this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
437 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

59673 readers
3206 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 hour ago (1 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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 22 minutes ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

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?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 hour 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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 hours ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 21 minutes ago

You know in the eyes of government, Lemmy is also social media.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

People should be allowed to do as they please. I think, however, people should be presented with all the potential risks in very clear language if they're going to, in the same way a pack of cigarettes has a warning, access to social media should present similar disclaimers.

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

This is just abstinence education all over again

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -2 points 46 minutes ago

My child's kindergarten teacher assured me he always wears a condom while teaching, just in case.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 47 minutes ago

This is going to harm kids.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 1 minute ago)

Not a bad idea all things considered

Edit: Save for the "Showing your ID" part, anonymity is healthy for the net and far too rare these days

[–] [email protected] 49 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Now ban parents posting pictures of their children under 16.

I DGAF about your kids.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 hours ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 hours ago

It's a good thing we wiped out covid and will never need students to use Zoom again!

Oh, wait

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 hours ago

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

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 hours ago

Papers, please!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 hours ago

Another way to look at this is a back channel method of breaking down the big tech oligopoly.

I'm all for this. Kids are smart. They start using the rest of the internet. They'll become tech savvy.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 8 hours ago (3 children)

China Video Game Ban v2.0: Electric Boogaloo

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

[–] [email protected] 26 points 8 hours ago (15 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.

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 8 hours ago (5 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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 44 minutes ago

Huh, I thought all kids immediately say they were born in 1969

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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

No, it merely requires the sites to provide an alternative, such as face scanning using a mobile phone unlock. Using a computer ? Then you'll have hand over your ID.

The law also explicitly gives sites the right to onsell private information if its outlined in the terms of agrrement.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

Re verification per AP,

The amendments passed on Friday bolster privacy protections. Platforms would not be allowed to compel users to provide government-issued identity documents including passports or driver’s licenses, nor could they demand digital identification through a government system.

So it sounds like an ID will not be a requirement.

I suppose a face scan is possible, but I find it unlikely. Obviously if it heads in that direction then the law should be amended to clarify that is also not acceptable.

In terms of selling information I assume that just clarifies the status quo and isn't new. Not that that makes it acceptable, it just means that's something to tackle.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 hours 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)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›