Nath

Usually, the Australian Prime Minister and the US President meet several times a year - between G20, APEC, or just regular visits.

This term, Albo has been to the White House once. That's the only time they've met.
Likewise, Senator Wong (aside from the inauguration/meet & greet) has been to the USA once. Again, that's well-below usual levels between our two nations.

Relations remain cordial, but by any objective measure, they are nowhere near as close as usual.

Valve's justification for an exemption according to that letter I linked above was that Community Hub was an incidental side feature of Steam. Essentially the same argument that got GitHub an exemption. I even agree with them.

An overall age verification strategy for all online content would answer the question though.
I've come at the situation in the context of the social media changes, because that's what Valve cited in their letter.

I don't think anyone is proposing any sort of hostility toward the USA. What we're seeing globally is a separation. Severing ties with them is not the same as threatening them in any way.

I don't think Australia is going to sever ties with the USA, but we'll certainly keep them more at arms-reach that we have in the past. The government is already starting to do that.

I wonder whether the USA is actually aware of the damage it has done to its International reputation? Their present administration has done incredible harm to the nation's global relationships. Not only with nations it has historically been adversarial with, but also to its friends.

Even should a new President come along who sets about mending fences, the world knows they're one hostile president away from doing this to us all again. We can't trust treaties with the USA, because a future president might come along again and just tear them up. We can't fully trust military alliances, because a future president might come along again and call them into question/start implying they will break those alliances. We can't trust free-trade agreements because a future president might come along again and tear those up/reintroduce tariffs for no logical reason.

Without any hyperbole, this government is costing their economy Trillions of dollars and will take more than a simple change of government to repair. They'll need to somehow make it impossible for another future government to do all this again. I'm not even positive they have a willingness to do that.

But the insane thing about all of this, is all their identity politics suggests that for all the damage their government has done, it still enjoys massive support from a significant percentage of it's population.

Australian government wants ID on everything digital

This is incorrect. In fact, the OAIC recommends that providers do the opposite:

The OAIC encourages entities to adopt a ‘privacy by design’ approach when selecting an assurance method. A Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) is a systematic assessment that identifies the privacy impact on individuals, and sets out recommendations for managing, minimising or eliminating that impact. A PIA demonstrates commitment to, and respect of, individual’s privacy.

Plus, there are a bunch of extra rules if you do have ID on your users. I don't know how you got that impression, but it is mistaken.

The government has the ability and precedent to direct Australian banks to cut off merchants. It's used routinely for scammers, dodgy overseas pharmacies, online gambling sites - stuff that isn't compliant with Australian law. I don't know whether the eSafety Commissioner has access to those powers, but yes - the possibility that Valve loses the Australian market has precedence.

Of course, I can't see it going that far, because I think they'd cave and comply with Australian law before we got to that stage.

“This is the first decent-sized site to show this level of resistance to the policy.” What?

Can you name another company with hundred of millions of dollars in revenue in Australia that has played this sort of game with the Social Media law? The closest I can think of was when Facebook tried to play games with Online News - and they caved and paid up for three years before abandoning Facebook News in Australia.

The government is not doing those things. Valve is. The purpose of the social media law is to prevent people under 16 from from being able to post online (they're allowed to read).

Is it a stupid law? Yes.
Should it be the parent's responsibility to be aware of what their kids are doing/exposed to online? Also, yes.

I don't know how this has turned into some sort of discussion about the games themselves. It's the Community Hub where users discuss games that is the issue as far as the government is concerned. Valve has responded by making it about the games. Probably because if they blocked our access to the Community Hubs, most of us wouldn't notice/care.

All that said: Whether I agree with a law or not, I do believe the government should have the leverage to enforce the law. The other side of the discussion is valid also though. I believe Valve should have the right to say 'no' to laws from foreign nations. I don't know what the consequences should be in that case though. Provide refunds for our purchases and close our accounts? I can't see that being viable.

Like I said: fascinating to watch this play out.

Poor wording on my part. People are saying things like 'unless I made my account when I was 3, my fifteen year old account should be enough'. Fifteen years of gaming history on the other hand is reasonable evidence of the account holder's age.

In my example, My son will have a 15-year-old account by the time he turns 17. I made them because I thought it'd be a fun bit of clout when they start playing with their mates. 'How do you have a 10+ year badge already?'.

We are small, but lucrative. If something is introduced where Valve faces losing access to the Australian market, they'll 100% cave. No 'principal' from their end is worth however many Millions of dollars they receive from this market - particularly since they do honestly have actual competition. Valve enjoys market share mostly because they were first and are convenient. If they cease to be convenient, they will lose that share overnight. We're already seeing people in this thread say they are going to stop buying games on Steam. The main reason I do most of my shopping at the Steam Store is that most of my library is there. Not for any other particular reason.

I don't know what the the government can do that will stop people dealing with Steam, unless they can intervene at the bank level. That's where the fascination is coming from. This is the first decent-sized site to show this level of resistance to the policy.

This implementation of age verification by Valve is at-best so poorly considered that I expect them to re-evaluate soon. The first issue is that they want the card on-file. I purchased a game for my child on Monday, using a Credit Card. So, I obviously have a credit card. I didn't keep the card on-file, I used it for a single purchase. My Steam account is still age-locked.

I will concede that 'age of account' alone isn't too good of a test - I created a Steam accounts for my kids when they were little (2 and 5). The oldest has started using his account, the youngest will probably start next year. XBox used account activity - and that's a better test. Having 15 years of gaming history is a better test than a 10-year-old account that only started seeing regular use 2 years ago.

Because I know far too much about these age verification laws (for obvious reasons), I can also attest that Valve is not complying with the Age Verification as outlined in Regulatory guidance. If you are willing to go through the document, the relevant section is:

2.3.3 Accessible, inclusive and fair
Providers should ensure age assurance methods and surrounding systems and processes are accessible, inclusive and fair.

That same section also goes on to give advice on verification means, saying it should not discriminate end-users based on pretty-much any metric you can think of. They especially call-out discrimination against Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders. A demographic where the majority of citizens do not have credit cards. They also fail to follow the guidance "Providers should offer a choice between a range of age assurance methods".

Valve wrote to the eSafety commissioner a year ago, requesting to be exempt from the law. They were denied. Assorted sites are claiming that eSafety Commissioner's office is engaging with Valve (example), though I haven't found anything on their website to acknowledge that. In short, Valve are not presently complying with the law and something will need to give.

I called their age verification implementation "poorly considered", because I actually think they're being intentionally belligerent. I suspect they are hoping the government is going to back down. I don't know how that's going to play out, or how the eSafety commissioner is going to respond. I don't know what 'big guns' the government has here. This case is fascinating to observe from the side-lines.

It's currently around 6.9%. With mortgages around $800k, that's over $1k per week interest (not paying any of the principal off). It's already insane.

Cotality executive research director Tim Lawless told SBS News that the top end of the housing market historically moves first in a property cycle.

Here's hoping the rest of the market follows.