this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2025
33 points (97.1% liked)
Australia
4301 readers
159 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You've basically got it.
My proposal provides two separate options. One, the one I prefer, is exactly what you said. Inactive by default.
But there is a fallback option that I still think is significantly better than any alternative age verification. Which is that if inactive, social media sites would be required to presume you are underage. This would give governments an extra bit of leeway from the problems you've described here. It would require everyone to provide "age verification" (in the form of stating your age to the system, proving only that you have admin access to the device which parents should not be giving to children) without compelling turning over sensitive data like photo ID.
@Zagorath
Yeah. I used to encounter something akin to the 'fall back' solution when trying to watch the odd video on YT. (The video would usually be something as innocuous as 'Bambi Meets Godzilla'... and f**king Google would want me to Sign In to view it. No.)
No matter how the government tries to protect our community's 'precious little darlings' within a week or two, some teenager will release a fully encrypted app that's onboarded by 'invitation only', where they'll collectively plan to kill us all in our beds!
The key difference with the YouTube example is that Google requires you to create an account (which helps them track you) and specify the account's age. They also require proof of ID these days to give you access to age-gated content, which is possible, but quite tricky, to bypass.
The idea with my fallback solution is that it could work completely accountless. Your browser just reads from your operating system what your age is, the same way they can read what screen resolution you have or what version of your browser you're running.
With robust parental controls in place, an OS should be able to prevent a child from installing any software without the parent's consent (by the parent typing in a password that the child should not know). If it's done robustly, the only way a child should be able to get around it is by dual-booting (or live USB-ing) into an entirely separate petition that their parents don't control. And I'mma be honest, any kid who can figure that part out deserves free reign over their computer.
@Zagorath
Oh, I do agree with you, Zag!
I detest the notion of citizens having to provide ID, and solutions - at the device or OS level - could be implemented.
It should be a responsibility of parents to limit the social media access by their children, and NOT the 'surveillance state' solution of compelling the entire population to hand over their 'Australia Card' just to crap on about something here!
The problem at the moment is that the technology does not aid parents in this.
Personally, I would like to see the existence of this sort of age-gating API be mandatory, and set some government guidelines, but leave it up to parents whether or not they wish to use it. Because right now, unless they are hovering over the shoulder of their children every moment they're on a computer, there's literally nothing they can do with available technology to prevent children accessing age-inappropriate material. So a law that can help them out without forcing their hand would be great.
@Zagorath
That's right! (That's what we/you were talking about, wasn't it?)
Compel the major devices and OSes to have the feature you suggested.
Make it a requirement for all devices, and available to all users. Give parents the *option* to 'lock down' or 'age restrict' a device.
The government should otherwise steer away from their likely dystopian solution.
@TimePencil @Zagorath
The esafety report shows parents prefer to talk to their kids and set boundaries rather than set up technology solutions such as parents
controls. They are not using the ones already available.
Their age verification solutions being flogged to the government are not accurate. Particularly when everyone will need to use it, not just the underage.
Why would you want to restrict information about Emergencies, health services, support, government information, sporting clubs, mental health, volunteer groups from kids? The will effect their creativity, connections with families and friends around the globe. Why would you take online friends and connections away from those being physically bullied at school?
The whole thing is stupid.
@TimePencil @Zagorath
Also the testing they subjected the age verification system was in ideal conditions. Perfect lighting, no one trying to trick or grt around it. Yet it still flagged kids under 16 as 35 years old. Put it in the real world with less than perfect lighting, photos not focused etc and it will let a heap of people in that shouldn't and lock lots of people out that should be let in.
This from the Australian government that has a history of stuffing up IT, such as the census debacle.
I don't think you'll find anyone in the fediverse willing to defend face-based age-verification systems. It's a complete farce to pretend it's ever going to be viable, even if you completely ignore all the obvious privacy issues and how easily-bypassed it is. People's faces just have far too weak a correlation with their age to get the kind of bright line result a law like this needs.
Uploading ID is a better option. Still bad because it kills all anonymity/pseudonimity and introduces enormous privacy risks. And is still not difficult to bypass. But if options for age verification were political parties, this would be the LNP, to facial-aging-AI's One Nation.
@SuperMoosie
Look, here's the bottom line(s):
'Age verification' systems - where a person's ID is submitted - will not work.
Kids will find a way around them.
ID verification systems are a privacy nightmare and something only a dictatorship would implement.
Device/OS/platform 'age restriction' features are workable, but Labor is too incompetent to liaise with the EU to implement them.
It is for parents to supervise and control their kids' devices, NOT for everyone else to have to provide ID just to access social media.
@Zagorath
Well said