this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2025
147 points (100.0% liked)

News

33415 readers
1741 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 28 points 2 days ago (1 children)

These could include government IDs, face or voice recognition, or so-called "age inference", which analyses online behaviour and interactions to estimate a person's age.

Surely this won't be used by the government to monitor internet usage!

[–] Lodespawn@aussie.zone 12 points 2 days ago (19 children)

Australia already has metadata tracking. This law is poorly implemented by a bunch of old fools who don't understand how the internet works. All it will achieve is training a generation to subvert the government's nonsense better.

[–] fizzle@quokk.au 0 points 1 day ago

Not really.

This law draws a line in the sand indicating societal expectations.

It empowers parents to set and maintain appropriate boundaries without being influenced by what other parents allow their kids to do. Its a lot easier to maintain a "no social media" rule if other parents are doing the same.

Also I dont really have any faith at all in the young teenagers of today being able to circumvent anything. Sure. A few will... but certainly not most or even a significant portion.

If you cant install it from the app store then its out of reach.

load more comments (18 replies)

Thank god. They should ban it for those over 16 too

[–] sem@lemmy.ml 20 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, began closing teen accounts from 4 December. It said anyone mistakenly kicked off could use government ID or provide a video selfie to prove their age.

Snapchat has said users can use bank accounts, photo ID or selfies for verification.

In other words, Australia just enforced "internet by passort", right? Very useful if the goal is build a surveillance state. Besides the fact that is required from platforms to store these IDs and in case of any data breach hakers will get not only email addresses, but emails + id.

Also looks as a very cool feature for platforms themselves: match of users data between different systems becomes much easier: no more expensive and complex digital fingerprinting, just direct match by ID.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 25 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

There's evidently a concerted international effort to end anonymity and privacy on the internet, disguised as protecting children. It would be worrying at any time, but it's particularly alarming when authoritarian fascism is also on the rise pretty much everywhere. ID verification (sold as age verification) is a major step towards making it impossible for political dissidents and victimized groups to organize resistance or read uncensored information without being put on a list, to find, support and defend each other, or to travel freely.

[–] emmy67@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

This is the thing I'm most afraid of. It's why I've been moving everything to self hosting and de-googling.

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I think it may be time for the public to create their own P2P mesh networks that are "disconnected" from the main internet.

Also as a self-hoster I wonder how this would effect smaller individuals that run their own blogs and websites. How would a small random person be forced to put up a ID verification on their website that they might be running on a small POS laptop?

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago

If ID verification is required but not practical for small independent websites, these laws effectively make it impossible to run an independent website. So only big corporations can serve content on the internet.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Why not provide parents with routers instead that have easy to set parental controls?

This feels very similar to someone coming into my home and telling me how to raise my own kids.

The government could also create its own curated list of websites that are considered "kid friendly" at different age gaps and have it made available within a routers parental control menu to be turned on/for deviced marked as being used by ones child on your home network.

Also at the same time it's not about protecting children, it's about controlling the general population with the guise of protecting the children. It's like getting searched when walking in and walking out of a store.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Imo we need locked down "child" devices. Any other solution is crazy police state shit.

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I'm gonna make a prediction before reading the article: either there isn't an actual plan for how to do this, or it's actually a plan to surveil adults

Woah hey look I was right

The government says firms must take "reasonable steps" to keep kids off their platforms, and should use multiple age assurance technologies.

These could include government IDs, face or voice recognition, or so-called "age inference", which analyses online behaviour and interactions to estimate a person's age.

Platforms cannot rely on users self-certifying or parents vouching for their children.

Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, began closing teen accounts from 4 December. It said anyone mistakenly kicked off could use government ID or provide a video selfie to prove their age.

Snapchat has said users can use bank accounts, photo ID or selfies for verification.

Wild seeing so many nations amassing the tools of surveillance fascism, and repression to little backlash because the leaders aren't as outright fascist as some other countries. This will end poorly.

[–] Nomorereddit@lemmy.today 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

I know it's not perfect and everyone here is losing their mind, but getting kids off of social media until they're more adultish is good parenting.

[–] fantasyocean@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Right, so shouldn't parents be responsible for that and not the government?

[–] Nomorereddit@lemmy.today 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

In theory, fuck yes.

In practice, Parents participation made it this bad. While Corporations made it epidemically worse and normalized this shit.

But im not in the decision making circle on this, so feel free to ignore me.

[–] fantasyocean@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't think anyone in these comment sections is in decision-making circles lol. Though I am in agreement that limiting access to social media for minors would probably be a good thing. I think that could be done by removing the profit incentive from corporations to target young audiences. Like stricter laws/bans against advertising to minors

[–] Nomorereddit@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago

Socialogically many Fenale trends start/come from the preteen age base. Its targeted purposefully.

[–] BonesOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

There was a good interview in Rolling Stone with Carl Newman of the band The New Pornographers. Last year the band's drummer was arrested and later convicted of sexually pestering children and CSAM possession. (Yes the name is an unfortunate coincidence but was their name for many years before this drummer was a member, and it refers to something else).

Carl talked about how devastated the band is by all of this, and a family member who works in the court system gave him some advice, talking about how pedophiles are always looking for an opportunity, and how you really should not have anything about your children online because they WILL use it no matter how innocent, and how you should watch your kids incredibly carefully online, that it's not just kids from vulnerable families getting trafficked.

I see that it feels intrusive, but I myself read a lot of judicial decisions online, and the pedophile ones are always HORRIFIC. Just because there isn't a physical victim doesn't make it better. One case the police were notified by an ISP about a guy and they went to his house and found a child sized sex doll in his home. One thing leads to another. A lot of the testimony by men who have not committed physical crimes talk about how they were depressed and just began going into more extremes of porn, and just ended up beginning to watch CSAM as an extension of this. They would get phallometric testing which would show they are sexually oriented to children so this isn't always true, but the easy access to literally anything via the Internet sure isn't helping anything.

[–] BananaIsABerry@lemmy.zip 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I swear every headline about Australia is something like:

"Australia bans the only things you found fun growing up"

[–] g0nz0li0@piefed.social 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Guns? That’s the other thing we’re famous for.

[–] BananaIsABerry@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Video game censorship comes to mind, can't say guns are an American's favorite thing growing up...

[–] g0nz0li0@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

There’s not really any video game ban legislated in Australia.

You might be thinking of an our stupid classification board who occasionally make weird, inconsistent decisions resulting games being prohibited for sale to certain markets or altogether.

For a long time this was because there was no R 18+ classification, forcing some games to be refused classification. This has been addressed, but the Australian Classification Board aren’t always applying it correctly so there’s reform needed of the ACB to fix this outright (it seems to be gradually improving maybe?)

[–] BananaIsABerry@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Interesting, maybe I'm remembering older info then. I seem to remember there being some games that had an "Australian" version that removed a lot of the gore/violence.

[–] g0nz0li0@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

Yeah there’s been censored versions released to get around ACB being dickheads. It’s silly.

[–] SereneSadie@quokk.au 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] g0nz0li0@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

Is a great example of what I’m talking about. This can be given an R18+ rating, ACB appear to be dragging feet on classification because they’re idiot bureaucrats who think it’s their job to apply their own moral standards.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I'm of two minds on this. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›