Governments never overstep their authority or chip away at the individual freedoms of their citizens. They only have the wellbeing of their people in mind. All hail the government!
It will make Older Sane Aussies leave that stand up to Government, making way for the Woke left loonie generation which the government wants desperately for its communistic reasons. Totalitarianism at its best!!
I've seen in hospitals where staff have to scan their identification card to access the use of the computer at the hospital. This could be implemented in all of society at some point. In order to access your computer or in order to access certain content one will have to have an identification card and a scanner to gain access. No more: are you over the age of 18? Yes or no?
Government: Your internet access has been suspended until you pay your taxes/tickets/insurance. Citizen: I don't have the money right now. Government: Have fun living on the street then. Government created and enforced class system.
I think this is more to *identify* users for other reasons. They've been trying to find a way to unmask anonymous internet users for a little while now. They tried the internet bullies angle last time, looks like this is what they've gone with in the end.
It's funny how "surveys" point to support for this bill, but every comments section I read is about 95% against. Something is definitely not adding up.
Comment sections are not a random survey. Notice the provocative title of this video. And no need to put surveys in quotes, as though it's a conspiracy and such surveys don't exist: the Guardian released one today with 67% support for the U16 ban.
It's called algorithms genius. There are millions of us who are all for the ban. You have proven you don't understand how social media works so how is your children able to understand. Every time you comment on propaganda like this your social media feeds all get more of the same proganda to keep you engaged. How do you not know that? It's sad how many of you feel violated over a social media ban.. there are far more important things in life than social media. Look at the stat's of what it's doing to people. It's an argumentative cesspool and it's getting worse. Why would you want your children to have that future. Social media is designed to remove free thought and you are all defending it
I think it's because most people are against the idea of allowing children to use social media, but most people are also against the idea of mass surveillance and governments having unfettered access to your personal internet usage, including your social and political views. People are happy with having children off social media, but they aren't happy with the reality that this method will allow the government to ban whoever they like off social media. It's kinda 2 different issues.
If a dictator wants to find someone who think they are "anonymous" in said social media they will find a way to find who's who. That's how autocratic states arrest people for posting things on facebook/instagram/tiktok, etc. Social media wasn't and it is not anonymous. Even if using a nickname, doesn't matter. If you use the internet it's a signal coming from one place (your device) to another physically. This governments can decode without much trouble. Even obscuring programs and services, they just make it harder (more time consuming) to find who's who.
@@StrikeWarlockChina doesn’t do this. These platforms have more information on people than god. Capitalists will sell this and use this to prevent any dissent by workers.
Remember Australians made it illegal for companies to to not install backdoors in their encryption when requested. They also made it a criminal offence for any company to inform the public that they have been requested to install backdoors.
I didn't realise this had no DEBATE. I'm in favour of young teens not being on social media because it completely screws up their mental health, but not like this. This is something big enough that it _has_ to be hashed out and picked apart thoroughly before it's implemented. And HELL NO to biometrics!
I agree too too much social media is bad for young people, but a flat out ban until you're 17 is over the top IMO, something along the lines of stopping young people interacting with older people would make more sense and lower the risk of them being exposed to dangerous or harmful content.
It was discussed in hearings as can actually be seen in this video, and had been proposed for a year or so, but it's true that there was no fully fledged parliamentary debate. I think discussions will continue and it will change a bit before it comes into force in a year's time.
@finnbob92 I have to disagree. I think a ban is completely reasonable, but my concerns lie in how to enforce it. I grew up without social media. I can't imagine being a teenager in this age and being bombarded not only with pumped up standards and filters, but the endless stream of advertising and influencers trying to sell garbage so they can get a commission. It's genuinely horrific. And that's not even touching on how much worse my teenage years would have been if my school bully had been able to continue the harassment online even after school hours. Kids DO need to be protected from the onslaught the internet enables. They deserve the chance to be children. Plus they just don't _need_ to be on social media at such a young age. The only people they should be being social with are the people they deal with in their immediate everyday life. Plus what are you actually gaining from sitting on tiktok or insta when you're 15? It's just brainrot. They don't have the experience or critical thinking skills to be wary of scams, of fraudulent stories, undisclosed advertising, filters, predators, and most of all they aren't taught to hide their irl information. Children need time to develop (and be taught) these skills. I think 16 years is the least we should allow children to grow up without having to contend with such stresses. In an ideal world, children would listen to (trust) their parents when they say no social media, and parents would be active about this sort of thing, and the government shouldn't even have to look at this issue let alone pass a bill on it. But we're far from ideal. I *don't* like how this was passed without debate or real discussion. Don't like it one bit. It feels like someone's greased the wheels for a different agenda that can benefit from this stuff. It feels slimy, using a genuine problem to usher in more surveillance.
forget facebook, tiktok.. banning youtube takes away ton of education opportunities for aussie kids. Tbh big reason for our knowhow is tutorials/guides on youtube. (P.S : although video shows youtube in the potential ban list as many pointed out seems youtube will not be affected)
Why is my comment removed? There is a guardian article that specifically states that TH-cam, as an educational platform, *will be exempt* from the ban. We can agree on just how draconian this decision is, but it's just as important to stick to the facts.
Unfortunately, the counter argument for this will be that a kid doesn't need an account to watch TH-cam, so they won't be deprived of said educational opportunuties. They would only be limited to content that isn't age-restricted.
it is probably about Control who takes in what and to what extent, after all if you have a key for someone, you can direct the person what you think is good for him and exclude him from what the administrator thinks is good for the person in question, it starts with social media and later....... what comes after?......... Total Control
Yeah this is a box you don’t want to open. Based on most governments not protecting children from almost anything, there’s a good chance this has nothing to do with good intention.
@@iuse9646 Not if two-factor authentication is required and people use AU based numbers. Then they can make it so ID is required based on the requirement of 2FA, not just the geo-location of the source IP address. This is pretty bad. It all depends on how it is enforced, if at all. Even better they can see the previous location of the device which is being used for 2FA or the mobile number.
They always do this. Of course we all want to protect children, but it’s the intent. laws like this always act like they’re “doing it for the kids,” but then we lose more aspects of privacy
What in this world makes you think you have privacy at all on the internet AND not on the internet? Got a car loan? mortgage? got any monthly bills? if you think the internet is the only way you have lost privacy you have the iq of a rock. your information is out there. everything you do is tracked and recorded. feeling ill? the water company knows how much you flush your toilet. work nights the electric company knows. do you drive recklessly the insurance company knows. you have zero privacy in this world. the better question you need to ask yourself is what are you trying to hide?
Take the phone of the kids - we survived centuries without it and had better quality of life And actually taught children to have RESPECT for others... why do people make things so complicated? It's our job to care for them not be their best, coolest friend - time parents actually parented!!!
@@lester8403 No it isn't, the con far out weight the pros here with the gov being able to easily become a surveillance state with all the hells that come with it.
Yeah like credit scores and extradition treaties are things in people's imaginations. Aussie society is concentrated on the two coasts with no land border neighbors. You're more able to leave China than Oz lmao.
They already know this and quite well too. Even if you try to use nickname and avatar. And if you post photos on these social media... they know how you (and your friends, relatives and even pets) look like... Location isn't a secret too.
They already know this lol. Use all the VPN you want, they STILL know who you are lol. You act as if Silicon Road or CP online offenders never get caught. Clown comment.
@@AwesomeLifeguard I'm sure they know alot. But there's a large difference between ID and face scan Vs what we have now. Yes the authorities could find out. But it takes a bit more effort. It's not like anyone at this point cares about looking at who a certain spam account belongs too. ID and face scan. basically ensures fully they know who it is.
@@hello-hi-5 parents can still allow their kids onto social media. It’s no difference today to parents buying booze for their kids, or kids lying and saying they’re over 16 when they sign up. It’s all the same. Parents can still allow or disallow. This just makes it safer for those parents who don’t have a clue.
@@michaelbee8263 Some parents will still not have a clue and will set up an account for them while not knowing anything about what their child is doing. Also so what? are you okay with your anonymity being taking away?? because i'm not. not only that, but it's also a more slippery slop for more nefarious things to happen.
@@hello-hi-5 Anonymity is important but it’s not the issue, it can be solved. Parents have no more or less control than before. All that has been done is holding the social media companies to a higher standard than just ‘click if you’re 16’.
Funny they put it under the "social media" rug. While there are +++100.000 websites with disclaimers "are you 18 years old YES/NO", to get access to the most vulgar websites on this earth.
ok, but you know that anyone can just press "yes" even if they're 8 years old. I think there's an important discussion to have for this problem. Obviously, Face-ID or biometrics shouldn't be asked before using a website. Double tokenisation seems good for now, but utimately, I think it's a parent issue or a phone issuer issue. Have families control the phones of their children. Not the government.
This is just asking for a massive data breach incident, the question isn't about if it's possible it's about how the Government will take responsibility and how they will react once it happens.
What are they breaching? What data are they holding in which they don’t already have (ex DMV, Airports, Health care, insurance) wtf are you even on about.
@@mrroger-t6m do you know how much information the government currently has on you and how advanced current encryption is? Do you know the fines and jail time that happens? You make it seem as if the government is being broken into every month lol. Or as if it’s the shitty city-local government holding all this data in a supply closet. There’s a million ways and your disbelief is making a million and 1 in order to fix future generation health.
As elections loom, it’s hard to ignore the timing of such policies, which divert attention from the real issues affecting everyday Australians. Meanwhile, many Australians face a housing crisis, skyrocketing HECS debts, and an ever increasing cost of living, politicians focus on privacy invading policies that do little to help everyday people. Meanwhile, big corporations continue to enjoy tax breaks, and government officials secure cushy jobs with them post-politics
I'm sure that government age verification intermediary won't be hacked in no time flat. Nope, not at all. Young kids shouldn't be on social media, but it should be on parents to do their bloody jobs, educate themselves how to keep their kids off it and actually make an effort to do so, rather than expect the government to do it for them.
Parents have failed for nearly 2 decades now. These companies can't regulate themselves. This stuff has been tried and clearly does not work. Just saying parental responsibility leads to nothing. Plus the idea that anyone is anonymous on social media is just silly anyway. These companies and by extention government know who you are with or without id anyway. Parents are not able or willing to defend themselves against these social media companies so different solutions should be explored. These anonymity discussions should have been held 20 years ago. That ship has sailed long ago. Thinking this can be stoped at this point is just putting heads in the sand.
And you expect parents to be everywhere at once, watching over their children' shoulders? They are busy working and then too tired to really police everything their children do. Same for having the energy and time to educate their children (and knowledge too). That's why institutions and governments exist. That's why people pay taxes to get something in return. It doesn't work every time but parents being able to (and expected) do this (and many other things) isn't just practical.
@@kameliastoyanova7198 Phones have parental control and monitoring apps. Or you could just not give a child a smartphone at an early age when they don't need one. If you can't be bothered to educate yourself on modern technology (which is dead easy to do, Google exists) and actually teach your children responsible use of it, instead expecting the government to do it for you, then you probably shouldn't have kids. Being busy doesn't absolve you of your responsibilities as a parent. People like you are why this problem is out of control in the first place. Then again, looking at both your username and your profile photo, you're clearly just a bot anyway.
Exactly, if I was the Aussie government I'd be like "You want us to ban social media because you're worried about your kid? Well maybe that's a YOU problem? We've got enough shit on our plates!"
This started when fb demanded we use our 'real' names- even though I hadn't used mine in twenty years. Our owners want to know what we proles are doing and what we are saying at all times. This isn't about protecting children- Its never about protecting children.
THE POLL WAS FRAUDULENT!!!!!!!! NO ONE IN AUSTRALIA SUPPORTS THIS BILL!!!!!!!!!! THE LIBERALS AND LABOUR ARE HERB6Y DECLARED TO HAVE COMMITTED TREASON AGAINST THE NATION OF AUSTRALIA AND IT'S PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO TRUE AUSTRALIAN EVER SUPPORTED THIS BILL1 THIS BILL WAS LITERALLY RAMMED THROUGH THE PARLIAMENT WITH 32 OTHER BILLS IN A SINGLE DAY!!!!!!!!!!!! BOTH LABOUR AND LIBERAL TEAMED UP TO COMMIT TREASON!!!!!!!!!! THERE LAWS ARE HEREBY DECLARED NULL AND VOID!!!!!!!!!!!
I remember this when I was in primary school and asking my IT guy dad about it because he'd always made a big deal of not using real names. Thanks facebook, you ruined everything.
Anytime someone says “its about the children” its 1000 percent not about the children. While I am all for 16 years olds being kicked off the internet, I am concerned about how this blatant attack on privacy will affect the coming age.
I find it interesting when people say its for children, as if to say adults are inferior. Adults aren't inferior. We're equal. Older people aren't inferior to people in their 20s. People in their 20s aren't inferior to people under 10. They're all the same, just at a different part of their journey. They may be inferior with regards to how they benefit the economy or how they can be used by someone, but that doesn't actually make them inferior. This is the same premise that essentially says if you're an adult, screw you. You deserve suffering or neglect. As in, I choose that you deserve the suffering. Specifically you now that you're an adult. Specifically you. Not just as a natural consequence, but suffering that I am in favour of, as I am in favour of it targetting YOU. Be nice. be kind. but don't ever think your life is any less important than anyone else on this planet. Regardless of what anyone says. And if anyone disagrees, think about what they're really saying there. This is one of the reasons children get to be happy and adults get to be fighting misery. It's what you're made to feel. When you grow up, you don't change from a child in the sense of your emotional needs. You can run away easier from issues but that child who you're in favour of supporting, you're then going to be in favour of devaluing when they get older. How does that make sense.
@@ZeerakImran Children can't protect themselves, but adults can. Providing a child with a safe environment growing up will help them as adults. It should be the responsibility of those who are capable to help those who are not
@@lukefrahn8538 Lolwut? The WEF definitely does not want to ban anyone from anything that potentially makes money. They're about the last group of people who would want something like this - they don't care who you are or how old you are, they only care about how much profit you can generate for their members.
@@kameliastoyanova7198if that was the case then you wouldn't be able to share your thoughts about my comment. The problem is not social media, the problem is us, our education and our values, social media is just a reflection.
@@kameliastoyanova7198banning it not great because yt can be educational. So if they put 1 hour yt usage per day I think that would make the world 100x better place
Will the government be teaching kids to ride bikes, changing diapers, reading kids a bedtime story also? Parents should raise their children, not governments. Wild the government even wants to do this.
As damaging as I think social media is and as dead set against it as I am. I think even this is a pandoras box that will lead to worse things down the road.
What on earth is damaging about kids using social media, nothing, it’s a big wide world out there, might as well say don’t walk down the street for the same reason.
@@simony2801cry harder they said Australians no longer can use yt more than 1 hour a day. I appreciate this and it's great if every country learns from Australia and implements this in their own country too
This new law is completely misguided. If it had been in place when I was 15, I don’t think I’d be here today. At that age, I was battling severe suicidal thoughts due to struggles in school, unhelpful teachers, and constant tension at home. My parents would yell at me often and even banned me from seeing my friends. Every time I reached out for help, I was dismissed with comments like, “Your teenage years are supposed to be the best of your life,” which made me feel even more broken because I hated my life. The only thing that kept me going was sneaking my phone back at night (which I had paid for myself) to watch motivational videos. Those videos were the only thing that gave me hope and reassured me that life would get better after school. Without them, I genuinely don’t think I’d have survived. This law ignores the fact that for many young people, social media and online content can be a lifeline.
Labor is absolutely off its rocker and it's so frustrating - because I'm about to be a teacher and the internet is a vile place to be for a kid with no strategies to keep themself safe. We NEED strategies to help them. We need to have a proper discussion about how to help kids used the net safely, give them good stuff. But Labor has effectively poisoned the discussion. Fighting the thugs on the Right by being thugs on the Left is not going to- ARG.
I can relate strongly to this, my teenage years were my lowest point, and it felt so much worse when every adult I knew kept calling it, “the golden years.” Watching talks on TH-cam from famous artists and entrepreneurs really helped me get through it. I think it doesn’t help people like us to ban TH-cam.
What a lot of people are missing, is that this law is unenforceable outside of Australia. Musk's X can be sued in Texas and Texas only, where it has assets, it has no assets in Australia. The others will say that they will do their best to comply, but not worry about default, as they cannot be reached financially either. Most are based in California. Labor made this basic error intentionally, as they didn't want to overly alarm voters, with fines / jail sentences imposed here, particularly as the offenders would be under 16; so they said compliance is all with the sites. This will have to change if they want it to work. Sites would need to be banned and fines imposed on local "offenders" using a VPN. This is why the bill is so light on detail. Example of this is Brazil, who wanted X to censor certain individuals, X said no and Brazil banned the site. They didn't impose a $50M fine, like Australia proposes, as they know it would be futile, just as it will be in Australia. Instead Brazil's internet users, have turned en masse to VPN services to maintain access to X. They risk fines of up to nearly $9,000 a day by doing so. This is Australia's dystopian future and it will only be done AFTER the next election, by either of our woke major parties.
You are kidding surely? They will be giving the Aust government reacharounds they will be so happy at the reliable advertising data they will have access to as well as ensuring that these massive companies head towards total control of the population. They are going to love this and will not need threats of enforcement to undertake whatever is needed. This is completely different to banning entirely and is a backdoor method of mass surveillance.
It's light on detail because politicians aren't technical experts. They aren't going to say it will be enforced one way if they are only going to discover down the track that it would be technically more feasible to enforce it a different way and make themselves look bad. Remember how much the CovidSAFE contact tracing app changed when it started? It used to run on Bluetooth, then it didn't because it was too complex. They opted for QR codes at venues instead. Most likely, they will be aiming to have the ban programmed into the Australian release of the social media app, so under 16-year-olds simply won't have permission to have an account on it. If the kids decide to use a VPN to get around it, it's not going to be great for them. I mean, you might get a social media account geographically created in the United States, but then you would be posting photographs of yourself with geographically Australian photographs in the GPS meta-data, forming friendships with your parents who are geographically in Australia and showing interest in events that are geographically in Australia. How much effort are kids going to undertake to get around it?
So does every good government idea. The problem is when the government is so blinded by power and greed that they can no longer distinguish the good from the bad, combined with citizens being so blinded by nonsense like "woke" that they refuse to vote in smarter politicians.
BY """"CONCERNED CITIZEN""""..... DO YOU MEAN THE ACTUAL POLITICIANS WHO PASSED THE LAW??????? THE SAME POLITICIANS WHICH LITERALLY JUST COMMITTED TREASON???????????
@@Scorch428 the internet is like privately owned land most people have no rights - it's not a government it's a business, where they let us in to make money we are at their whims
Just imagine an entire generation learning to use alternative social media platforms not exactly friendly towards government overreach... Good job Aussies, trying to control teenagers will work as well as controlling the Emus.
Same with cane toads. We introduced them to try and control cane beetles which were affecting cane sugar crops. Now they are a huge problem where they are harming our natural biodiversity. Every aussie is familiar with the crunch sound of cane toads under their tyres as they drive through a literal sea of them during our wet season. Its so bad up in North Queensland.
There was a situation that happened a few years back when social media sites tried to ban 'pro-Ana' groups - girls and women who were encouraging each other to be anorexic. At first they thought it was a raging success but then a University study that was able to anonymously trace IPs revealed the women had all simply left Instagram and Facebook and found smaller forums where they were spending _even more hours a day_ discussing anorexia than they were before (and now they were doing it with even less oversight). Our government simply is never going to learn: overtaxing and over-regulation doesn't lead to a reduction in demand, it just creates black markets. Here in Australia we're notorious for that shit, it goes right back to the Rum Rebellion.
On the one hand, I can 100% get why people think that too much social media can be harmful to children...but on the other hand, it's not up to the government to decide that shit. I'm not even an Australian, I'm English and we've got our own Online Safety Bill but this law from Australia would make even the people behind the OSB go "Fucking hell, that's a bit much, lads"
"too much social media can be harmful to children" meaning that it can not be? The question for me is: is it bad enough to override parents? I would need to educate myself on that first.
@@faroleiro I would like to hope that the parents themselves would teach the kids the dangers of social media and how to stay safe on there before letting them use it. Why should any government feel like they have to step in? Unless they're just using it as an excuse and there's more sinister intentions.
@@faroleiro There's no hard evidence of harm. Sure, you can scroll for hours and get bad grades because you didn't do your homework, but it doesn't make kids depressed. Kids are already depressed so they turn to social media to procrastinate and get away from the stresses of school and life.
@@onetoolfan I don't need to draw any lines. We just wait and see what kind of problems emerge and where they stem from. If a cause is identified, we take action. We don't have to sit down and write the rules for the next 1.000 years; we're not in the USA with their horrendously outdated Constitution. We're free to react to socially harmful developments once they occur.
@lonestarr1490 also, it's hilarious that you think having pre-planned limitations on the government is an outdated concept. Holy shit bro. Read a history book of literally any government with unchecked power. It has never ended well.
I boggles my mind that we live in a country where you don’t need to use an ID to vote but you will need one to use Facebook. Wouldn’t expect anything less from the world’s nanny state.
That's why I hate it when people talk about how much better the Australian voting system is because voting is mandatory there. Yet, their politicians are just as corrupt and incompetent as other countries!
That’s working great so far with record depression and suicide (and evidence they are linked to social media, one example study in this video but there are many more). You may disagree with the proposal and I do, but this is a real issue.
Government currently blocks access to alcohol, drugs, tabacco etc to kids regardless of parents. Let me introduce you to the poor parenting skills of society from the past and the present. You'd be amazed at how bad some are at parenting.
More than 20 years ago I had an online friend from Australia who told me about absolutely insane digital censorship laws in that country. For example, according to him ESRB ratings were strictly enforced in stores, and many video games were banned altogether. There were severe data restrictions by ISPs making online gaming problematic, not to mention trying to circumvent the game bans by downloading them online. I just looked it up and it seems like this person's descriptions were accurate for the time. It seems like Australia has a long tradition of trying to control the Internet and the digital environment.
And it needs to be regulated. Like any other thing in life. Can it be used to cause harm? Yes. Then it should be regulated accordingly. It seems Au government (and probably the people) were aware that digital information isn't some joke and acted upon it.
@@briannem.6787 While I can kind of agree, I've known games get heavily restricted (and get temporarily banned) because of fictional drug use (you don't even have to depict it in a game to get the restriction, just describing that a character does it), despite them having massive downsides in the actual game mechanics. Weirdly enough, there are other games with worse drugs that don't get restricted. I don't understand how it's so inconsistent.
Not doing anything is also being used for evil right now. Letting these companies self regulate clearly leads to all sorts of negative outcomes, and parents are not able or willing to defend against it. Doing nothing just means prefering the existing evil over another one. And anyone who believes anything or anyone on social media is in any way anonymous right now is just ignorant. These companies and by extention the government already knows exactly who you are and what you do online all day. This really doesn't change anything other then putting responsibility on these companies instead of society.
"My rule of thumb is, if I can think of how a thing might be used for evil..." what if you don't manage to find how something can be used for evil purposes. Does it mean it can't be used for evil purposes?
@@AwesomeLifeguard If you can't think of anything evil happening stemming from the government having your internet information, Please reevaluate your biases and reflect if the people you are biased for truly deserves it. Even a kindergartner can think of a bad thing the state will do if they have all your sensitive internet info.
I'm waiting for 'The Juice Media' and their 'Honest Government Ad' on this subject. IF you haven't watched any of their vids, do so, they straight up tell you what 'Sh!tF@ckery' Govts do and in a funny way too! 👍 😎🇬🇧
Great job explaining the situation. Many Aussies are totally in the dark about this situation. It sounds like the Labor government got it's orders directly from WEF HQ.
Nah, if it were from the WEF, it would be something along the lines of smartphones with internet for everybody at birth, so that social media companies can track everybody from a very young age, play them smart advertisements and maximize their profits. I think the "documentary" is highly flawed.
As an Australian, I've never understood how our government can ring the "Endangered Children" alarm and enact sweeping changes without consulting the public, while at the same time undertaking national referendums for things that have minimal risk of harm like gay marriage or giving Indigenous Australians a voice in government
It's weird because Indigenous Australians should have a voice in government on default, considering that they have been here much longer than any settlers and colonisers that came later. And most Indigenous Australians are happy to be Australian like anybody else anyway.
@@TheOz91 They do have a voice in government, it's called voting. Same as everyone else. This is not Israel, we don't give special rights based on race here.
@@mmerrydeath6673 Sure, but since they are "nations" by right and haven't been granted sovereignty or autonomy (unlike the Reservations of the United States which are, by right, independent from the American federal and state governments though all Native Americans are effectively American nationals), they should have rights to have representatives IN the government distinct from the conventional constituencies. Of course, there is voting but Indigenous peoples have the inalienable political rights in the way that they don't need be white knighted by other people.
@@TheOz91 The government can't even say what qualifies as an indigenous person. No set %, genetically I am aboriginal but because I was raised in a white family I don't get to be part of the special rights club because currently it has nothing to do with being first nations, only being accepted by the mob, plenty of white "first nations" yet I'm not part of the silly club??? it's a joke. Australia is ONE nation, try to divide us in any way and you are a traitor.
Britain doesn't have a constitution, and now it's too late to have one: any constitution created now would merely enshrine and permanently authorise all the invasive, totalitarian aspects of today's governments. Witness the (unratified) EU Constitution. America is extremely fortunate that its constitution was created by great men from a time before socialism.
@@l0lLorenzol0lwell they aren't, and it's becoming an issue in and out of school. If parents won't do it, well someone else has to. These companies won't do a thing if they are making profit unless they are forced.
@@l0lLorenzol0lWith what time? If capitalism is asking us to work more and more. And then you will said then dont have kids if you can afford then we need more workers and you will get mad when immigrants come to Australia and change the culture, and so on.
I don't, I'm living with the most boring people on earth on this city, they can't handle sport or anything like that and if they don't like the answer, they change the rules
As a parent of two kids that recently launched successfully, my wife and I set healthy boundaries for our kids access to both the internet and social media. We monitored their web access and they didn't have cell phones until they were old enough to make their own decisions about such things. We taught them how to protect themselves and showed them the toxicity of social media. This is the only way to protect children - it has to come from the parents.
I am happy this worked for you. Didn't work for me. Curious: What was that age? Here, at 10 they actually had to have smartphones and tables for school. As soon as pandoras box is open, there's no holding back anymore and no matter what you tell or teach them: Tempation and and influence from their peers is going to be a lot stronger. "Monitoring web access" is a pretty lame way of teaching kids about the internet net; there're way better ways and that part worked pretty well here: my kids are very aware of all dangers of the internet and know to detect and report malicious activity. Pissing away valuable life time, getting relieved of money by influencers, or being indoctrinated by non-sensse by social media is a completely different matter and even the majority of adults on this planets are not immune to those issues!
@@danielegger6460 They can use the tablet in school if the school requires it. But that doesn't mean that they can have one outside. Regarding the pandoras box, don't give your kids that much credit. They're old enough for smartphones and tablets but not old enough to be told no? You should tell them no point blank and enforce it a lot earlier. Then you won't have to worry about all the things that could go wrong, because your child will know that they will be held responsible for their participation in anything that does go wrong. Also, kids not being told no is leading to all sorts of problems. That's more of an issue than social media and I would argue that social media usage would drop if the kids, and adults at this point were held to a higher standard and were given more responsibility at a younger age. Kids aren't as dumb as people make them seem and the notion that teenagers are just inherently wreckless and uncontrollable isn't true. To anyone outside of western europe, US, canada and australia, that notion sounds crazy. Its essentially people receiving education from Disney.
@danielegger6460 but if there is a time in your kid's lives when they did not have cell-phones, they will understand how different their lives were from when they eventually got them.
I believe we face a multifaceted issue here, and it’s accompanied by various anxieties. Firstly, there's no denying that reducing youth’s exposure to social media is beneficial. However, there are several challenges that arise. The most significant concern is where they redirect their attention. Many of the so-called “third places” are rapidly disappearing due to gentrification. Additionally, these spaces have become unsafe not only because of residual crime but also because of the radicalization of young people into violent ideologies that target individuals who deviate from their worldview, including people of color, women, and the LGBTQ+ community. This phenomenon has been exacerbated by the very social media we're talking about. Secondly, parents often fail to act in their children’s best interests. A notable example is their resistance to vaccinations, leading to a resurgence of preventable diseases like rubella. This highlights the problem of parents’ biases and, in some cases, their extreme views. They may actively reject information that contradicts their political leaders’ claims of absolute truth. As a result, we are left with a complex issue akin to global warming-a bundle of interconnected problems, opinions, and social matters that require attention. Sometimes, these issues need to be addressed individually, while at other times, collective action is necessary. However, there is a lack of responsibility and willingness to take on this challenge. For instance, if someone invests in education now, they may object to anything that goes beyond mathematics and language, labeling it as “woke” and ultimately making it unsafe to pursue such knowledge. Similarly, efforts to educate parents about social media may be met with resistance, labeling it as “indoctrination” and preventing them from engaging with it. So, how do we proceed? It’s not just a matter of passing a single piece of legislation. Especially when the privacy of the general public is at stake. Even if the government is willing to refrain from using this as a massive surveillance tool, we can’t guarantee that it won’t change if a malicious political party gains power. Or, what if this information is willingly leaked? So, perhaps the best option for now is to provide better education that encompasses a wide range of social interests and the arts. This could help divert people’s attention. Create more communal, public spaces where people can gather and engage in conversations and activities. The rest of the issues can then be addressed through multiple legislations rather than a single, sweeping approach. However, I doubt that this is even feasible in today’s day and age.
As cynical as it sounds i am interested to see what pitfalls Australia will come accross at the very least EU to an extent other nations will probably use this as a learning exercise.
I think you make a valid point. I would be interested to see what percentage of the people's interests are being served by the politicians they voted for. If there is a large discrepancy, it would be reasonable to to assume that someone else's interests are being served.
It’s the number 1 priority for the opposition, supported in polling by 85% of the population. The concept is basically not opposed by anyone. The bill as passed also isn’t really workable. It forbids use or even association to any government ID, only requires ‘reasonable steps’ (which without that option basically means ‘only ineffectual steps). And it only applies to like X/Facebook/TikTok/Instagram. Messaging apps are explicitly excluded, Anything related to gaming (eg discord) is excluded. TH-cam is excluded. It’s a ‘we’re doing something’ addressing of public concerns, that’s it. Could it be all the things people fear? Yes, if the opposition gets in and amend it, possibly, as is, no.
A lot of parents are not really that involved. The same with education. Do you want to make it optional? How many kids will have their future destroyed because they parents "know better" and don't send them to school
@@peterdz9573 Yeah a lot of parents are bad parents. The main issue here is that its considered acceptable to be this bad of a parent collectively as a society. A lot of people are too busy working to pay bills and not that involved in their kids lives. Surprisingly, that is not the reason for the kid ending up on social media too much. The first thing to understand is, that social media is harmful to adults if it's harmful to children. If that's the case, you would do something about it and act in a way which reflects that social media is dangerous for you. The kid will see that and everyone growing up in that society would already know it. As it would be obvious to them. Even if it isn't true. That's how things work. Regarding saving children, I don't care. I care about saving lives. Whether its an adult or child doesn't matter. If it does, then its a little too emotional and not well thought through, for me. You may disagree.
You have absolute no grasp of social media then. Alex Jones literally convinced his social media followers that an actual mass-shooting was completely fake.
Why is no one mentioning that Social Media companies should actually be the first line of defense for children online? Of course parents play a critical role in guiding their children’s online behavior, set boundaries, and educate them about potential dangers. But social media companies have unparalleled access to user data, advanced technology, and a direct ability to influence the online ecosystem. As the creators of these platforms they should be held in charge of gatekeeping against harmful experiences for children. They should monitor, identify, and mitigate harmful content, interactions, or behaviors that could endanger children.
Nice idea, but governments are answerable to their people. A member of parliament can challenge the prime minister to disclose how data is being used and stored. Private corporations are only answerable to their major shareholders and major customers. Anyone else they will politely but firmly tell to get stuffed. Users information is their product, and they sell access to users that match customers requested profiles for profit If something is free for you to use, you are the product
Sorry but I don't want some guys who-knows-where deciding what my kids can and cannot see. Social media platforms should stay as neutral as humanly possible. Only parents should decide.
@@misterwhyte Yes, indeed they should. However without regulation there's no way they can. Are you a parent? I am, and I have to resort to rather drastical measures to keep social media use in check, and even then, the limits only work when they're at home. They rather prefer to stay for hours in the cold to access some public hotspot rather than being subject to an 1h social media limit a day... that's the fault of both the social media giants which are completely unregulated and decide to not give a single frog about the true identity of their users (I recently found out that my younger son managed to open a regular premium TH-cam account as a supposed adult no questions asked) and the makers of iOS and Android claim to care with their parental controls which are completely useless. Heck, Apple even finds that my kids shouldn't be able to use Apple Wallet and pay with their phones (or use public transport) while any of those shitty services is happy to accept their Visa card and grant access to adult and other questionable content.
before i had finished hearing the first sentence of someone telling me about this i interrupted them to say "ah, the only way to do that is to log and verify everyone, this has nothing to do with kids and everything to do with linking what you do, say and write online to you." Australia is a good test culture for policy rollouts as it is small, compliant and discrete (as in isolated from) . I remember adults saying that when i was a kid and in my 20s. I would tend to agree from the observational data across my life. Only thing that bothers me is that we should just be told, so we have consent and buy-in. Notes - Appstore level does not work, kids will just get parents to approve - Parents are so clueless about software/tech, any parent today needed to be as a kid and has stayed a cutting edge tech/science head, or they have no hope. - Parents cannot be the first line of defence because the action being defended against is not where parents can reasonably see or even know it is happening. - We have disabled ourselves from being able to discipline each other, children, adults etc. so quite frankly parents do not have the legal authority to STOP a child anymore It is mentioned in the video thankfully, but this will not stop "at a distance" communication between kids. Have a child in high school today. The companies making games are incentivised to bypass the school filters. There are clones of everything popular designed to bypass school firewalls, with backdoors in GitHub, Spotify and just everywhere. The companies move the login points sometimes daily, then get the word out and the kids share it. We literally give the kids Microsoft Teams as their primary school communications platform. The government's plan is about linking our physical and pixel selves. However 1000s of underground social clones, literally blue sky and mastodon instances will be spinning up everywhere. Tech smart kids will run their own chat local servers. Only we won't be able to follow their instagram account to see who is liking their cute pics of their saturday outfits. Cold Fusion, thank you for the opportunity to have a rant about the matter.
“In the first instance, the Government proposes to make legislative rules to exclude the following services from the definition of age-restricted social media platforms: · Messaging apps … · Services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users” Please note that the vast majority of people have a large digital blueprint - there is no barrier to linking your physical and pixel selves. Note also that the app store is not a social media application.
Well you’d be less concerned if you did more than review a policy based on hearsay and one sentence at that. Not only is the bill unworkable for the reasons you listed, but it (contrary to this misinformation video) explicitly forbids social media companies using any form of government ID or identifying information to prove your age. Thus is both cannot be for the reasons claimed, and it cannot work even slightly, since biometrics aren’t at all reliable for proving age. This is basically only Instagram/Facebook/Tiktok/X Messaging apps are explicitly excluded. Anything relating to ‘gaming’ is explicitly excluded. (Eg Discord). TH-cam even, is explicitly excluded.
@@peter65zzfdfh I am not concerned. I use my real name on the internet and always have. i used to post my email and digits in all messages, but that is easily accessible if someone wants it, i make it that way. so to me connecting my online and offline identities is meaningless, they already are.
A cheaper and more effective way would be the government to provide software to parents that would block social media for children. Or you know, parents actually parenting and not giving their children iPhones.
Australia's always been weird. The day I have to give all my information to the corporations and the government, is the day I quit social media completely.
Then you should have quit it already long time ago. What do you think social media companies are doing with your data? And they gather it from day one. These systems know you quite well (age, preferences, even address, favorite food and free time activities, people who you know and like (and their data as well). All of this and even more without giving them even single piece of info from your ID yourself. Even if used a custom username/nickname... Same is for this website too.
@kameliastoyanova7198 To be clear, none of that stuff bothers me. What I'm concerned about is taking my biometric data like facial, fingerprint, eye, voice information and perhaps even DNA. That's my line.
@@Jacen777 It is funny though. People give their biometric data to huge corporations like Apple and Samsung without a second thought but freak out when it's the government.
Same. I like some social media but I won't have a problem dropping it completely if I'm forced to scan my face or give the government even more control. This has zero to do with protecting kids
Kind of ridiculous. They can access hardcore 🌽with a few clicks but they need to ban access to memes and 💩posting on heavily moderated social media? "Somebody think of the children!" is just a ploy, they want to implement a digital ID for internet use.
@@LuisAldamiz not exactly true as you use your ID's number for some activities like signing up for phone services, car registration etc. So your ID already exists in digital form, there's a database somewhere with your ID and everything tied to it already.
@@lonestarr1490 all social media is heavily moderated except for 4chan. Try posting something spicy and you'll get banned on IG, X, FB, YT. I don't think the Australian government is targeting 4chan unironically.
Australia being founded by Criminals is a Myth. Australia was founded by the British, NOT Convicts. Convicts had no choice in anything. Only a very small proportion of early colonists were actually "Convicts."
@@killzoneisa Australia didn’t have the strictest covid measures. It varied State to State. Each Premier put in place their own measures according to their needs. You might be thinking of the State of Victoria. In this part of the world New Zealand had stricter measures due to the vulnerability of their hospital system
@@ZestySea I am Australian i know what went on here. Still Vic didn't weld people inside their homes and never let them out to shop for food but i bet Dan would love to have done that.
@ still you are talking about a country with 1.4 billion people. They didn’t lock everyone up with no food. I know this because university classes were still going on (online) with Chinese citizens in zoom meetings.
I can't believe both parties agreed to it. If the opposition opposed it, im sure it would have meant an increase in votes next time. All these decisions by people who can't even use a computer.
All this trouble and human rights violations for poor parenting. Just tell the parents to do their Jobs. Don't get the Government to look after children.
If the platforms would have taken child safety seriously and actually stopped kids from accessing these platforms that are adult spaces and should only be used by adults this would have never happened.
It won’t work for other reasons, but if they left the very few designated platforms for others I bet the government would consider it mission accomplished.
@@ESedu-o7y well there is a couple of things - sure there’s ways for kids to get around this, but it’s about holding the social media platforms to account and a powering parents who want to police it. Secondly, the e-safety Commissioner decides which platforms go on the list. If a new one emerges she can add it as a controlled platform.
I love how people who are too lazy to take care of their children, instead of limiting their social media use, just vote to ban kids altogether. Instead of taking their children’s phones away after 30 minutes of use or implementing any real parenting strategies, they opt for blanket restrictions. This generation of parents is so incredibly lazy-it’s beyond me. They buy their kids phones so they don’t have to engage, but then complain when the kids use those phones. Rather than spending time with their kids-playing, going places, or actually parenting-they ban the very things kids use to socialize. It’s crazy.
as a teenage who graduated this year THIS IS THE RIGHT MOVE. How much shit that happened at my school because of social media was crazy---some people might even be alive! I'm sure other people who grew up with social media in high school can share the same sentiment.
Can you trust parents that are busy slaving away at a 9-5 to teach their children responsible internet usage? Idk And with all the economic and political power that social media corps have it’s even harder to get them to change how they operate.
Turkey passed the misinformation bill and since then it's been used exactly how u would expect it to be, learn from our mistake and stand up for ur rights before it's too late mate
@morpheusmedia_au They are forbidding kids to use the platforms (and adding a verification system for everybody) to not get harmed, instead of regulate the platforms to not be harmful
@@pi4795 because how do you regulate the platforms that easily? They're already beholden to Aus law as much as possible. They are foreign entities so you can only shape indirectly.
@morpheusmedia_au The EU already regulates this "foreign entities". We have laws about data protection and they have to oblige. If they don't, they would be blocked and honestly, nobody would care, a new one would appear to fill the gap. Same with Apple, the EU wanted to standardize USB C and apple added it to the iphone, and if not they wouldn't sell it here 🤷♂️
Same with obesity and sugar tax. Although If Coca Cola was $3-$5 a litre I’m sure less would buy it. I’m skinny and eat vegetables every day but love chocolate and chocky milk but have been buying less more recently because it’s all gone up in price. ~$6.50 for a block of old gold when not on special. And even at $3.50 I’ll still be unsure. Haven’t gap ice cream for a while either.
@@hydronpowers9014 pandemic was chill, only Melbourne had a bad response, I spent 4 weeks in lockdown across 2 years which is less than most countries including the US
Hi, I'm one of the cyber security experts consulted early on around the social media age restriction legislation. Concerns about any centralised database of Australian citizens and their age maintained by the government was canvassed early on and advised very heavily against very early on, as was sharing of existing government databases. These things are not in the legislation. There is no bipartisan support for the Australian ID card. There is no government honeypot of personally information in this legislation. Per the consultaiton process, the vast majority of persons over the age of 18 already have their age verified through these platforms using existing methods such as credit card verification. The legislation explicitly states it will be up to the social media companies to enforce the age restrictions. The government, through the E-Safety Commisioner, is to monitor the system not to run the system. The legislation does NOT mandate a method for social media companies to enforce this system or allow them access to government systems. In fact... the existing acts specifically prohobit that. This brings us to the Digital ID Act of 2024 (which comes into effect today) allows sharing of digital ID information between Federal and State governments. There are provisions to allow sharing with specific types of private organisations from December 2026 with some pretty serious restrictions. It's also an opt-in system. A lot of the statements in the news stories you clipped from here are factually wrong if you read the actual legislation. You shouldn't confuse election pitches - whether from Labour or Liberal/National politicians - or statements by activists with a clear agenda with the actual policies that pass parliament.
Almost no one is going to digest what you've said here. It's much more satisfying to say that the government is trying to put us all in prison or whatever it is. (How that benefits the government, I'm not understanding.) Plus it's abundantly clear that Big Tech has our best interests at heart and only ever want to nurture confident, high-functioning children. They could never be accused of being the most pervasive, invasive, and nefarious of stalkers. But I'm a parent so of course I can simply educate my children on how to use social media wisely. It's not like I'm up against multibillion $ corps that have collected trillions upon trillions of bits of data to circumvent my best efforts.
I hope you all in your ivory towers didn't think this will be a matter where the government can pretend it isn't their fault for what "solution" the companies come up with.
@@dysfunc121the legislation explicitly forbids using or associating with government IDs. It’s highly likely ‘reasonable steps’ ends up being a checkbox that says ‘I am over 16’ after all the other solutions prove unworkable with that constraint. I’d be worried if the opposition gets in they try to amend that point, given they have said this legislation is their number 1 priority. But as is, this is all fear-mongering for clout.
If you knew back then how to access it.... Or if most people know hot to access it. Actually it should be targeted by these bans as well. These browsers which can access it... and they should trace where this black web is located and isolate traffic from these places.
@@kameliastoyanova7198 As a software developer I would personally work on making dark web technologies more accessible if this happened in my country. You're assuming that everyone would just helplessly let this happen.
@@kameliastoyanova7198 Google only indexes 5% of the web. In other words, the remaining 95% is the dark web. It simply isn't possible to blacklist every other IP address without having an almost unlimited budget to manually check every single IP address in existence to see what lurks within.
@@Peekaboo-Kitty Ah, those myths about the dark web... It's rather easy to tell who has actually visited it first hand and who's only been subject to hearsay... Shady social media sites are *not* the dark web, that's regular shite found on the internet but not popular enough to fall under regular regulations. And those are also getting harder and harder to find (and convince other people to join) thanks to tons of AI generated nonsense sites -- in that respect probably one of the largest benefits of AI for parents.
Kids don’t have more friends because they use less social media, they use less social media because they have more friends. Same could be said for people who don’t have friends and use social media, they use social media because they don’t have friends. Not “they don’t have friends because they use social media”. At the end of the day it’s not like this bill will work.
And sadly some people dont care. "Noone else will do it, we need the boot to step down on our neck" personal responsibility, if you dont want your children in social media...dont give them a smart phone, dont plop them in front of the iPad, be a damn parent. Also never ever allow the government to determine what "misinformation" is THEY WILL USE IT AGAINST YOU
When governments are allowed to decide what "misinformation" is, everything that criticizes the government becomes misinformation. Look at how the CCP operates for a real-world example of this. Free speech dies and 1984-style thought policing become the norm.
They should just make social media paid application. It does require resources to run so it needs to be financially sustainable. This way it will make it less accessible to people who can't manage bank account on their own. Not a perfect solution but one which has grounds in reality. Why do you thing governments banned alcohol usage and drug usage by children? Is it because parents can just tell their children not to drink/smoke? Can parents be everywhere looking after their children 24/7?
@@kameliastoyanova7198 and..did it work? Did teenage drinking ever curb even a bit? No lol. Majority of alcoholism nowadays starts in teenage years and teenagers are the most convicted for drug possession and usage. BUREAUCRACY. NEVER. WORKS. HELICOPTER PARENTING RUINS CHILDREN, GOVERNMENT OVERREACH RUINS NATIONS
Great advice! You do realise that unlike you're fantastic helicopter parent, taking your kid everywhere the whole day and watching every move, nowadays life actually requires kids to have a smartphone in many places around the globe? Sure, there might be workarounds for most things, like public transport, payment, school and sports clubs communications, homework and whatnot, but even if you decide to stigmatize your own kid because it's one of the 10 who are not allowed to have or can't afford a smartphone, it's going to make your own life a lot harder because you have to invent a shitload of workarounds; you can also rest assured that the kid will decide to hangout as much as possible with those cooler kids which are not crippled by such problems -- completely out of your control and sight.
@@zenboy1612 Not "apathetic". The parents are also addicted to Digital Technology themselves. I am someone who has NEVER owned a cell phone or smart phone and it is very easy for me to see how this tech is harming society on several levels. Have a Great Day!
@@zenboy1612 now everyone has to suffer, these parents are emotional and projecting their situation on to all children and folks. Saying we need to protect our children, when these parents stated THEY allowed their daughter to use social media. I feel for there lose, but this is insane , it should be a choice between parents and their own children.
@@GaeModfrey yes - you tube is great, in so many ways. As I understand it, it won’t work for YT because you don’t need an account to watch videos. You won’t get the benefit/disadvantage of the algorithm either - unless you use a parents account (which is 💯 percent allowed). There’s a group of young you tubers who make content. I’ll be interested to see how they manage that issue, but I can think of quite a few ideas.
Pandora's box has already been opened. No one can force the demons back into it. The only way to combat the problems that come with social media is actually educating people in how to manage their social media habits. Trying to ban it is only a bandaid solution and will drive it underground where it is more dangerous.
@@ZestySea Nope, not American. Now instead of trying to dismiss the argument in your mind to make yourself feel better, how about you start doing something to improve the situation instead.
These companies already know who are kids and who are not. They know who everyone is on these platforms. This really changes nothing other then the fact that responsibility can now be put on these companies for not complying instead of saying they had no idea.
@rogerk6180 the reason why I think it's the biggest issue was because people love to live under the illusion that they have complete control of their private information. If we can be honest to each other, those companies and their algorithm know about me more than myself or anyone I know.
@@0okuzukirio0 exactly. The idea that people are still anonymous now and that some sort of id is somehow a major invasion of privacy is just ignorant. Discussions about anonymity online should have been had 20 years ago when it still existed. That ship has sailed long long ago. And it is not that i agree with the invasion of privacy by these companies. People just need to be realistic about the world we already live in. Keeping this illusion of privacy allows these companies to claim ignorance and avoid responsibility. How many reports are there of people posting something stupid on social media and a day later police knocking on their door ? They know everything already.
If only those that provided the kids with the phones in the first place had any sort of control and say......... Yea, big issue enforcing it all that a simple no would solve.
Ai can change faces in real time, theres age-up snapchat filters etc. etc. etc. The government can't enforce this, they can only make it more annoying to access... at taxpayer expense of course.
Try applying for a job or a rental property today without disclosure of all your personal data (for security checks of course), then hope like hell they don't simply on sell it to scammers, or entrust it to a completely unsecured database
@@dgs3002exactly, this video conflated the digital ID bill with this, but the social media ban *forbids* requiring s government ID to be linked or shared with them. The digital ID bill removes the need to share ID with places that currently require it. The social media ban may be unworkable, but both bills are actually massive privacy *improvements*.
This all sounds perfectly fine to me. People are too inept to take care of themselves and cry foul when the big government has to wash their arses for them. Some of you people need to be told what to do.
The government has assured everyone they won't misuse it, and since they have never lied or abused their power, I am satisfied.
Governments never overstep their authority or chip away at the individual freedoms of their citizens. They only have the wellbeing of their people in mind. All hail the government!
Sure you can trust the government, just ask an aboriginie!
@@LegendaryMercDCI think he's being sarcastic.
😂😂 I like the cut of your jib sunshine!
/S
It'll probably keep the older people off social media more than it keeps the kids off.
Yep I'll be out if they bring face bullshit in
@@backwoodslogging8443so brave
I hope so, social media ruins lives
@@fabianelliott96 NPC boomer detected
It will make Older Sane Aussies leave that stand up to Government, making way for the Woke left loonie generation which the government wants desperately for its communistic reasons. Totalitarianism at its best!!
If your ID can deny you access based on age then it can be used to deny access for other reasons.
I thought aussies were smarter. But combine covid madness and this I dont know what to think.
@@hugokuoful Obvs not
I've seen in hospitals where staff have to scan their identification card to access the use of the computer at the hospital. This could be implemented in all of society at some point. In order to access your computer or in order to access certain content one will have to have an identification card and a scanner to gain access. No more: are you over the age of 18? Yes or no?
Government: Your internet access has been suspended until you pay your taxes/tickets/insurance.
Citizen: I don't have the money right now.
Government: Have fun living on the street then.
Government created and enforced class system.
I think this is more to *identify* users for other reasons.
They've been trying to find a way to unmask anonymous internet users for a little while now.
They tried the internet bullies angle last time, looks like this is what they've gone with in the end.
It's funny how "surveys" point to support for this bill, but every comments section I read is about 95% against. Something is definitely not adding up.
Comment sections are not a random survey. Notice the provocative title of this video. And no need to put surveys in quotes, as though it's a conspiracy and such surveys don't exist: the Guardian released one today with 67% support for the U16 ban.
It's called algorithms genius. There are millions of us who are all for the ban. You have proven you don't understand how social media works so how is your children able to understand. Every time you comment on propaganda like this your social media feeds all get more of the same proganda to keep you engaged. How do you not know that? It's sad how many of you feel violated over a social media ban.. there are far more important things in life than social media. Look at the stat's of what it's doing to people. It's an argumentative cesspool and it's getting worse. Why would you want your children to have that future. Social media is designed to remove free thought and you are all defending it
Yeah those government "surveys" are about as trustworthy as the government itself
I think it's because most people are against the idea of allowing children to use social media, but most people are also against the idea of mass surveillance and governments having unfettered access to your personal internet usage, including your social and political views. People are happy with having children off social media, but they aren't happy with the reality that this method will allow the government to ban whoever they like off social media. It's kinda 2 different issues.
I feel like it was like the Voice referendum, where there was initially overwhelming support, but by referendum date, there was strong opposition.
Force everyone to show ID to login to social media, make it illegal to criticize the people in power, hrmmm, I think I’ve seen this one before…
If a dictator wants to find someone who think they are "anonymous" in said social media they will find a way to find who's who. That's how autocratic states arrest people for posting things on facebook/instagram/tiktok, etc. Social media wasn't and it is not anonymous. Even if using a nickname, doesn't matter. If you use the internet it's a signal coming from one place (your device) to another physically. This governments can decode without much trouble. Even obscuring programs and services, they just make it harder (more time consuming) to find who's who.
I'm so happy taking/requiring to take a photo of somebody's ID is absolutely illegal except for some institutions like banks and alike.
The nazis used an identification system to login to MySpace ? Wtf you on about
Australia was secretly jealous of China the entire time.
@@StrikeWarlockChina doesn’t do this. These platforms have more information on people than god. Capitalists will sell this and use this to prevent any dissent by workers.
Remember Australians made it illegal for companies to to not install backdoors in their encryption when requested. They also made it a criminal offence for any company to inform the public that they have been requested to install backdoors.
only australians?
how do you know then?
Snowden. its was pretty much all 5 eyes countries if I recall.
most powerful countries do this lol
That's was LNP and this is labor
Political speak "Let me be clear" always means "I'm going to deflect away from your point and answer a question you didn't ask".
PM Chris Luxon of New Zealand says this statement all the time. He doesn’t answer questions.
And say a lot of nonsense
"Let me be clear" = "Fuck what you're saying though"
Yep, followed by “we’re determine to get it right” usually guarantees a clusterfck.
Hey my fellow Aussies, don’t let your fellow kangaroos turn into pandas. You’ll regret it!
I didn't realise this had no DEBATE. I'm in favour of young teens not being on social media because it completely screws up their mental health, but not like this. This is something big enough that it _has_ to be hashed out and picked apart thoroughly before it's implemented. And HELL NO to biometrics!
I agree too too much social media is bad for young people, but a flat out ban until you're 17 is over the top IMO, something along the lines of stopping young people interacting with older people would make more sense and lower the risk of them being exposed to dangerous or harmful content.
It was discussed in hearings as can actually be seen in this video, and had been proposed for a year or so, but it's true that there was no fully fledged parliamentary debate. I think discussions will continue and it will change a bit before it comes into force in a year's time.
@finnbob92 I have to disagree. I think a ban is completely reasonable, but my concerns lie in how to enforce it.
I grew up without social media. I can't imagine being a teenager in this age and being bombarded not only with pumped up standards and filters, but the endless stream of advertising and influencers trying to sell garbage so they can get a commission. It's genuinely horrific. And that's not even touching on how much worse my teenage years would have been if my school bully had been able to continue the harassment online even after school hours. Kids DO need to be protected from the onslaught the internet enables. They deserve the chance to be children. Plus they just don't _need_ to be on social media at such a young age. The only people they should be being social with are the people they deal with in their immediate everyday life. Plus what are you actually gaining from sitting on tiktok or insta when you're 15? It's just brainrot. They don't have the experience or critical thinking skills to be wary of scams, of fraudulent stories, undisclosed advertising, filters, predators, and most of all they aren't taught to hide their irl information. Children need time to develop (and be taught) these skills. I think 16 years is the least we should allow children to grow up without having to contend with such stresses.
In an ideal world, children would listen to (trust) their parents when they say no social media, and parents would be active about this sort of thing, and the government shouldn't even have to look at this issue let alone pass a bill on it. But we're far from ideal. I *don't* like how this was passed without debate or real discussion. Don't like it one bit. It feels like someone's greased the wheels for a different agenda that can benefit from this stuff. It feels slimy, using a genuine problem to usher in more surveillance.
It can only be the responsibility of the parent to limit children's usage.
And that's why it's very important for the parent to parent. If anything they should create a law where you have to go and learn to be a parent
forget facebook, tiktok.. banning youtube takes away ton of education opportunities for aussie kids. Tbh big reason for our knowhow is tutorials/guides on youtube. (P.S : although video shows youtube in the potential ban list as many pointed out seems youtube will not be affected)
unironicaly i got more useful education on youtube than in high school lol
Fr. TH-cam and Google search are the greatest source of my knowledge
Why is my comment removed? There is a guardian article that specifically states that TH-cam, as an educational platform, *will be exempt* from the ban. We can agree on just how draconian this decision is, but it's just as important to stick to the facts.
Unfortunately, the counter argument for this will be that a kid doesn't need an account to watch TH-cam, so they won't be deprived of said educational opportunuties. They would only be limited to content that isn't age-restricted.
Yup we all googled how to do something and watched a yr video. Everyone.
Given the way this government operates, this is most certainly not about the children.
it is probably about Control who takes in what and to what extent, after all if you have a key for someone, you can direct the person what you think is good for him and exclude him from what the administrator thinks is good for the person in question, it starts with social media and later....... what comes after?......... Total Control
Absolutely nothing to do with keeping children and vulnerable people safe. Just look at their track record.
This is nothing got to do protection of children. It's about obeying the WEF....and about " BIG BROTHER " WATCHING !!!!
It is always under the veil of protecting the kids
"Please won't someone think of the children!" 😲
@@fyrfly8768 *"Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children"
Yup. From higher taxes, to curfews, to weapon bans and mass surveillance. Anything can be justified.
Safety and security!
The little children's report
Imagine letting the government tell you how you should raise your child and what they can and can’t consume.
Yeah this is a box you don’t want to open. Based on most governments not protecting children from almost anything, there’s a good chance this has nothing to do with good intention.
You actually think most governments are good and advanced ? Do you know anything about the world ?
@ did you mean to reply to my comment? I’m not sure what you read because your comment doesn’t make any sense in the context of what I wrote.
They never have good intentions, ever.
@ that’s the correct assessment 🤝
Ban the internet globally and build more public libraries. Tired of my fellow citizens being so ignorant
Kids aren't stupid, they'll always find another place to convene. The internet is one massive ocean with tons of little islands to set sail for.
the internet is longer free it is completely controlled now
It's called a simple VPN 😂 or using hacked accounts that were made before the new sign up rules
yeah, or they can just make accounts from another country
@@iuse9646 Not if two-factor authentication is required and people use AU based numbers. Then they can make it so ID is required based on the requirement of 2FA, not just the geo-location of the source IP address. This is pretty bad. It all depends on how it is enforced, if at all. Even better they can see the previous location of the device which is being used for 2FA or the mobile number.
@@Phasma6969 nah. 2FA would need to be mandatory globally. Australian gov won‘t be able to force social media companies to do that…
They always do this. Of course we all want to protect children, but it’s the intent. laws like this always act like they’re “doing it for the kids,” but then we lose more aspects of privacy
I guess it's the only thing they've left to do cause influencing social media bohemoths is just too difficult
@@otum337 no its not. If that were true they wouldnt even be able to pass laws like this. Theyre doing this control and mass survey people.
To protect the kids, the adults must be treated like them. Lessons will be taught until they are learned.
I'm okay to lose privacy if it keeps pervs away frm children
What in this world makes you think you have privacy at all on the internet AND not on the internet? Got a car loan? mortgage? got any monthly bills? if you think the internet is the only way you have lost privacy you have the iq of a rock. your information is out there. everything you do is tracked and recorded. feeling ill? the water company knows how much you flush your toilet. work nights the electric company knows. do you drive recklessly the insurance company knows. you have zero privacy in this world. the better question you need to ask yourself is what are you trying to hide?
Ban smart phones for kids, controlling what they see online is such a backwards way of doing it. It's up to the parents to control their kids
Parents couldn't prevent 12-year-old Cimarron Thomas from taking her own life. She had her own phone. That's all they knew.
AMEN!!!
Take the phone of the kids - we survived centuries without it and had better quality of life And actually taught children to have RESPECT for others... why do people make things so complicated? It's our job to care for them not be their best, coolest friend - time parents actually parented!!!
This is a rabbit hole that the Australian government doesn't really understand how messy this will become.
it migth be a messy rabbit hole, but its pretty nesseccary tbf
They do understand: it's experimental totalitarianism that will be later extended to other parts of the US Empire.
I'm a Trillionaire. You name 5 ways that Social Media has had a positive/productive impact on society, and I'll give it all to you.
It's gonna be real messy in the future. Kids will grow up and remember this when they vote.
@@lester8403 No it isn't, the con far out weight the pros here with the gov being able to easily become a surveillance state with all the hells that come with it.
Australia should institute a social credit system to further benefit the public and create a long lasting bond
Freedom is better.
@@kenlen8029 Love your videos man
they already have, it's called your bank account balance
Yeah like credit scores and extradition treaties are things in people's imaginations. Aussie society is concentrated on the two coasts with no land border neighbors. You're more able to leave China than Oz lmao.
lol :)
They want to remove anonymity on the internet. They want to know who is commenting on these sites.
They already know this and quite well too. Even if you try to use nickname and avatar. And if you post photos on these social media... they know how you (and your friends, relatives and even pets) look like... Location isn't a secret too.
@@kameliastoyanova7198 did you immigrate to australia from the slavic lands kamelia?
They already know this lol. Use all the VPN you want, they STILL know who you are lol. You act as if Silicon Road or CP online offenders never get caught. Clown comment.
it is known with a high degree of accuracy exactly who you are
@@AwesomeLifeguard I'm sure they know alot. But there's a large difference between ID and face scan Vs what we have now.
Yes the authorities could find out. But it takes a bit more effort.
It's not like anyone at this point cares about looking at who a certain spam account belongs too.
ID and face scan. basically ensures fully they know who it is.
That is for parents to decide, not government.
This doesn’t take away the ability for parents to decide.
@@michaelbee8263 yes it does parents have no say, what are you talking about?
@@hello-hi-5 parents can still allow their kids onto social media. It’s no difference today to parents buying booze for their kids, or kids lying and saying they’re over 16 when they sign up.
It’s all the same. Parents can still allow or disallow.
This just makes it safer for those parents who don’t have a clue.
@@michaelbee8263 Some parents will still not have a clue and will set up an account for them while not knowing anything about what their child is doing. Also so what? are you okay with your anonymity being taking away?? because i'm not. not only that, but it's also a more slippery slop for more nefarious things to happen.
@@hello-hi-5 Anonymity is important but it’s not the issue, it can be solved.
Parents have no more or less control than before. All that has been done is holding the social media companies to a higher standard than just ‘click if you’re 16’.
Funny they put it under the "social media" rug.
While there are +++100.000 websites with disclaimers "are you 18 years old YES/NO", to get access to the most vulgar websites on this earth.
ok, but you know that anyone can just press "yes" even if they're 8 years old. I think there's an important discussion to have for this problem. Obviously, Face-ID or biometrics shouldn't be asked before using a website. Double tokenisation seems good for now, but utimately, I think it's a parent issue or a phone issuer issue. Have families control the phones of their children. Not the government.
Yeah first priority is last here
The most vulgar website I have ever been on is FB, and I've been online since I was a teenager.
@@pokerynia My account here on TH-cam is 18 years old, I have full access to all TH-cam video's JIPPY!!!
@@VestaRoleplay I think the government is acting only because the families are failing.
This is just asking for a massive data breach incident, the question isn't about if it's possible it's about how the Government will take responsibility and how they will react once it happens.
What are they breaching? What data are they holding in which they don’t already have (ex DMV, Airports, Health care, insurance) wtf are you even on about.
@@AwesomeLifeguard identity theft and police investigations into you
@@AwesomeLifeguard If you have a social media account and you critize the goverment. They will destroy your live with all the info they have.
@@AwesomeLifeguardnew point of attack , credit card fraud is already an issue, you want to make it workse for little to no benefit?
@@mrroger-t6m do you know how much information the government currently has on you and how advanced current encryption is? Do you know the fines and jail time that happens? You make it seem as if the government is being broken into every month lol. Or as if it’s the shitty city-local government holding all this data in a supply closet. There’s a million ways and your disbelief is making a million and 1 in order to fix future generation health.
Bottom line: they don’t care if children are happy or healthy, but they know you do. This is all a ruse for advancement of technocracy.
Agreed but you can't get the brain numb about anything.. they will willingly give up their own freedom with any excuse!
A technocracy is a good thing, a democracy led by experts. 😂
EXACTLY!
You first create the loop, then you attach the hook and reel it all in.
Never forget we are dealing with Politicians from all peoples here.
It's a ruse for the advancement of surveillance and oppressive control.
@@DrumToTheBassWoopthere's nothing good about technochrecy especially when the wrong people are holding the power
As elections loom, it’s hard to ignore the timing of such policies, which divert attention from the real issues affecting everyday Australians.
Meanwhile, many Australians face a housing crisis, skyrocketing HECS debts, and an ever increasing cost of living, politicians focus on privacy invading policies that do little to help everyday people. Meanwhile, big corporations continue to enjoy tax breaks, and government officials secure cushy jobs with them post-politics
You question the leadership of Dear Uncle, Our Great Leader???
I'm voting for greens and independent MPs
At this point, we shouldn't get surprised if the Australian government banned The Juice Media's Honest Government Ad
For Criticising the Economy 😂
@@Gem-In_Eye or for profanity 😅 if they blamed children, all kinds of restrictions are possible
They tried...
Lol😂
jokes on them my country's gov have already banned the juice media's vedio criticising them
I'm sure that government age verification intermediary won't be hacked in no time flat. Nope, not at all. Young kids shouldn't be on social media, but it should be on parents to do their bloody jobs, educate themselves how to keep their kids off it and actually make an effort to do so, rather than expect the government to do it for them.
Parents have failed for nearly 2 decades now. These companies can't regulate themselves.
This stuff has been tried and clearly does not work.
Just saying parental responsibility leads to nothing. Plus the idea that anyone is anonymous on social media is just silly anyway. These companies and by extention government know who you are with or without id anyway.
Parents are not able or willing to defend themselves against these social media companies so different solutions should be explored.
These anonymity discussions should have been held 20 years ago. That ship has sailed long ago. Thinking this can be stoped at this point is just putting heads in the sand.
And you expect parents to be everywhere at once, watching over their children' shoulders? They are busy working and then too tired to really police everything their children do. Same for having the energy and time to educate their children (and knowledge too). That's why institutions and governments exist. That's why people pay taxes to get something in return. It doesn't work every time but parents being able to (and expected) do this (and many other things) isn't just practical.
@@kameliastoyanova7198 Phones have parental control and monitoring apps. Or you could just not give a child a smartphone at an early age when they don't need one.
If you can't be bothered to educate yourself on modern technology (which is dead easy to do, Google exists) and actually teach your children responsible use of it, instead expecting the government to do it for you, then you probably shouldn't have kids. Being busy doesn't absolve you of your responsibilities as a parent. People like you are why this problem is out of control in the first place.
Then again, looking at both your username and your profile photo, you're clearly just a bot anyway.
Capitalism keeps the parents so busy and overwhelmed that there's no room for raising children. That's the point - create more revenue.
Exactly, if I was the Aussie government I'd be like "You want us to ban social media because you're worried about your kid? Well maybe that's a YOU problem? We've got enough shit on our plates!"
This started when fb demanded we use our 'real' names- even though I hadn't used mine in twenty years.
Our owners want to know what we proles are doing and what we are saying at all times.
This isn't about protecting children-
Its never about protecting children.
and yet FB couldn't stop fake accounts, BECAUSE they had no robust ID system in place.
Don't use facebook. Use decentralized social media platforms.
it's all about control. digital martial law will result into real life martial law.
THE POLL WAS FRAUDULENT!!!!!!!! NO ONE IN AUSTRALIA SUPPORTS THIS BILL!!!!!!!!!! THE LIBERALS AND LABOUR ARE HERB6Y DECLARED TO HAVE COMMITTED TREASON AGAINST THE NATION OF AUSTRALIA AND IT'S PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!! NO TRUE AUSTRALIAN EVER SUPPORTED THIS BILL1 THIS BILL WAS LITERALLY RAMMED THROUGH THE PARLIAMENT WITH 32 OTHER BILLS IN A SINGLE DAY!!!!!!!!!!!! BOTH LABOUR AND LIBERAL TEAMED UP TO COMMIT TREASON!!!!!!!!!! THERE LAWS ARE HEREBY DECLARED NULL AND VOID!!!!!!!!!!!
I remember this when I was in primary school and asking my IT guy dad about it because he'd always made a big deal of not using real names. Thanks facebook, you ruined everything.
Anytime someone says “its about the children” its 1000 percent not about the children. While I am all for 16 years olds being kicked off the internet, I am concerned about how this blatant attack on privacy will affect the coming age.
I find it interesting when people say its for children, as if to say adults are inferior. Adults aren't inferior. We're equal. Older people aren't inferior to people in their 20s. People in their 20s aren't inferior to people under 10. They're all the same, just at a different part of their journey. They may be inferior with regards to how they benefit the economy or how they can be used by someone, but that doesn't actually make them inferior. This is the same premise that essentially says if you're an adult, screw you. You deserve suffering or neglect. As in, I choose that you deserve the suffering. Specifically you now that you're an adult. Specifically you. Not just as a natural consequence, but suffering that I am in favour of, as I am in favour of it targetting YOU. Be nice. be kind. but don't ever think your life is any less important than anyone else on this planet. Regardless of what anyone says. And if anyone disagrees, think about what they're really saying there. This is one of the reasons children get to be happy and adults get to be fighting misery. It's what you're made to feel. When you grow up, you don't change from a child in the sense of your emotional needs. You can run away easier from issues but that child who you're in favour of supporting, you're then going to be in favour of devaluing when they get older. How does that make sense.
Every time someone uses "1000 percent", they get useless responses.
@@ZeerakImran Children can't protect themselves, but adults can. Providing a child with a safe environment growing up will help them as adults. It should be the responsibility of those who are capable to help those who are not
This is going to be one of the worst decisions Australia have ever made; Kids are smart and will go to forums and irc
More 4chaners damn
Few kids are smart. Most unfortunately are not.
There's always people who will skirt the law, let them - our society's position is clear - it's not safe enough for kids
Yeah parents will ignore it and kids will get around it. It'll be a useless law that eventually gets repealed
@@owenb8636 useless? Say that to the parents of kids who off themselves because of their exposure to social media
This has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting children
It has everything to do with protecting kids in their minds, the point is it’s totally wrong and a huge overreach of government powers.
everything to do with dictates of the WEF
It never does
@@lukefrahn8538 Lolwut? The WEF definitely does not want to ban anyone from anything that potentially makes money. They're about the last group of people who would want something like this - they don't care who you are or how old you are, they only care about how much profit you can generate for their members.
@@altrag which is exactly why they have declared censorship (under the guise of tackling disinformation) to be one of their top three priorities
Aussie kids at 15: Life is beautiful.
Aussie kids at 17: Wtf is this madness? Omg! The evil! The pain!
That's why it should be banned for all ages.
@@kameliastoyanova7198
Ban the internet for everyone? Are you mad?
@@kameliastoyanova7198if that was the case then you wouldn't be able to share your thoughts about my comment. The problem is not social media, the problem is us, our education and our values, social media is just a reflection.
@@kameliastoyanova7198banning it not great because yt can be educational. So if they put 1 hour yt usage per day I think that would make the world 100x better place
expect a lot of bypass tutorial
Will the government be teaching kids to ride bikes, changing diapers, reading kids a bedtime story also?
Parents should raise their children, not governments. Wild the government even wants to do this.
It smacks a bit like authoritarian control being forced on us Aussies!?
As damaging as I think social media is and as dead set against it as I am. I think even this is a pandoras box that will lead to worse things down the road.
What on earth is damaging about kids using social media, nothing, it’s a big wide world out there, might as well say don’t walk down the street for the same reason.
@@simony2801cry harder they said Australians no longer can use yt more than 1 hour a day. I appreciate this and it's great if every country learns from Australia and implements this in their own country too
@@PurposeIsEverything what on earth are you blathering on about, you sound like a nutter.
This new law is completely misguided. If it had been in place when I was 15, I don’t think I’d be here today. At that age, I was battling severe suicidal thoughts due to struggles in school, unhelpful teachers, and constant tension at home. My parents would yell at me often and even banned me from seeing my friends. Every time I reached out for help, I was dismissed with comments like, “Your teenage years are supposed to be the best of your life,” which made me feel even more broken because I hated my life.
The only thing that kept me going was sneaking my phone back at night (which I had paid for myself) to watch motivational videos. Those videos were the only thing that gave me hope and reassured me that life would get better after school. Without them, I genuinely don’t think I’d have survived. This law ignores the fact that for many young people, social media and online content can be a lifeline.
Labor is absolutely off its rocker and it's so frustrating - because I'm about to be a teacher and the internet is a vile place to be for a kid with no strategies to keep themself safe. We NEED strategies to help them. We need to have a proper discussion about how to help kids used the net safely, give them good stuff. But Labor has effectively poisoned the discussion. Fighting the thugs on the Right by being thugs on the Left is not going to- ARG.
I can relate strongly to this, my teenage years were my lowest point, and it felt so much worse when every adult I knew kept calling it, “the golden years.”
Watching talks on TH-cam from famous artists and entrepreneurs really helped me get through it. I think it doesn’t help people like us to ban TH-cam.
I second this
There are many kids who have committed suicide, cut themselves, starved themselves, etc. _because_ of social media.
Hey my fellow Aussies, don’t let your fellow kangaroos turn into pandas. You’ll regret it!
What a lot of people are missing, is that this law is unenforceable outside of Australia. Musk's X can be sued in Texas and Texas only, where it has assets, it has no assets in Australia. The others will say that they will do their best to comply, but not worry about default, as they cannot be reached financially either. Most are based in California. Labor made this basic error intentionally, as they didn't want to overly alarm voters, with fines / jail sentences imposed here, particularly as the offenders would be under 16; so they said compliance is all with the sites. This will have to change if they want it to work. Sites would need to be banned and fines imposed on local "offenders" using a VPN. This is why the bill is so light on detail.
Example of this is Brazil, who wanted X to censor certain individuals, X said no and Brazil banned the site. They didn't impose a $50M fine, like Australia proposes, as they know it would be futile, just as it will be in Australia. Instead Brazil's internet users, have turned en masse to VPN services to maintain access to X. They risk fines of up to nearly $9,000 a day by doing so. This is Australia's dystopian future and it will only be done AFTER the next election, by either of our woke major parties.
Greeting m8, from across the ditch in New Xiland.
Enforcement is a minor part of this.
@@michaelbee8263 What are the other parts?
You are kidding surely?
They will be giving the Aust government reacharounds they will be so happy at the reliable advertising data they will have access to as well as ensuring that these massive companies head towards total control of the population.
They are going to love this and will not need threats of enforcement to undertake whatever is needed.
This is completely different to banning entirely and is a backdoor method of mass surveillance.
It's light on detail because politicians aren't technical experts. They aren't going to say it will be enforced one way if they are only going to discover down the track that it would be technically more feasible to enforce it a different way and make themselves look bad.
Remember how much the CovidSAFE contact tracing app changed when it started? It used to run on Bluetooth, then it didn't because it was too complex. They opted for QR codes at venues instead.
Most likely, they will be aiming to have the ban programmed into the Australian release of the social media app, so under 16-year-olds simply won't have permission to have an account on it.
If the kids decide to use a VPN to get around it, it's not going to be great for them. I mean, you might get a social media account geographically created in the United States, but then you would be posting photographs of yourself with geographically Australian photographs in the GPS meta-data, forming friendships with your parents who are geographically in Australia and showing interest in events that are geographically in Australia. How much effort are kids going to undertake to get around it?
Every bad government idea starts with a “concerned citizen” saying “there oughtta be a law”.
Who are imaginary people in most cases.
People just dont understand that the implementation of this idea is literally impossible without taking away rights and anonymonimity.
So does every good government idea. The problem is when the government is so blinded by power and greed that they can no longer distinguish the good from the bad, combined with citizens being so blinded by nonsense like "woke" that they refuse to vote in smarter politicians.
BY """"CONCERNED CITIZEN""""..... DO YOU MEAN THE ACTUAL POLITICIANS WHO PASSED THE LAW??????? THE SAME POLITICIANS WHICH LITERALLY JUST COMMITTED TREASON???????????
@@Scorch428 the internet is like privately owned land
most people have no rights - it's not a government
it's a business, where they let us in to make money
we are at their whims
Just imagine an entire generation learning to use alternative social media platforms not exactly friendly towards government overreach...
Good job Aussies, trying to control teenagers will work as well as controlling the Emus.
perfect analogy xD
Many will, perhaps even the majority? However, parents will have the legal obligation to monitor their kids and take the issue seriously.
Same with cane toads. We introduced them to try and control cane beetles which were affecting cane sugar crops.
Now they are a huge problem where they are harming our natural biodiversity. Every aussie is familiar with the crunch sound of cane toads under their tyres as they drive through a literal sea of them during our wet season. Its so bad up in North Queensland.
Imagine the parents having 0 control over what their kids can or can't do
There was a situation that happened a few years back when social media sites tried to ban 'pro-Ana' groups - girls and women who were encouraging each other to be anorexic. At first they thought it was a raging success but then a University study that was able to anonymously trace IPs revealed the women had all simply left Instagram and Facebook and found smaller forums where they were spending _even more hours a day_ discussing anorexia than they were before (and now they were doing it with even less oversight).
Our government simply is never going to learn: overtaxing and over-regulation doesn't lead to a reduction in demand, it just creates black markets. Here in Australia we're notorious for that shit, it goes right back to the Rum Rebellion.
On the one hand, I can 100% get why people think that too much social media can be harmful to children...but on the other hand, it's not up to the government to decide that shit. I'm not even an Australian, I'm English and we've got our own Online Safety Bill but this law from Australia would make even the people behind the OSB go "Fucking hell, that's a bit much, lads"
"too much social media can be harmful to children" meaning that it can not be?
The question for me is: is it bad enough to override parents? I would need to educate myself on that first.
@@faroleiro I would like to hope that the parents themselves would teach the kids the dangers of social media and how to stay safe on there before letting them use it. Why should any government feel like they have to step in? Unless they're just using it as an excuse and there's more sinister intentions.
@@faroleiro There's no hard evidence of harm. Sure, you can scroll for hours and get bad grades because you didn't do your homework, but it doesn't make kids depressed. Kids are already depressed so they turn to social media to procrastinate and get away from the stresses of school and life.
@@faroleiro ... I mean, yeah, that is exactly what he said. Great deduction skills.
@@half_realyou're joking right? There is hard evidence of harm. They've been studying the harms for over 10 years, there is plenty of hard evidence.
This is digital slavery first step to a social credit score system.
Welcome to 1984 😡
This should be completely dependent on parent intervention. Getting the government involved is a nightmare.
Complete dependency on parent intervention is what brought us here. Thus, it obviously does not suffice.
@lonestarr1490 so the government now needs to make determinations on effectiveness of parenting? Where do you draw the line? Eating enough vegetables?
@@onetoolfan I don't need to draw any lines. We just wait and see what kind of problems emerge and where they stem from. If a cause is identified, we take action. We don't have to sit down and write the rules for the next 1.000 years; we're not in the USA with their horrendously outdated Constitution. We're free to react to socially harmful developments once they occur.
@lonestarr1490 also, it's hilarious that you think having pre-planned limitations on the government is an outdated concept. Holy shit bro. Read a history book of literally any government with unchecked power. It has never ended well.
The problem is parents aren't doing anything. Among all social media apps, TikTok should be banned totally.
When the tax file number was introduced the government insisted that it would never be used for data matching and look how that turned out.
Think Labor and Whitlam were responsible for that.
@@geckoesncrows Australia has had a tax file number since the 1930s
Well the zoinist that you defend and worship wants full control over yall sheeps, so why not
@@janeteholmesDidn't know that.
How did that turn out?
I boggles my mind that we live in a country where you don’t need to use an ID to vote but you will need one to use Facebook.
Wouldn’t expect anything less from the world’s nanny state.
There are many stats in USA where you can vote without voter I'd or any I'd. It's insane
Adult sites are like "You 18 or over? Prove it by clicking this button. Cool, step on in!"
That's why I hate it when people talk about how much better the Australian voting system is because voting is mandatory there. Yet, their politicians are just as corrupt and incompetent as other countries!
World's nanny state? Have you heard of China? Or North Korea?
@@PurposeIsEverything "Many"
7, and would you look at that? All blue
privacy is concerning, but people under 16 should definitely be limited in social media use. its brain rot
That is the parents job, not the government's
The government doesn't need to enforce anything for kids, it's the parent's role.
That’s working great so far with record depression and suicide (and evidence they are linked to social media, one example study in this video but there are many more). You may disagree with the proposal and I do, but this is a real issue.
Their parents are addicted to social media too
Government currently blocks access to alcohol, drugs, tabacco etc to kids regardless of parents. Let me introduce you to the poor parenting skills of society from the past and the present. You'd be amazed at how bad some are at parenting.
@@super8mateSo then regulate the social media in ways that make the user experience more healthy. That's the only real option.
Like the free market will provide trickle down wealth!? 😅
More than 20 years ago I had an online friend from Australia who told me about absolutely insane digital censorship laws in that country. For example, according to him ESRB ratings were strictly enforced in stores, and many video games were banned altogether. There were severe data restrictions by ISPs making online gaming problematic, not to mention trying to circumvent the game bans by downloading them online. I just looked it up and it seems like this person's descriptions were accurate for the time. It seems like Australia has a long tradition of trying to control the Internet and the digital environment.
And it needs to be regulated. Like any other thing in life. Can it be used to cause harm? Yes. Then it should be regulated accordingly. It seems Au government (and probably the people) were aware that digital information isn't some joke and acted upon it.
"game rated 18+ can't be bought by person under 18" sounds fair to me, I don't think a 14 year old should play GTA 5
@@briannem.6787 While I can kind of agree, I've known games get heavily restricted (and get temporarily banned) because of fictional drug use (you don't even have to depict it in a game to get the restriction, just describing that a character does it), despite them having massive downsides in the actual game mechanics.
Weirdly enough, there are other games with worse drugs that don't get restricted. I don't understand how it's so inconsistent.
yep I had my copy of GTA5 seized / stolen when I imported it
rimworld fell victim to this crazyness
My rule of thumb is, if I can think of how a thing
might be used for evil, then it's probably being
used for evil.
Not doing anything is also being used for evil right now. Letting these companies self regulate clearly leads to all sorts of negative outcomes, and parents are not able or willing to defend against it.
Doing nothing just means prefering the existing evil over another one.
And anyone who believes anything or anyone on social media is in any way anonymous right now is just ignorant. These companies and by extention the government already knows exactly who you are and what you do online all day. This really doesn't change anything other then putting responsibility on these companies instead of society.
"My rule of thumb is, if I can think of how a thing
might be used for evil..." what if you don't manage to find how something can be used for evil purposes. Does it mean it can't be used for evil purposes?
Ok, then think how will the evil happen? Please inform us.
@@kameliastoyanova7198 No, it means the risk is significantly reduced.
@@AwesomeLifeguard If you can't think of anything evil happening stemming from the government having your internet information, Please reevaluate your biases and reflect if the people you are biased for truly deserves it. Even a kindergartner can think of a bad thing the state will do if they have all your sensitive internet info.
TH-cam is not going to be included so couldn’t care less about any restrictions on other social media platforms.
The Australian govt has never lied to the Australian people ever.
I'm waiting for 'The Juice Media' and their 'Honest Government Ad' on this subject. IF you haven't watched any of their vids, do so, they straight up tell you what 'Sh!tF@ckery' Govts do and in a funny way too! 👍 😎🇬🇧
@thedarkknight1971 they are being misleading lately too.
Yep. I'm expecting them to end the temporary income tax any day now.
Great job explaining the situation. Many Aussies are totally in the dark about this situation.
It sounds like the Labor government got it's orders directly from WEF HQ.
Nah, if it were from the WEF, it would be something along the lines of smartphones with internet for everybody at birth, so that social media companies can track everybody from a very young age, play them smart advertisements and maximize their profits. I think the "documentary" is highly flawed.
America you mean
@krux02 already happenin
@@gianlucag100g yea I know...
As an Australian, I've never understood how our government can ring the "Endangered Children" alarm and enact sweeping changes without consulting the public, while at the same time undertaking national referendums for things that have minimal risk of harm like gay marriage or giving Indigenous Australians a voice in government
It's weird because Indigenous Australians should have a voice in government on default, considering that they have been here much longer than any settlers and colonisers that came later. And most Indigenous Australians are happy to be Australian like anybody else anyway.
@@TheOz91 They do have a voice in government, it's called voting. Same as everyone else. This is not Israel, we don't give special rights based on race here.
@@mmerrydeath6673 Sure, but since they are "nations" by right and haven't been granted sovereignty or autonomy (unlike the Reservations of the United States which are, by right, independent from the American federal and state governments though all Native Americans are effectively American nationals), they should have rights to have representatives IN the government distinct from the conventional constituencies.
Of course, there is voting but Indigenous peoples have the inalienable political rights in the way that they don't need be white knighted by other people.
@@TheOz91 The government can't even say what qualifies as an indigenous person. No set %, genetically I am aboriginal but because I was raised in a white family I don't get to be part of the special rights club because currently it has nothing to do with being first nations, only being accepted by the mob, plenty of white "first nations" yet I'm not part of the silly club??? it's a joke. Australia is ONE nation, try to divide us in any way and you are a traitor.
bump
banning under 16s from youtube is insane on the face of it.
Always crazy to remember that countries like Australia and the UK don’t have freedom of speech enshrined in their constitutions.
We don't have freedom of speech in the usa.
@@hilbillieyes we do lol. The US is one of the only countries with at least some level of free speech protection in practice.
@@aalokjoshi6839 the US isn't even top 10. Lol
Britain doesn't have a constitution, and now it's too late to have one: any constitution created now would merely enshrine and permanently authorise all the invasive, totalitarian aspects of today's governments. Witness the (unratified) EU Constitution. America is extremely fortunate that its constitution was created by great men from a time before socialism.
@@aalokjoshi6839 So the definition of FREE is "some level"
̶G̶̶O̶̶T̶ ̶I̶̶T̶!!!
The answer isn't government overreach
What is it then?
@@TheSonyExperience parents actually raising their kids instead of having school, internet and TV do it
@@l0lLorenzol0lwell they aren't, and it's becoming an issue in and out of school. If parents won't do it, well someone else has to. These companies won't do a thing if they are making profit unless they are forced.
@@l0lLorenzol0lWith what time? If capitalism is asking us to work more and more. And then you will said then dont have kids if you can afford then we need more workers and you will get mad when immigrants come to Australia and change the culture, and so on.
@@TheSonyExperienceparents being parents and not their kids friends!
Coldfusion Lore Update: He's An Aussie
*my whole life i thought you were in the EU or something*
Are you American?
The accent is a dead giveaway
His TH-cam channel page has the country set to Australia lol
You couldn't tell from the accent?
tell me you are from america without telling me you are from america
If social disappeared completely I would be hugely in favor of it. As someone who came off social media back in 2017 and never looked back.
I don't, I'm living with the most boring people on earth on this city, they can't handle sport or anything like that and if they don't like the answer, they change the rules
As a parent of two kids that recently launched successfully, my wife and I set healthy boundaries for our kids access to both the internet and social media. We monitored their web access and they didn't have cell phones until they were old enough to make their own decisions about such things. We taught them how to protect themselves and showed them the toxicity of social media. This is the only way to protect children - it has to come from the parents.
Well said
I am happy this worked for you. Didn't work for me. Curious: What was that age? Here, at 10 they actually had to have smartphones and tables for school. As soon as pandoras box is open, there's no holding back anymore and no matter what you tell or teach them: Tempation and and influence from their peers is going to be a lot stronger. "Monitoring web access" is a pretty lame way of teaching kids about the internet net; there're way better ways and that part worked pretty well here: my kids are very aware of all dangers of the internet and know to detect and report malicious activity. Pissing away valuable life time, getting relieved of money by influencers, or being indoctrinated by non-sensse by social media is a completely different matter and even the majority of adults on this planets are not immune to those issues!
@@danielegger6460exactly my worry. But also the op is an American; we don't call mobile phone's cell in Australia.
@@danielegger6460 They can use the tablet in school if the school requires it. But that doesn't mean that they can have one outside. Regarding the pandoras box, don't give your kids that much credit. They're old enough for smartphones and tablets but not old enough to be told no? You should tell them no point blank and enforce it a lot earlier. Then you won't have to worry about all the things that could go wrong, because your child will know that they will be held responsible for their participation in anything that does go wrong. Also, kids not being told no is leading to all sorts of problems. That's more of an issue than social media and I would argue that social media usage would drop if the kids, and adults at this point were held to a higher standard and were given more responsibility at a younger age. Kids aren't as dumb as people make them seem and the notion that teenagers are just inherently wreckless and uncontrollable isn't true. To anyone outside of western europe, US, canada and australia, that notion sounds crazy. Its essentially people receiving education from Disney.
@danielegger6460 but if there is a time in your kid's lives when they did not have cell-phones, they will understand how different their lives were from when they eventually got them.
I believe we face a multifaceted issue here, and it’s accompanied by various anxieties.
Firstly, there's no denying that reducing youth’s exposure to social media is beneficial. However, there are several challenges that arise. The most significant concern is where they redirect their attention. Many of the so-called “third places” are rapidly disappearing due to gentrification. Additionally, these spaces have become unsafe not only because of residual crime but also because of the radicalization of young people into violent ideologies that target individuals who deviate from their worldview, including people of color, women, and the LGBTQ+ community. This phenomenon has been exacerbated by the very social media we're talking about.
Secondly, parents often fail to act in their children’s best interests. A notable example is their resistance to vaccinations, leading to a resurgence of preventable diseases like rubella. This highlights the problem of parents’ biases and, in some cases, their extreme views. They may actively reject information that contradicts their political leaders’ claims of absolute truth.
As a result, we are left with a complex issue akin to global warming-a bundle of interconnected problems, opinions, and social matters that require attention. Sometimes, these issues need to be addressed individually, while at other times, collective action is necessary. However, there is a lack of responsibility and willingness to take on this challenge. For instance, if someone invests in education now, they may object to anything that goes beyond mathematics and language, labeling it as “woke” and ultimately making it unsafe to pursue such knowledge. Similarly, efforts to educate parents about social media may be met with resistance, labeling it as “indoctrination” and preventing them from engaging with it.
So, how do we proceed? It’s not just a matter of passing a single piece of legislation. Especially when the privacy of the general public is at stake. Even if the government is willing to refrain from using this as a massive surveillance tool, we can’t guarantee that it won’t change if a malicious political party gains power. Or, what if this information is willingly leaked?
So, perhaps the best option for now is to provide better education that encompasses a wide range of social interests and the arts. This could help divert people’s attention. Create more communal, public spaces where people can gather and engage in conversations and activities. The rest of the issues can then be addressed through multiple legislations rather than a single, sweeping approach. However, I doubt that this is even feasible in today’s day and age.
chatgpt
It's insane the amount of power traditional media has over social media
It's interesting this angle. Kids watch kids show's, not Sky News.
What are you on about
@@Low760 Younger kids watch kid's shows, but teenagers watch a lot of adult-orientated shows as well. Even porn.
As cynical as it sounds i am interested to see what pitfalls Australia will come accross at the very least EU to an extent other nations will probably use this as a learning exercise.
Its very weird for controversial bills like this can pass wihout heavy opposition
There is lots of opposition; sadly the 'government' doesn't feel that the people have any standing in shaping their own society.
American owned
“democracy “
I think you make a valid point. I would be interested to see what percentage of the people's interests are being served by the politicians they voted for. If there is a large discrepancy, it would be reasonable to to assume that someone else's interests are being served.
It will benefit the libs when they win next election. Of course they will vote for it
It’s the number 1 priority for the opposition, supported in polling by 85% of the population. The concept is basically not opposed by anyone. The bill as passed also isn’t really workable. It forbids use or even association to any government ID, only requires ‘reasonable steps’ (which without that option basically means ‘only ineffectual steps). And it only applies to like X/Facebook/TikTok/Instagram.
Messaging apps are explicitly excluded,
Anything related to gaming (eg discord) is excluded.
TH-cam is excluded.
It’s a ‘we’re doing something’ addressing of public concerns, that’s it.
Could it be all the things people fear? Yes, if the opposition gets in and amend it, possibly, as is, no.
People should be free to make choices on their own...parents who are concerned about their kids would already have checks in place...
A lot of parents are not really that involved. The same with education. Do you want to make it optional? How many kids will have their future destroyed because they parents "know better" and don't send them to school
@@peterdz9573 Yeah a lot of parents are bad parents. The main issue here is that its considered acceptable to be this bad of a parent collectively as a society. A lot of people are too busy working to pay bills and not that involved in their kids lives. Surprisingly, that is not the reason for the kid ending up on social media too much. The first thing to understand is, that social media is harmful to adults if it's harmful to children. If that's the case, you would do something about it and act in a way which reflects that social media is dangerous for you. The kid will see that and everyone growing up in that society would already know it. As it would be obvious to them. Even if it isn't true. That's how things work. Regarding saving children, I don't care. I care about saving lives. Whether its an adult or child doesn't matter. If it does, then its a little too emotional and not well thought through, for me. You may disagree.
I'm shocked. SHOCKED. That this could potentially end poorly, because politicians always have our best interests at heart.
There's a saying "If you dont discipline your children then society will."
Im 41, and IVe seen boomers try to stop the internet dozens of times in my lifetime. It never works, lol.
Well not that shocked
- Fry
@@PopHarperYT it was a bi-partisan law driven by parents
I mean, the media is more biased nowadays than social media
You have absolute no grasp of social media then.
Alex Jones literally convinced his social media followers that an actual mass-shooting was completely fake.
Everytime gov says: think of the children! We are helping kids!
You know it is a Trojan horse to control EVERYONE
Why is no one mentioning that Social Media companies should actually be the first line of defense for children online?
Of course parents play a critical role in guiding their children’s online behavior, set boundaries, and educate them about potential dangers. But social media companies have unparalleled access to user data, advanced technology, and a direct ability to influence the online ecosystem. As the creators of these platforms they should be held in charge of gatekeeping against harmful experiences for children. They should monitor, identify, and mitigate harmful content, interactions, or behaviors that could endanger children.
Nice idea, but governments are answerable to their people. A member of parliament can challenge the prime minister to disclose how data is being used and stored.
Private corporations are only answerable to their major shareholders and major customers. Anyone else they will politely but firmly tell to get stuffed.
Users information is their product, and they sell access to users that match customers requested profiles for profit
If something is free for you to use, you are the product
Great idea, give them more control over the kids, what could go wrong!
@XiaojunMa it's not more control, it's more accountavility over their products and psychological manipulation tactics.
Sorry but I don't want some guys who-knows-where deciding what my kids can and cannot see. Social media platforms should stay as neutral as humanly possible. Only parents should decide.
@@misterwhyte Yes, indeed they should. However without regulation there's no way they can. Are you a parent? I am, and I have to resort to rather drastical measures to keep social media use in check, and even then, the limits only work when they're at home. They rather prefer to stay for hours in the cold to access some public hotspot rather than being subject to an 1h social media limit a day... that's the fault of both the social media giants which are completely unregulated and decide to not give a single frog about the true identity of their users (I recently found out that my younger son managed to open a regular premium TH-cam account as a supposed adult no questions asked) and the makers of iOS and Android claim to care with their parental controls which are completely useless. Heck, Apple even finds that my kids shouldn't be able to use Apple Wallet and pay with their phones (or use public transport) while any of those shitty services is happy to accept their Visa card and grant access to adult and other questionable content.
before i had finished hearing the first sentence of someone telling me about this i interrupted them to say "ah, the only way to do that is to log and verify everyone, this has nothing to do with kids and everything to do with linking what you do, say and write online to you."
Australia is a good test culture for policy rollouts as it is small, compliant and discrete (as in isolated from) . I remember adults saying that when i was a kid and in my 20s. I would tend to agree from the observational data across my life. Only thing that bothers me is that we should just be told, so we have consent and buy-in.
Notes
- Appstore level does not work, kids will just get parents to approve
- Parents are so clueless about software/tech, any parent today needed to be as a kid and has stayed a cutting edge tech/science head, or they have no hope.
- Parents cannot be the first line of defence because the action being defended against is not where parents can reasonably see or even know it is happening.
- We have disabled ourselves from being able to discipline each other, children, adults etc. so quite frankly parents do not have the legal authority to STOP a child anymore
It is mentioned in the video thankfully, but this will not stop "at a distance" communication between kids.
Have a child in high school today. The companies making games are incentivised to bypass the school filters. There are clones of everything popular designed to bypass school firewalls, with backdoors in GitHub, Spotify and just everywhere. The companies move the login points sometimes daily, then get the word out and the kids share it. We literally give the kids Microsoft Teams as their primary school communications platform.
The government's plan is about linking our physical and pixel selves. However 1000s of underground social clones, literally blue sky and mastodon instances will be spinning up everywhere. Tech smart kids will run their own chat local servers. Only we won't be able to follow their instagram account to see who is liking their cute pics of their saturday outfits.
Cold Fusion, thank you for the opportunity to have a rant about the matter.
“In the first instance, the Government proposes to make legislative rules to exclude the following services from the definition of age-restricted social media platforms:
· Messaging apps
…
· Services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users”
Please note that the vast majority of people have a large digital blueprint - there is no barrier to linking your physical and pixel selves. Note also that the app store is not a social media application.
Well you’d be less concerned if you did more than review a policy based on hearsay and one sentence at that. Not only is the bill unworkable for the reasons you listed, but it (contrary to this misinformation video) explicitly forbids social media companies using any form of government ID or identifying information to prove your age. Thus is both cannot be for the reasons claimed, and it cannot work even slightly, since biometrics aren’t at all reliable for proving age.
This is basically only Instagram/Facebook/Tiktok/X
Messaging apps are explicitly excluded.
Anything relating to ‘gaming’ is explicitly excluded. (Eg Discord).
TH-cam even, is explicitly excluded.
@@peter65zzfdfh I am not concerned. I use my real name on the internet and always have. i used to post my email and digits in all messages, but that is easily accessible if someone wants it, i make it that way. so to me connecting my online and offline identities is meaningless, they already are.
Parents should be limiting the time kids spend on social media. Social media has some positive sides for kids too, not just negative.
Mostly negative. I learn more on here and on google than Facebook and instagram….
A cheaper and more effective way would be the government to provide software to parents that would block social media for children. Or you know, parents actually parenting and not giving their children iPhones.
you could just buy your kid a shitty cellphone, dont need government.
You are missing the picture like a lemming. This is about introducing dystopia 1984 measures to control how we all think long term.
Australia's always been weird. The day I have to give all my information to the corporations and the government, is the day I quit social media completely.
Then you should have quit it already long time ago. What do you think social media companies are doing with your data? And they gather it from day one. These systems know you quite well (age, preferences, even address, favorite food and free time activities, people who you know and like (and their data as well). All of this and even more without giving them even single piece of info from your ID yourself. Even if used a custom username/nickname... Same is for this website too.
@kameliastoyanova7198 To be clear, none of that stuff bothers me. What I'm concerned about is taking my biometric data like facial, fingerprint, eye, voice information and perhaps even DNA. That's my line.
@@Jacen777 It is funny though. People give their biometric data to huge corporations like Apple and Samsung without a second thought but freak out when it's the government.
@@Jacen777 but not where you shop or where you live or who you message?
Same. I like some social media but I won't have a problem dropping it completely if I'm forced to scan my face or give the government even more control. This has zero to do with protecting kids
Kind of ridiculous. They can access hardcore 🌽with a few clicks but they need to ban access to memes and 💩posting on heavily moderated social media? "Somebody think of the children!" is just a ploy, they want to implement a digital ID for internet use.
Can you explain what a digital ID is? Do you think current drivers license all link back to a paper document or something lol?
You got "heavily moderated" social media in Australia?!
@@morpheusmedia_au - You don't need your ID for online activites... yet. When I use my ID card, unless it is the police, nobody checks the chip.
@@LuisAldamiz not exactly true as you use your ID's number for some activities like signing up for phone services, car registration etc. So your ID already exists in digital form, there's a database somewhere with your ID and everything tied to it already.
@@lonestarr1490 all social media is heavily moderated except for 4chan. Try posting something spicy and you'll get banned on IG, X, FB, YT. I don't think the Australian government is targeting 4chan unironically.
Yeah... think of the children. Just another nail in the internets coffin.
The country founded by convicts has become more ruthless than a prison warden, ironic.
It wasn't founded by convicts but I get your point.
Australia being founded by Criminals is a Myth. Australia was founded by the British, NOT Convicts. Convicts had no choice in anything. Only a very small proportion of early colonists were actually "Convicts."
someone needs a history lesson lol.
Australia had the strictest Covid 19 measures. Australians would be foolish to trust their government with such a law.
No China had the strictest measures they welding people inside their homes and not letting people get food.
Our restrictions were Logical so you're saying you like people dying from something that can be prevented? Cooker.
@@killzoneisa Australia didn’t have the strictest covid measures. It varied State to State. Each Premier put in place their own measures according to their needs. You might be thinking of the State of Victoria. In this part of the world New Zealand had stricter measures due to the vulnerability of their hospital system
@@ZestySea I am Australian i know what went on here.
Still Vic didn't weld people inside their homes and never let them out to shop for food but i bet Dan would love to have done that.
@ still you are talking about a country with 1.4 billion people. They didn’t lock everyone up with no food. I know this because university classes were still going on (online) with Chinese citizens in zoom meetings.
2:30 I wasn’t bloody polled! Letting us vote on this like a referendum would shoot it down.
I can't believe both parties agreed to it. If the opposition opposed it, im sure it would have meant an increase in votes next time.
All these decisions by people who can't even use a computer.
Forreal, who and where were these people who voted on this poll
@@barakomambathe majority of Australians don't know how to use a phone properly let alone a pc.
All this trouble and human rights violations for poor parenting. Just tell the parents to do their Jobs. Don't get the Government to look after children.
If the platforms would have taken child safety seriously and actually stopped kids from accessing these platforms that are adult spaces and should only be used by adults this would have never happened.
Ban will not work, kids will ditch current apps and adopt other tech to communicate.
Let them. It still will have a huge benefit.
It won’t work for other reasons, but if they left the very few designated platforms for others I bet the government would consider it mission accomplished.
@@ESedu-o7y well there is a couple of things - sure there’s ways for kids to get around this, but it’s about holding the social media platforms to account and a powering parents who want to police it. Secondly, the e-safety Commissioner decides which platforms go on the list. If a new one emerges she can add it as a controlled platform.
I love how people who are too lazy to take care of their children, instead of limiting their social media use, just vote to ban kids altogether. Instead of taking their children’s phones away after 30 minutes of use or implementing any real parenting strategies, they opt for blanket restrictions. This generation of parents is so incredibly lazy-it’s beyond me. They buy their kids phones so they don’t have to engage, but then complain when the kids use those phones. Rather than spending time with their kids-playing, going places, or actually parenting-they ban the very things kids use to socialize. It’s crazy.
Said by a person who probably had tantrums at Thier parents when they lost thier pc as a teen.
@@балаж98 read the parents submissions. I’m not sure if you are giving advice as a parent or an onlooker
as a teenage who graduated this year THIS IS THE RIGHT MOVE. How much shit that happened at my school because of social media was crazy---some people might even be alive! I'm sure other people who grew up with social media in high school can share the same sentiment.
There's always something: books, TV, rock music, video games, social media... how about we just let parents look after things?
Can you trust parents that are busy slaving away at a 9-5 to teach their children responsible internet usage? Idk And with all the economic and political power that social media corps have it’s even harder to get them to change how they operate.
Turkey passed the misinformation bill and since then it's been used exactly how u would expect it to be, learn from our mistake and stand up for ur rights before it's too late mate
Why putting the weight on the citizens instead of the companies that make this predatory services?
the bill does put the liability on the platform, not citizens
@morpheusmedia_au They are forbidding kids to use the platforms (and adding a verification system for everybody) to not get harmed, instead of regulate the platforms to not be harmful
You mean instead of the parents that are not monitoring anything their kids do online too...
@@pi4795 because how do you regulate the platforms that easily? They're already beholden to Aus law as much as possible. They are foreign entities so you can only shape indirectly.
@morpheusmedia_au The EU already regulates this "foreign entities". We have laws about data protection and they have to oblige. If they don't, they would be blocked and honestly, nobody would care, a new one would appear to fill the gap. Same with Apple, the EU wanted to standardize USB C and apple added it to the iphone, and if not they wouldn't sell it here 🤷♂️
When parents fail as a parent, do we really think the government can do a better job?
Same with obesity and sugar tax. Although If Coca Cola was $3-$5 a litre I’m sure less would buy it. I’m skinny and eat vegetables every day but love chocolate and chocky milk but have been buying less more recently because it’s all gone up in price. ~$6.50 for a block of old gold when not on special. And even at $3.50 I’ll still be unsure. Haven’t gap ice cream for a while either.
Australians seem to love giving their freedoms away.
what freedom is given away here?
@@morpheusmedia_augo back to sleep little baby
@@vkpskulls good reply weirdo you really addressed the concerns at hand there
Just like what happened during the pandemic
@@hydronpowers9014 pandemic was chill, only Melbourne had a bad response, I spent 4 weeks in lockdown across 2 years which is less than most countries including the US
Hi, I'm one of the cyber security experts consulted early on around the social media age restriction legislation.
Concerns about any centralised database of Australian citizens and their age maintained by the government was canvassed early on and advised very heavily against very early on, as was sharing of existing government databases. These things are not in the legislation. There is no bipartisan support for the Australian ID card. There is no government honeypot of personally information in this legislation. Per the consultaiton process, the vast majority of persons over the age of 18 already have their age verified through these platforms using existing methods such as credit card verification.
The legislation explicitly states it will be up to the social media companies to enforce the age restrictions. The government, through the E-Safety Commisioner, is to monitor the system not to run the system. The legislation does NOT mandate a method for social media companies to enforce this system or allow them access to government systems. In fact... the existing acts specifically prohobit that.
This brings us to the Digital ID Act of 2024 (which comes into effect today) allows sharing of digital ID information between Federal and State governments. There are provisions to allow sharing with specific types of private organisations from December 2026 with some pretty serious restrictions. It's also an opt-in system. A lot of the statements in the news stories you clipped from here are factually wrong if you read the actual legislation.
You shouldn't confuse election pitches - whether from Labour or Liberal/National politicians - or statements by activists with a clear agenda with the actual policies that pass parliament.
Almost no one is going to digest what you've said here. It's much more satisfying to say that the government is trying to put us all in prison or whatever it is. (How that benefits the government, I'm not understanding.)
Plus it's abundantly clear that Big Tech has our best interests at heart and only ever want to nurture confident, high-functioning children. They could never be accused of being the most pervasive, invasive, and nefarious of stalkers. But I'm a parent so of course I can simply educate my children on how to use social media wisely. It's not like I'm up against multibillion $ corps that have collected trillions upon trillions of bits of data to circumvent my best efforts.
I hope you all in your ivory towers didn't think this will be a matter where the government can pretend it isn't their fault for what "solution" the companies come up with.
good work, had a feeling this creater was spreading BS, typical of them wanting to get the clicks in
@@dysfunc121the legislation explicitly forbids using or associating with government IDs. It’s highly likely ‘reasonable steps’ ends up being a checkbox that says ‘I am over 16’ after all the other solutions prove unworkable with that constraint. I’d be worried if the opposition gets in they try to amend that point, given they have said this legislation is their number 1 priority. But as is, this is all fear-mongering for clout.
If this ban was in place when I was younger, I probably would’ve dived into the dark web to get around this. Which could be more detrimental.
If you knew back then how to access it.... Or if most people know hot to access it. Actually it should be targeted by these bans as well. These browsers which can access it... and they should trace where this black web is located and isolate traffic from these places.
@@kameliastoyanova7198 As a software developer I would personally work on making dark web technologies more accessible if this happened in my country. You're assuming that everyone would just helplessly let this happen.
@@kameliastoyanova7198 Google only indexes 5% of the web. In other words, the remaining 95% is the dark web. It simply isn't possible to blacklist every other IP address without having an almost unlimited budget to manually check every single IP address in existence to see what lurks within.
Trust me you don't want to go there! You will never get those very sick images out of your mind.
@@Peekaboo-Kitty Ah, those myths about the dark web... It's rather easy to tell who has actually visited it first hand and who's only been subject to hearsay... Shady social media sites are *not* the dark web, that's regular shite found on the internet but not popular enough to fall under regular regulations. And those are also getting harder and harder to find (and convince other people to join) thanks to tons of AI generated nonsense sites -- in that respect probably one of the largest benefits of AI for parents.
Kids don’t have more friends because they use less social media, they use less social media because they have more friends. Same could be said for people who don’t have friends and use social media, they use social media because they don’t have friends. Not “they don’t have friends because they use social media”. At the end of the day it’s not like this bill will work.
Thank you for using your daily allotment of social media time on this vid for us mate
And sadly some people dont care. "Noone else will do it, we need the boot to step down on our neck" personal responsibility, if you dont want your children in social media...dont give them a smart phone, dont plop them in front of the iPad, be a damn parent. Also never ever allow the government to determine what "misinformation" is THEY WILL USE IT AGAINST YOU
When governments are allowed to decide what "misinformation" is, everything that criticizes the government becomes misinformation. Look at how the CCP operates for a real-world example of this. Free speech dies and 1984-style thought policing become the norm.
They should just make social media paid application. It does require resources to run so it needs to be financially sustainable. This way it will make it less accessible to people who can't manage bank account on their own. Not a perfect solution but one which has grounds in reality. Why do you thing governments banned alcohol usage and drug usage by children? Is it because parents can just tell their children not to drink/smoke? Can parents be everywhere looking after their children 24/7?
@@kameliastoyanova7198 found the gov boot licker
@@kameliastoyanova7198 and..did it work? Did teenage drinking ever curb even a bit? No lol. Majority of alcoholism nowadays starts in teenage years and teenagers are the most convicted for drug possession and usage.
BUREAUCRACY. NEVER. WORKS.
HELICOPTER PARENTING RUINS CHILDREN, GOVERNMENT OVERREACH RUINS NATIONS
Great advice! You do realise that unlike you're fantastic helicopter parent, taking your kid everywhere the whole day and watching every move, nowadays life actually requires kids to have a smartphone in many places around the globe? Sure, there might be workarounds for most things, like public transport, payment, school and sports clubs communications, homework and whatnot, but even if you decide to stigmatize your own kid because it's one of the 10 who are not allowed to have or can't afford a smartphone, it's going to make your own life a lot harder because you have to invent a shitload of workarounds; you can also rest assured that the kid will decide to hangout as much as possible with those cooler kids which are not crippled by such problems -- completely out of your control and sight.
This was never about kids.
Who’s it about ? If you know anything about ISP, you’ve never been anonymous when going online.
"It's about the children" sounds very similar to the "Protect the elderly" of 3 years ago to ensure everyone did as instructed.
This is what happens when parenting is taken over by the State. If you cannot control your child-why should everyone else suffer?
best comment on this situation
Lazy and apathetic parents
@@zenboy1612 Not "apathetic". The parents are also addicted to Digital Technology themselves. I am someone who has NEVER owned a cell phone or smart phone and it is very easy for me to see how this tech is harming society on several levels. Have a Great Day!
@@zenboy1612 now everyone has to suffer, these parents are emotional and projecting their situation on to all children and folks. Saying we need to protect our children, when these parents stated THEY allowed their daughter to use social media.
I feel for there lose, but this is insane , it should be a choice between parents and their own children.
I found it hard to learn in school, so I learnt soooo much from youtube. This will make it harder for so many kids :(
@@GaeModfrey yes - you tube is great, in so many ways. As I understand it, it won’t work for YT because you don’t need an account to watch videos. You won’t get the benefit/disadvantage of the algorithm either - unless you use a parents account (which is 💯 percent allowed). There’s a group of young you tubers who make content. I’ll be interested to see how they manage that issue, but I can think of quite a few ideas.
Social media was a mistake.
Doenst mean the law itself is good and will help.
Pandora's box has already been opened. No one can force the demons back into it.
The only way to combat the problems that come with social media is actually educating people in how to manage their social media habits. Trying to ban it is only a bandaid solution and will drive it underground where it is more dangerous.
Hope they will update it if it doesn't help. And rethink their approaches if they aren't working so they can work better.
Australia seems to have pretty much abandoned the concept of human rights based on how they acted on covid and now this.
@@hungrymusicwolf hmm 🤔 American? Know a lot about human rights do you?
@@ZestySea Nope, not American. Now instead of trying to dismiss the argument in your mind to make yourself feel better, how about you start doing something to improve the situation instead.
I support the idea of not letting kids be poisoned by social media. But the enforcement is always the biggest issue, isn't it
These companies already know who are kids and who are not. They know who everyone is on these platforms. This really changes nothing other then the fact that responsibility can now be put on these companies for not complying instead of saying they had no idea.
@rogerk6180 the reason why I think it's the biggest issue was because people love to live under the illusion that they have complete control of their private information.
If we can be honest to each other, those companies and their algorithm know about me more than myself or anyone I know.
@@0okuzukirio0 exactly. The idea that people are still anonymous now and that some sort of id is somehow a major invasion of privacy is just ignorant.
Discussions about anonymity online should have been had 20 years ago when it still existed. That ship has sailed long long ago.
And it is not that i agree with the invasion of privacy by these companies. People just need to be realistic about the world we already live in.
Keeping this illusion of privacy allows these companies to claim ignorance and avoid responsibility. How many reports are there of people posting something stupid on social media and a day later police knocking on their door ? They know everything already.
If there no punishment, then who’s going to care?
If only those that provided the kids with the phones in the first place had any sort of control and say......... Yea, big issue enforcing it all that a simple no would solve.
What if you're that kid who ages rapidly and look 30 when you're 12? How's facial recognition gonna tell your age?
Ai can change faces in real time, theres age-up snapchat filters etc. etc. etc.
The government can't enforce this, they can only make it more annoying to access... at taxpayer expense of course.
They will ask your personal id
You'll have to register your face to your identity.
It updates knowledge over your face every time you use it.
Yea, that's just gen Z rapidly aging. They already do a +30 to their age appearance.
constantly sharing your id and biometrics on the internet sounds like the safest thing ever. no way this could cause an ungodly spike in id theft.
Try applying for a job or a rental property today without disclosure of all your personal data (for security checks of course), then hope like hell they don't simply on sell it to scammers, or entrust it to a completely unsecured database
anytime you upload an image to fb/ig etc you're already sharing your biometrics
@@dgs3002exactly, this video conflated the digital ID bill with this, but the social media ban *forbids* requiring s government ID to be linked or shared with them.
The digital ID bill removes the need to share ID with places that currently require it.
The social media ban may be unworkable, but both bills are actually massive privacy *improvements*.
This all sounds perfectly fine to me. People are too inept to take care of themselves and cry foul when the big government has to wash their arses for them.
Some of you people need to be told what to do.