocy.schappistudios.com
The difference with the ban is unlike back in 2019 when social media were ignoring requests (too hard etc) to remove some of the bad algorithms that were targeting and funnelling teenagers into dark topic areas ... with the change it's on social media to ... well remove targeting algorithms that focus on the 10 to 14 year olds for a start ... else if anything bad outcomes happens - the law I'd imagine will throw the book at them. It also works the other way as well, parents who knowingly permitted their child to engage, won't be rushing off to their lawyers to sue whomever.
The main issue with the ban has been where some people would like to use the under 16 ban as an excuse to do age verification by the most intrusive means as possible - but I could only imagine it only benefits platforms scraping as much PII as they can get.
(Oh and regulate the companies, not what consumers are allowed to do)
I'm all for teaching about social media. But if that is supposed to have any success it should be more like teaching about politics and literature than like teaching about drugs and sex. Give them literacy, discuss which motives and forces are at play so they can see beyond the obvious and make good decisions
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislat...
It applies a 'duty of care' to 'online services', which include 'internet carriage services', 'social media', 'relevant electronic services', 'hosting services', 'search engine services', generative AI services, among others. And for encrypted messaging (which would probably come under 'social media' or 'relevant electronic services'), it only excludes 'lawful communications occurring in private solely between consenting adults'.
And the other big thing is it gives approved researchers authority to use sock puppet identities in contravention of any 'agreement, contract or deed', and gives them immunity from civil consequences.
Reliable sources inform me that the government is never going to abuse this act.
The attempt is everywhere - probably not just in the undead "western world".
Can I remind you that the thing out in the australian government uttered something like "a hill to die on"? What were the exact words?
Why are not people outpspoken on the bestiality of those things? To stress the total difference that separates from those things?
Forgive me for being passionate. But this isn't the way to solve the problem.
Going "entrance forbidden to the libraries and bookstores: they are full of bad texts (and there are people scribbling dumb harmful things on the billboards there)" is not "protecting children".
(With reference to YouTube, chiefly, but not necessarily excluding other repositories. And not to mention the actual intention to block access to encyclopedias.)
-- You have defended barring access to all decent libraries and bookstores - which in their hundreds of thousands of volumes do have lots of trash and biased texts. They also contain the good ones.
YouTube?!?!?!?! When was the last time you checked the wealth it contains?!
I will repeat: go and hunt the wealth that it does contain. It is not a sign of mental development to pick one piece of trash and say that it exhausts the content. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50140206
> It’s important for kids to do this online, an arena where they often develop social skills and refine their identities.
Later on they say:
> Rather than attempting to block young people from online services that allow them to access information and engage in age-essential communication
The fact being “social media online” is taken as a given for under 16s is laughable. Kids do not need to socialize like this, they do not need to be online, they can and should go outside. When they turn 16 their brains will be slightly more fully formed and I could go on and on but it seems these authors just want the kids exposed to the algorithms.
They ___must___ at the same level as they must read. See posts elsewhere in this page.
--
Oh, a sniper. I will be even more clear: either the kids get cultivated, or they are wasted and waste. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50140206
Among other severe faults: read the site Guidelines.
You are posting on HN, you take it for granted we use "apps"?!
> Maybe make your own video museum that's separate from the slop machine
The states have not done it and they are attacking the imperfect third party-treasure!!!
I will not post the hundreds of channels I follow on YT for privacy reasons, but you can check yourself (if you never did that): think of some cultural matter of the past or the present, in video form, and it will be on YT.
Already that the MIT, Stanford, Caltech, Yale etc. have an important presence there is telling of the foolishness to block access. Add things like the "Curiosity Show" and Julius Sumner Miller and all daily published new divulgation, and you can see how blocking access to kids and students is near the most stupid idea ever.
Where? See the start of the submitted (which does not mention youtube, but if you follow the news it is there):
> In July, France joined Australia in restricting minors from accessing social media—barring children under 15 from major platforms, before the ban was blocked by the country’s top court on human rights grounds. The UK aims to forbid kids under 16 from accessing Facebook, TikTok, and other platforms in early 2027, and the EU has announced its own plan to prohibit social media for kids under 15
> the core liability is already there, proposing the satanic
We cannot be in a situation in which ___trash___ is making proposals and our reassurance should be "maybe they will not". The reassurance happens when they are called with their deserved name by a critical mass.
My general position is that assuming that children ages of 10 to 16 _need_ to be or _must_ be online to communicate with their peers, without considering the negative impact on developing brains, is intellectually dishonest at best.
No, you misunderstood. Online "for the purpose of communication" was not defended. Online "for the purpose of cultivation" is morally mandatory.
I do not see how there can be a misunderstanding: they blocked and/or are planning to block and/or trying to block access by minors to crucial resources like YouTube. Kids are mandated to read good books, and they are similarly mandated to watch good video material. Do you understand what I mean for "good video material" or would you like me to improvise a list with some examples?
You clearly have no idea about what YouTube contains, to compare it to what can be met in local collections.
And a similar wild comparison is that about the «negative consequences [YouTube would] introduce» - and without even considering the easy circumventions. Which «negative consequences»?!
Everyone knew it when these sort of measures were first discussed here way back when and everyone knew that they would be bypassed as soon as they were implemented.
But politicians, lobbies, and everyone else who gains from this do not care.
No offense but did you read the article? if not, maybe go do that.
Good day.
FaceID works pretty good. I dont see any law of physics / math forbidding a proper biometric, privacy compliant age filter to work at scale.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wikimedi...
“Beasts” eh? Sounds a little hyperbolic. I’m going to need a reference for the search engine and Wikipedia blocking claims.
Indeed children were deprived of their potential for development for all of humanity up until the early 2000s, thank god we finally closed the gap with social media algorithms...
Is this sponsored by Meta?
Which is not to say that there aren't major drawbacks too
Exactly: before that age I had to travel a very long distance to reach information collections that were a tiny shard of what is available now from anywhere, anytime, freely, with a few clicks. (The reference is still YouTube.)