A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
If you're posting anything related to:
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
https://aussie.zone/communities
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
Whole thing is a moral panic. No good evidence exists of harms, but nobody needs evidence to believe what they want to.
You could like ban algorithmic endless feeds if that was bad, you could enforce content moderation standards if bad content was the issue. But no, this is just surveillance state expansion and traditional media handwringing being cheerfully assisted by the feckless "think of the children" crowd.
I think the harms are real. They're not exclusive to children.
There are three categories of harm:
I think we should ban algorithmic recommendations (or strictly limit them), ban the practices of Cocomelon, and ... I'm not sure what we can do about the addiction thing (humans are super prone to addiction). I'd also ban smart-phones in schools, kids should only be allowed flip-phones/brick-phones.
Oh this again. I had forgotten about it. According to the bill's definition of "Social Media", we (aussie.zone) meet it. Which means we need to somehow adhere to whatever the government deems necessary to confirm our userbase's ages. Thing is: I can't see any instance outside the country caring about this law. Why should they?
I genuinely have no idea from a technical standpoint how you'd enforce this.
Which means we need to somehow adhere to whatever the government deems necessary to confirm our userbase’s ages
As I see it, you have three options.
I can’t see any instance outside the country caring about this law. Why should they?
It's the same as the EU when it creates legislation and says "if you have any European customers, even if they're not in Europe, you have to comply". It's bullshit, and they know it. They can't even enforce it on non-European companies that do provide a service to people in Europe. This will be enforced by the big guys with a global presence, and it'll kill off small social media in Australia, while small social media elsewhere will just choose to ignore it.
Adhere to the regulations, whatever the fuck they end up being
I'll send everyone a DM: "Hey, are you over 18? Yep? cool."
I have verified that all our users are over 18. 👍
Get everybody to go buy a beer at their local bar. Then post a pic of their username, bar, and the beer. Age Verified by industry professionals.
At first I laughed, but in honesty I can’t think of many better verification methods.
My concern with it is the cost and requirement for non-drinkers to acquire alcohol. It’s pretty insensitive to ask a recovering alcoholic or a Muslim for example to go into a pub and buy a beer. Maybe have it as one possible verification method?
You could also get a a piece of paper notarised by a JP.
‘The individual known on Aussie.zone as Gorgritch_Umie_Killa has presented identification to me that demonstrates to my satisfaction that they are over 18’ (signed and stamped).
But neither of these methods are technical solutions.
You joke, but remember the proposed UK porn age verification law? Where the verification would legally have to be done by going down to your local pub?
There are many floors to the beer plan, one of which i may hit, depending on how many different social media services i need to prove my age to...
That JP idea is actually good. Whats better it relies on a system that is already in place and has a high level of trust. A specific Social Media verification Government stipend would be needed for JP's though, as this would become a massive initial, and largish ongoing increase in demand for their services.
My problem is that for privacy reasons, I'm opposed to any system that requires giving information about the sites that you're visiting to anyone other than that site. It's not that I don't trust JPs, it's that I don't believe I should have to tell a JP that I use aussie.zone.
... I don’t believe I should have to tell a JP that I use aussie.zone.
I wasn't exactly proposing it as a solution, the amount of manual work it would generate to have millions of Australians going to JPs around the country with this for all their social media sites staggers the mind. But if it were to be implemented this way, I'm not really sure how to get around the issue of naming the explicit sites you visit. You don't want it to be a blank "this person is verified on every site", because that'll be abused by everyone (and their kids) on every site. There needs to be some sort of personalisation to the verification.
And before anyone proposes it: I have zero interest in you sending me your personal ID. We are not equipped to store that level of sensitive information, and this is a side-hobby. We don't take the site anywhere near seriously enough to take that sort of responsibility on.
We are not equipped to store that level of sensitive information
For what it's worth, the legislation seems pretty clear on this one point (despite being unbelievably unclear on just about every other point):
How that's going to play out in practice is anybody's guess at this point.
If Government-issued ID is used, it cannot be stored past the length of time it takes to verify
That just reverses the circle of trust. If I can't trust the users not to lie about their age ("trust me, bro") in a DM, then the users can't trust me not to keep copies/sell their private information ("trust me, bro"). That's a super-flawed verification method.
So we still have no idea how exactly this age verification is supposed to take place in a privacy preserving way.
I still maintain that the only acceptable way to do this is via platform-based APIs and child lock software. Your operating system must have a setting parents can set (locked so children are unable to edit it) with their child's age. The browser and other apps must check that setting via an API. Websites would check the setting via a browser API.
It puts the onus for actual age verification on parents. So it's completely privacy preserving. It's not bypassable by some of the simplest methods like finding a fake photo of a driver's licence. It's certainly not going to completely bug out and give nonsense answers like AI age detection from selfies.
The fact that it's not being done in consultation with platform providers is pretty indicative of the myopic, frankly idiotic approach of both the Labor Party and the Coalition when it comes to tech.
My kids run Arch linux on their desktops. I won't let them use a closed source foreign adware/spyware operating system that doesn't give full control of hardware on principle while they live under my roof and expect me to provide tech support. So operating system restrictions are out of the question for me.
My kids have zero curiosity or interest in social media outside of youtube where they mostly watch really cool creative, education or gaming content which I support or if I think content is low quality brain rot it is something we discuss.
I am very content not to engage in social media if age verification proves too intrusive. Its a time waster for me and increasingly I feel like I am responding to prompts to train corporate AIs to replace employees, creatives etc. The human aspect of it all is getting lost. I think we need to learn how to live offline more. It could be our national competitive advantage. We are half way there already with our shit Internet.
How does that work for folks that don't have any need to run age verification software? I'm sure as hell not installing it
Methinks Zag was suggesting (possibly) that 'age verification' should be a *device* and *operating system* (& platform) feature that would be *inactive* by default.
In other words, there should be nothing for an adult (without kids) to do in order for their devices to function as they do now.
A parent would be required to activate a 'child lock' feature on a device before handing it to their kids.
Unfortunately, all governments are too chicken-shit scared to compel parents to do this small thing.
Governments *prefer* the option of compelling ALL users to provide 'age verification' (possibly Gov't issued ID) to the relevant platforms.
For the 'Liberals' this would be a natural extension of their right wing fascism.
For the Labor party, it's merely a reflection of their general incompetence.
The policy is predicated on protecting children for their mental health and development when they are at a very vulnerable age. Not all kids have responsible and capable parents. Lots of kids live in abusive circumstances, with absent/negligent parents and some kids are forced by circumstances to effectively be the the care givers/providers in their household as their parents guardians may be incapable. The world is really fucking sad sometimes.
When you go into a pub or supermarket and ask for beer or smokes they don't give them to anyone who doesn't have a child lock on them. They ask for proof of age. You can defeat that in various ways but they too are illegal and create risks for those involved. It isn't perfect but it works well enough to reduce harms.
You want something available only to adults, then the convention is you provide proof you are an adult. That is a privacy nightmare if poorly implemented but then so is the entire digital realm right now.
I think we are missing the big opportunity as a society. The social media platforms are making shitloads of money through predatory manipulation of user habits because they get shitloads from advertising. Just ban the fucking advertising. Most of the bad shit goes away overnight for kids and adults because without the advertising the incentives to keep people trapped in a dopamine loop is mostly gone. The big platforms either learn how to produce viable paid services or people move to community run alternatives like this one.
The 'ID is required for beer and smokes' example is misleading.
Most adults are NOT required to provide ID to purchase such items. Only those who look "Under 25 years" *may* be required to produce ID, and even then, that ID is NOT recorded. (An exception may the the NT for alcohol sales.)
Requiring the citizenry to provide ID to either a social media entity OR via a government controlled gateway is something that must NOT be tolerated.
A requirement such as this will 'chill' free speech, weaken our democracy, and undoubtedly expose our personal information to hackers.
It's akin to allowing a person to purchase a pen, paper, envelope, and stamps - but then demanding the writer present both their ID and the unsealed letter at a Post Office, so that one's written words may be recorded against one's name.
To paraphrase Robert Bolt, it's akin to "cutting down privacy to protect children from the devil".
If you wish to argue in favour of this incoming law, do so *after* you've sent a copy of your ID to me.
Only those who look “Under 25 years” may be required to produce ID
Could you tell the guy at the bar I went to a week ago this, please? I got carded for the first time in years (not counting Safer Night Precincts where everyone gets carded) despite being—and looking—in my 30s.
The for profit social media companies profile users and know their demographics in great detail. Kids are obviously watching different content to adults. They are in an equivalent position to a bottleshop employee letting a 12 year old walk out with a carton of premixes and claiming not only that they didn't know (false) but they want to keep not knowing because it is good for business. The industry only cares about money and has proven they can't self regulate.
The only question is how to react. Not whether to react.
The social media companies are obviously scare mongering and spreading misinformation to protect their financial interests. We need to balance peoples very reasonable demands for privacy with holding predatory corporate behaviour to account. The most likely outcome will be a requirement to use a third party age verification service subject to Australian privacy laws to verify a new user to a service so that there is no need to provide that informtion to the social media companies. People willingly, enthusiastically give their entire life history to Meta along with all their friends, colleagues and family along with photos that allow biometric fingerprinting of their children for life. Giving them a simple yes/no to the question of if you are legal age based on a trusted third party seems a very reasonable request in comparison.
Giving them a simple yes/no to the question of if you are legal age based on a trusted third party
Who's that trusted third party? There's no third party that I trust with that information. I don't want to have to tell the government "I use aussie.zone, and this is my username". I don't want it even without the username part. And I'd trust the government a hell of a lot more with that than any private company.
The problem with your comment is that you're framing it as all about Meta. It's not. It could have been. Maybe even should have been. Have it apply only to specific platforms designated by the Minister. But the way the legislation was written, it applies to all social media. Including Lemmy instances. Including Mastodon. Including old-school forums. This is why all sensible people were opposed to the bill when it went through within a week late last year. Not because the underlying goal is bad, but because it had been rushed through without proper consideration, and it was missing obvious problems that arose from the way it was drafted. Problems which could have been addressed, if they had done a proper inquiry and responded to feedback from experts, knowledgeable amateurs, and the broader public.
You've basically got it.
A parent would be required to activate a ‘child lock’ feature on a device before handing it to their kids.
Unfortunately, all governments are too chicken-shit scared to compel parents to do this small thing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well said
The government's plan? No idea, because they still don't have any idea. It might involve requiring you to install software to use any social media legally*. Or it might not require new software, but require you to upload your photo ID or a selfie (on the promise that they will totally delete the photo as soon as they're finished verifying it, pinky swear!). The law was passed 6 months ago in a rush, and is now 6 months away from coming into effect, but we still don't know. Because the government did not do its due diligence in planning this out. It didn't even have sufficient time for proper public submissions.
If you meant my idea? I didn't specify. It could be designed either way. To assume anyone who hasn't specified an age is an adult and allow them through, or to block by default in order to ensure age verification is being proactively provided. Personally, I would advocate for the former, but even the latter would be vastly superior to any other system I can think of.
Importantly: it wouldn't be any software you have to install. It'd be a basic feature of the operating system. Like your operating system probably already has child controls on it; you just don't use them. (Windows, macOS, iOS, Android, and at least Ubuntu Linux all certainly do, to different extents.) In the stricter scenario where it blocks if no age is provided, you would have to set your age up through your operating system's settings. The key is: it relies entirely on trust. You can enter whatever age you like; there's no checking of your face or your documents, so there's no possibility of privacy invasion. This provides compliance with the intent of the law for children by requiring parents to enter the correct age for their kids and set sufficient locks on it to prevent the kid easily bypassing it.
* including any Lemmy, Piefed, or Mastodon servers, unless they can receive a specific exemption—and whether fediverse owners try to receive such an exemption and operate legally without age verification, or they implement the system, or they simply try to fly under the radar and hope they don't get in trouble, is going to be a point that all fediverse admins where either the admin or the server are based in Australia are going to have to consider once the law comes into effect.
How many minutes will it take for a 17 year old to break the system this time
About 3 and a half.
This is a fucking waste of taxpayer money and it pisses me off
I have 4 kids, I can parent them without Big Brother. Fuck off Government
Why would a 17 year-old bother breaking it? When I was 17 I would have loved the idea that my younger sibling couldn't be on social media!
The Aussie Gov spent A$84 million on a net content filter only for a teenager to break it within half an hour of it going live. They patched it and he broke that in 40 minutes.
I mean sure. I was just pointing out that your comment would have made a lot more sense in this context if you'd said a 15 year-old, who would actually be affected by the law.
No.