this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
776 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

60105 readers
1952 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Magister@lemmy.world 150 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

teen go to website

please enter your birthdate

1/1/2000

welcome!

[–] DrunkenPirate@feddit.org 48 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Lawyer sues tech company

But we asked for the birthday

Lawyer points to law text

Company fined

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 43 points 4 weeks ago (16 children)

I don't see many options between asking for a birthdate and asking for ID for this problem. I don't see any way that this can be enforced that isn't problematic.

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BetaDoggo_@lemmy.world 104 points 4 weeks ago (5 children)

Now everyone gets to hand over their ids to the tech companies.

[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 59 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

We should make a bet how long it will take before the ID databases get leaked.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 38 points 4 weeks ago

It would take too long.

Making the bet that is, it would be leaked before you are done setting up the betting system.

[–] A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com 35 points 4 weeks ago

Australia requires mobile phone providers to verify IDs before providing cell phone service. As a result, in September 2022, Optus leaked the records of 10 million Australians including passport and drivers license details.

So negative 2 years, 2 months.

But this is just asking for more.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] JoYo@lemmy.ml 92 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

Now ban parents posting pictures of their children under 16.

I DGAF about your kids.

[–] Eezyville@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Yeah I agree with you on this. It'll protect them from the being de-clothed using AI as well. I understand wanting to share moments with your family because kids grow up fast but sharing it with these companies as an intermediary is not a good idea. Sadly I don't have a solution for them aside from setting up a decentralized social network like Pixelfed or Frendica but that requires skill and patience.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] plactagonic@sopuli.xyz 78 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)
[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 23 points 4 weeks ago

Okay, that is fucking awesome. LOL.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 60 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (6 children)

The second i have to hand over my id to a tech company is the second i leave and never come back.

Also how they gonna manage the fediverse? Can someone get fined for providing social media to themselves if an under 16 sets up their own federated instance?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] MimicJar@lemmy.world 42 points 4 weeks ago (7 children)

the rules are expected to apply to the likes of Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok, per the Prime Minister.

Sites used for education, including YouTube, would be exempt, as are messaging apps like WhatsApp. 

The law does not require users to upload government IDs as part of the verification process.

Sounds like a pretty weak law. It will require a birthday when creating an account and accounts under the age of 16 will be restricted/limited. As a result users (people under 16) will lie about their age.

Companies don't like this because it messes with their data collection. If they collect data that proves an account is under 16 they will be required to make them limited/restricted. However they obviously collect this data already.

I wonder if Facebook and other apps will add/push education elements in order to become exempt.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Any stonger, and they wander into China "Great Firewall" territory.

Lets not make every country into an authoritarian shithole.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 11 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I wonder if Facebook and other apps will add/push education elements in order to become exempt.

I doubt it, and if they do, they'll classify a whole bunch of nonsense as educational content in order to do so, e.g. religious content as science.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] rcbrk@lemmy.ml 38 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

The ban and age verification requirements apply to pretty much all services which allow communication of information between people, unless an exemption is granted by the minister.

There is no legislated exemption for instant messaging, SMS, email, email lists, chat rooms, forums, blogs, voice calls, etc.

It's a wildly broadly applicable piece of legislation that seems ripe to be abused in the future, just like we've seen with anti-terror and anti-hate-symbol legislation.

From 63C (1) of the legislation:

For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted social media platform means:

  • a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:
    • i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users;
    • ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users;
    • iii) the service allows end-users to post material on the service;
    • iv) such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules; or
  • b) an electronic service specified in the legislative rules; but does not include a service mentioned in subsection (6).

Here's all the detail of what the bill is and the concerns raised in parliament.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 37 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

China Video Game Ban v2.0: Electric Boogaloo

Parents should be parenting, not delegate their responsibilities to a nanny state.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 28 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

That would require us paying one parent enough to cover the other parent being a child care expert. But nobody gets to profit off of that so fuck society, everybody works, and nobody gets community goods except the wealthy.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 4 weeks ago (15 children)

Solution is to fund a social safety net, not ban social media.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] VerticaGG@lemmy.blahaj.zone 34 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (3 children)

Is anyone talking about the fact that it's the predatory, short-term-quarterly-gains oriented behavior of the platforms themselves which is in fact rampaging though democracies, massively affecting and survielling Adult's behaviors on a loop of ragebait-induced dopamine/seratonin manipulation?

Because Kids are going to connect with one another, on whichever the next platform is that's not banned. What's more, the institutions they attend will inevitably ask them to do so as...things like Youtube arent exactly 100% avoidable.

Pretty pathetic to clamp down on Youth Liberty in a society that has basically none, when centrally-hosted platforms owned by corporate behemoths are all-but-physically trampling the landscape like some kind of fucked up gentrification-glorifying-voiceline-repeating Megazord

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ouch@lemmy.world 29 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

I don't think there is a technical way to implement this without privacy issues and potential for future misuse and scope creep.

Government doing parenting instead of the parents never works.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Chick3nDinn3r@lemmy.world 27 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

What the government should be doing is mandating that a social media/drugs literacy course is taught in schools. Kids should fundamentally understand that things are not black or white, good or bad; things are grey. They have upsides and downsides; risks and rewards. Kids should be taught that Social media is a great way to connect with your friends, but you are also susceptible to being influenced/manipulated/addicted in X, Y, Z ways.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 27 points 3 weeks ago (10 children)

This is technically feasible, and bussiness don't need to know your id. If anonymous government certificates are issued.

But I'm morally against it. We need to both educate on the dangers of internet and truly control harmful platforms.

But just locking it is bad for ociety. What happens with kids in shitty families that find in social media (not Facebook, think prime time Tumblr) a way to scape and find that there are people out there not as shitty as their family. Now they are just completely locked to their shitty family until it's too late.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 11 points 3 weeks ago

I've said this before, and I'll keep saying it, we need better terms than "social media." Tumblr, Reddit, and Lemmy I don't think should be in the same group as Facebook, Twitter, etc. Social media that uses your real life information should be separate from basically forums that use an online persona.

I don't know what this legislation says, but I agree with you. It should be limited to restricting the "personal social media," not glorified internet forums.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

The fact that people even considered this with a straight face, discussed it and passed it is just indicative how tech illiterate we've become.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] BMTea@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

I support this move. Some here are delusionally arguing that this impacts privacy - the sort of data social media firms collect on teenagers is egregiously extensive regardless. This is good support for their mental health and development.

[–] IDKWhatUsernametoPutHereLolol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 35 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

This ban does nothing.

Anything that does not force ID verification is useless.

Anything that does verify ID would mean that adults also have to upload their IDs to the website.

What will happen is either this becomes another toothless joke. Or the government say "okay this isn't working, lets implement ID checks", and when that law passes Lemmy Instance Admins would be required to verify ID of any user from an Australia IP.

Y'all want that to happen?

So what hapoens if other countries start catching on and also pass such law?

Eventually the all internet accounts would be tied to IDs. Anonymity is dead.

[–] PieMePlenty@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

Government provided open id service which guarantees age. Website gets trusted authority signed token witch contains just the age. We can do this safely. We have the technology. They could even do it only once on registration.

Digital id's exist already in the EU, and many countries run a sign on service already. We aren't far from this.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

performative nonsense which does nothing for kids or their mental health and harms queer kids who lose one of the first places they can find community.

[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Then it seems there is something other to fix in society than making sure facebook knows anything about that kid.

The Zuckerbergers of the world aren't the ones to trust with that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sudoer777@lemmy.ml 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This is just abstinence education all over again

[–] Agent641@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

I always wear a condom when I log into Facebook, so I should be safe

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] AllToRuleThemOne@lemmy.world 20 points 3 weeks ago

Pssst! Hey kid, wanna buy some memes?

[–] gnuplusmatt@reddthat.com 18 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

I work tech in schools (in Australia) there are definitely tech savvy enough kids that will probably spool up their own fediverse instances

[–] shortwavesurfer@lemmy.zip 13 points 4 weeks ago (11 children)

I know right. I used to be a kid who bypassed school firewalls and restrictions all the time. This is going to make no difference.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 17 points 4 weeks ago

Papers, please!

[–] Juigi@lemm.ee 17 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

What they consider as "social media"? Is it every site where you can communicate with others?

This seems fucked if its so.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 15 points 4 weeks ago (9 children)

Probably going to get downvoted for this, but this just makes kids look for VPN's and other ways to skirt this restriction. It may make VPN's less useful for the rest of us as a result when certain services are forced to comply with the law, breaking those services for those of us using VPN's. It sounds like a great idea but I don't know that the implementation will make a noticeable or effective difference.

[–] cybermass@lemmy.ca 23 points 4 weeks ago (4 children)

Most kids are not going to pay a subscription for a VPN, I don't think that would be as big of an issue as you think.

[–] Thorman1@lemm.ee 23 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Well unless they go for free vpns and get data mined to the moon and back... Which is a far worse outcome imo.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] MyOpinion@lemm.ee 14 points 4 weeks ago

Not a bad choice.

[–] scaryjelly@lemm.ee 13 points 4 weeks ago

Only for 16 seconds? Why?

[–] Zozano@lemy.lol 13 points 4 weeks ago (6 children)

Obviously there are workarounds, but I suppose it provides a good justification for parents to deny their kids access to social media.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago (16 children)

I feel like every law I see coming out of Australia is just telling their citizens they’re not allowed to do something else mundane. All while the government services get worse, and the corrupt become more entrenched.

What a shithole.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] vk6flab@lemmy.radio 12 points 4 weeks ago
load more comments
view more: next ›