this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
100 points (100.0% liked)

Australia

3647 readers
143 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

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:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] 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:

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: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Here are some of the things that were proposed as amendments to this Bill, that the Labor and LNP uniparty voted down.

The Minister must, by legislative instrument, formulate guidelines for the taking of reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts with age-restricted social media platforms

In other words, before the Bill actually comes into effect, there need to be some guidelines about what the fuck it actually means. But apparently Labor and most of the LNP (Canavan—who moved this amendment—and Antic aside) don't think guidelines matter.

the Minister must be satisfied that the legislative rules would not have the effect, or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in the market for that kind of electronic service

Labor and the LNP are specifically aware that small guys...like us here on Lemmy...might be hit harder, and decided to vote not to make sure the rules prevent that from happening.

[Remove:] If an entity...uses or discloses the information otherwise than...with the consent of the individual...the use or disclosure of the information is taken to be an interference with the privacy of the individual

Ok I've summarised this one immensely because the way it's laid out is very technical. I'm referring to amendment 3215 by Canavan if anyone wants to verify it.

But basically, Canavan (and Pocock, who moved a similar amendment) wanted to say "if you collect this data, you must only use it for verifying people's age. Even if you get consent to use it for other reasons, you're not allowed to." This would have absolutely enshrined the protection against things like "oh but we put a tick box to get consent to use it for other purposes and they clicked it."

Labor and the LNP didn't want this.

an individual is not an age-restricted user if...a parent or guardian of the individual consents to the individual not being an age-restricted user

Yup. Parents are not legally allowed to declare that their children can use apps. Because Labor and the LNP voted this amendment down. Now, if a parent helps their child do it anyway, the parent and child can't get in trouble, but the platform can, because platforms cannot knowingly allow children to use the app, even with explicit parental consent and supervision.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago

Jesus chriat they shoulda just slapped in one that said 'this is about monitoring citizens'

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If they were rushing through the bill then any amendments in the senate would require the bill to go back to the house. Partially explains the reluctance to consider amendments (though why bother with debate then).

Depressingly

The ban is, however, backed by 77% of Australians, according to a new poll.

Most of whom probably don't care how it was passed or details on the amendments.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The bill was passed by the Senate after amendments. It had to go back to the House anyway. They just chose not to pass many of these quite common sense amendments raised by one of their own members (Matt Canavan), meaning they had plenty of time to consider their opinion and would have voted on it with that prior understanding in mind; they're not being blindsided by something they have yet to have a chance to fully form an opinion on. The House received the Senate's amended Bill and passed it within minutes.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Nevermind then. I wasn't giving them much credit but it was still too much it seems.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Matt Canavan being the voice of reason was certainly not on my bingo card. Broken clocks and all of that.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Now, if a parent helps their child do it anyway, the parent and child can’t get in trouble, but the platform can, because platforms cannot knowingly allow children to use the app, even with explicit parental consent and supervisio

Not correct. An inadverdent act is not illegal, but circumventing telecommunication controls is a criminal offence under the Telecommunications Act, with penalties up to 20 years imprisonment.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

No, this bill specifically only makes it possible to penalise the platforms. Parents or children cannot be penalised. The precise wording in the bill is:

A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts with the age-restricted social media platform.

Civil penalty: 30,000 penalty units

There are also penalties that can apply to individuals, but only if:

the person is a provider of an age-restricted social media platform;

or

the person is a provider of an electronic service;

(To the penalty of "Civil penalty: 500 penalty units".)