Australia Widens Teen Social Media Ban To YouTube, Scraps Exemption (reuters.com)
- Reference: 0178518666
- News link: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/25/07/31/0037258/australia-widens-teen-social-media-ban-to-youtube-scraps-exemption
- Source link: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/australia-widens-teen-social-media-ban-youtube-scraps-exemption-2025-07-29/
> Australia said on Wednesday it will [1]add YouTube to sites covered by its world-first ban on social media for teenagers , reversing an [2]earlier decision to exempt the Alphabet-owned video-sharing site and potentially setting up a legal challenge. The decision came after the internet regulator urged the government last month to overturn the YouTube carve-out, citing a survey that found 37% of minors reported harmful content on the site, the worst showing for a social media platform.
>
> "I'm calling time on it," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in a statement highlighting that Australian children were being negatively affected by online platforms, and reminding social media of their social responsibility. "I want Australian parents to know that we have their backs." The decision broadens the ban set to take effect in December. YouTube says it is used by nearly three-quarters of Australians aged 13 to 15, and should not be classified as social media because its main activity is hosting videos. "Our position remains clear: YouTube is a video sharing platform with a library of free, high-quality content, increasingly viewed on TV screens. It's not social media," a YouTube spokesperson said by email.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/australia-widens-teen-social-media-ban-youtube-scraps-exemption-2025-07-29/
[2] https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/06/25/0146212/australia-regulator-and-youtube-spar-over-under-16s-social-media-ban
"Protect our kids" (Score:2)
What about the adults? I think that the companies simply shall have to be responsible for all the content in the jurisdiction they show it. Does that mean they can't make a huge amount of money and stop their service? I almost hope so!
Re: (Score:3)
Specifically what censorship do you hide behind the word "responsible"? In the US, we have something called Section 230 that prevents these platforms from being held responsible for what third parties say; we think those third parties are the ones who should be held responsible.
Re: (Score:3)
230 is basically left over junk from part of a law the rest of which was struck down. The regime it has created is basically full-retard.
Basically it amounts to you can go after the guy/gal who had the idea to lie, slander, libel, publish otherwise indecent material not covered by 1A; but the people that provided them with a free stage, mega phone, and promotion to do it effectively are beyond reach. Even when they were in every way intentional and encouraging because its good click bait that makes them m
Re: (Score:2)
> the people that provided them with a free stage, mega phone, and promotion to do it effectively are beyond reach.
That's the entire idea, yes -- as long as everyone else gets the same free stage, megaphone and promotion. That's why Section 230 is called "the 26 words that created the Internet".
And you didn't answer the question, apparently because you don't want to admit that you support making YouTube liable whenever anyone posts a video that offends a mayor or police chief in East Kerblickistan. You just launched invective against a statute. How brave!
Re: (Score:3)
I think the only answer here is that we need a far less 'global' orientation to these platforms.
I don't know about you, but half of slashdot cheers for EU when they punish X for carrying what they consider 'hate speech' and make arguments like their country their rules..
Fine exactly. Youtube should probably implement different policy and perhaps even different features in East Kerblickistan than they do in the US, and different ones for Oz and EU etc. If other places are to small, to onerous to deal with a
Re: (Score:2)
[1]https://www.techdirt.com/2020/... [techdirt.com]
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/
It *is* social media ... (Score:3, Insightful)
... or at any rate, a platform for such.
Trying to ban it or whatever seems pretty useless, but it's silly to deny that it functions as social media.
I mean it's literally in the name, "You" post videos, others watch them, comment on them, react to them, share them, etc.
No, you don't have to use it that way, but you can, and it's built into every corner of the service.
Re: (Score:2)
> ... or at any rate, a platform for such.
> Trying to ban it or whatever seems pretty useless, but it's silly to deny that it functions as social media.
> I mean it's literally in the name, "You" post videos, others watch them, comment on them, react to them, share them, etc.
> No, you don't have to use it that way, but you can, and it's built into every corner of the service.
Think about it for a bit though. That a person can use the comment section of a YouTube page, sure. But anything that allows replies and comments is social media by that relaxed definition.
Is there offensive content on Youtube? Sure. Is there really valuable content on Youtube? Chryste yes!
I'm trying to imagine myself at say 15, when I was a nascent gearhead, not allowed to access one of the prime free educational resources for that sort of thing. All because parents are incapable of teaching their lar
Re: (Score:2)
> That a person can use the comment section of a YouTube page, sure. But anything that allows replies and comments is social media by that relaxed definition.
No, you've skipped past the part
> "You" post videos
The point of YouTube is that all of the content is posted by users, not by an editorial staff. That's what makes it "social media". If YouTube isn't social media, neither are Tik-tok, Instagram, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
> The point of YouTube is that all of the content is posted by users, not by an editorial staff. That's what makes it "social media". If YouTube isn't social media, neither are Tik-tok, Instagram, etc.
It's a bit more than that. The YouTube video feed is also generated based on your preferences and what you watch - just like the feeds on other social media sites designed to keep you scrolling and scrolling and on the site.
The whole "liking and subscribing" doesn't do much other than help YouTube refine the con
Re: (Score:2)
I think the issue is that we have moved from the "Show you want you want" stage to the "Show you what will make you stay" stage. Stage 2 contains much of stage 1, but it's inherently malicious because everyone these days spends too much time watching constant brainrot, feels bad about it and thinks "I have wasted my whole day doing nothing. Am gonna stop doing this", then proceeds to do it the next day.
Sounds familiar? It's how addiction works and these algorithms are modern electric cocaine.
I am not for ce
Re: (Score:2)
> .I am not for censorship,
What is your name for censorship then?
> if social media can be addictive, then a serious thought should be put into whether we have to consider it as a drug or not.
And here we go - you just made a case for censorship of social media for everyone. Adults can get addicted, so we must limit what they can see and do.
Yet here you are on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's a bit more than that. The YouTube video feed is also generated based on your preferences and what you watch - just like the feeds on other social media sites designed to keep you scrolling and scrolling and on the site.
Youtube also occasionally pops up asking if you want to try something different. And pops of different videos all the time.
That said, I know what I want. I watch woodworking videos, motorcycle and car videos, some physics channels like Sabine Hossenfelder's, Decline of Empires, radio and electronics channels, some programming channels, and some channels on my research into the Cold War between men and women. So I like their algorithms, even if it isn't aways "right".
Slashdot is a form of social media
Re: (Score:2)
>> That a person can use the comment section of a YouTube page, sure. But anything that allows replies and comments is social media by that relaxed definition.
> No, you've skipped past the part
>> "You" post videos
> The point of YouTube is that all of the content is posted by users, not by an editorial staff. That's what makes it "social media". If YouTube isn't social media, neither are Tik-tok, Instagram, etc.
That is Your definition of social media. A person posting a video about how he fixed his car - how is that social media? People comment, usually thanking him, sometimes offering criticism, a better way, or even tell him he did it wrong. But the guy doesn't flag their comments, he either ignores them to thanks them.
It's perspective. If you are incapable of taking any criticism, or so sensitive that you need to complain of bullying by anyone who doesn't agree with you - well whose fault is that? The proble
Re: (Score:2)
Social media involves social capital. Youtube is not social media in the same way that blogs were not social media even when the blogger writing articles was using their real personality.
Re: (Score:2)
Think about it for a bit though. That a person can use the comment section of a YouTube page, sure. But anything that allows replies and comments is social media by that relaxed definition.
Yes.. By that ridiculous definition even Slashdot would be social media. The original understanding and popular meaning of the word have been subverted then.
A key requirement for a website to be social media is the website is focused around the concept of massive Peer to Peer networks of friends and followers who cr
Re: (Score:2)
> Yes.. By that ridiculous definition even Slashdot would be social media. The original understanding and popular meaning of the word have been subverted then.
Of course it is. Or do you just come here to read the articles?
Re: (Score:2)
Videos posted by minors have comments disabled. Maybe YouTube should stop them posting comments as well, if that is the issue that Australia has.
Banning it seems excessive. There is a lot of useful content on YouTube for teenagers. Education stuff, support for marginalized communities, that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Fully agree, YouTube is social media site because it curates your recommended videos. A version of YT that only returns list of videos according to search terms would not be, but that YT have not existed for many years.
Re: (Score:2)
So Netflix?
Re: (Score:2)
You are conflating "recommend".
There is a difference between recommending movies and shows in the same category and introducing new ideas. YT engagement algorithm will introduce new topics without any care of age-appropriateness of such topics.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm conflating recommend with recommend? Netflix doesn't just recommend within a category, they have a ML personalised recommendation system, aka engagement algorithm. Of course movies and series have somewhat reliable age ratings and youtube videos don't.
Youtube is democratised media more than social media. A very low barrier to entry distributor.
Re: (Score:2)
Myspace was social media even when it had no more topical curation beyond what and who you have subscribed to. Youtube having algos based around your interests does not make it social media.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a publishing platform, the comment section exists but it's almost irrelevant. By and large it's an one way medium.
Re: (Score:3)
Why would anyone listen to an anonymous asshat like you?
Re: (Score:2)
> Trying to ban it or whatever seems pretty useless, but it's silly to deny that it functions as social media.
>
> I mean it's literally in the name, "You" post videos, others watch them, comment on them, react to them, share them, etc.
To whit: "You" was named Time 's [1]Person of the Year in 2006 [wikipedia.org]. The [2]cover image [google.com] was a mockup of a YouTube-like site, and the article was a celebration of the rise of social media. They're all lumped together.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=You_(Time_Person_of_the_Year)&oldid=1283741609
[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=time+magazine+person+of+the+year+2006&udm=2&sclient=img
Re: (Score:2)
Trying to ban it or whatever seems pretty useless, but it's silly to deny that it functions as social media.
I mean.. if Youtube hosting video channels makes it count as Social media, then so is GoDaddy's web hosting service and your individual websites hosted on that "platform". Where you can pay a monthly fee, and in exchange you can register a domain name and post a website on that domain. As well, all those traditional internet Forum sites, mailing lists, and Usenet become social media by that no
Re: (Score:2)
Youtube doesn't seem very personal to me. The comments are almost always by strangers about the video itself, and not about various random people who happen to be watching it. Any meaningful interaction among commenters is almost nonexistent. Youtube is not where Jr. Highschool kids go to torture each other on a personal level and it doesn't seem to be built to promote that.
You can upload a home video and send it to your acquaintances and hope they watch it, but I don't think many people do that, and esp
Re: (Score:2)
> How the fuck can a party win with 37% of the national vote?
This happens in countries with more than two political parties. In a two-party election, Labor would have won with 55% of the vote from the look of things - [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] and [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party-preferred_vote
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Australian_federal_election
Anonymity On The Internet Is Dying Fast (Score:4, Insightful)
EU laws, US laws, AU laws... they all setup for the erasure of anonymity on the internet.
Anonymity on the internet is dying fast, globally. It going to make the internet suck more. Much more.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and this is intentional. Voting for Brexit, rejection by voters of Hillary and Kamala, opposition to starting regional wars, lab leak expose, trucker convoy in Canada and lockdown protests in Australia, and now insistence on seeing Epstein client list are all the result of Internet's ability to bypass traditional information curators. Powers that be are now trying to undo this and the first step is to systemically eliminate anonymity.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, since when has Youtube been anonymous? Maybe when it first started. These days it's full of user tracking scripts the same as every other social media site. It's all collected and sold at great volumes.
Progressive society... (Score:2)
working very hard to return to non progressivism.
Always expanding the list of the forbidden. It will not stop until it is rejected.
There will be new things to ban after social media, now expanded to Youtube. Since this is in large part keeping things people don't want the young and weak to see and be traumatized, perhaps it is time to promote state control of all news, and have it all approved - we don't want young people traumatized by that we don't want them to see. Let's call it .. Oh, I don't kno
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't as though the Regressives aren't also ban-happy shitheads, also in the name of "protecting the children". The erosion of liberty comes from all angles.
Re: (Score:2)
> It isn't as though the Regressives aren't also ban-happy shitheads, also in the name of "protecting the children". The erosion of liberty comes from all angles.
Yup, you are correct.
The regressive don't lie about their intentions though, so they are easier to counteract. And if is that important that children are never exposed to a different opinion, or any adversity in their life, and need safe spaces to protect them, well, then we are in stage 3 of the below. Hard times create strong men
Strong Men create good times
Good times create weak men
Weak men create hard times
Rinse and repeat.
My favorite example of the differences between strong and weak comes fro
Re: (Score:2)
[1]Support for under-16 social media ban soars to 77% among Australians [yougov.com]
In addition, 87% of Australians support the introduction of stronger penalties for social media companies that fail to comply with Australian laws.
Aren't the conservatives always telling us to listen to the parents? Parents get whatever they want no matter how stupid it is?
[1] https://au.yougov.com/politics/articles/51000-support-for-under-16-social-media-ban-soars-to-77-among-australians
Re: (Score:2)
> [1]Support for under-16 social media ban soars to 77% among Australians [yougov.com]
> In addition, 87% of Australians support the introduction of stronger penalties for social media companies that fail to comply with Australian laws.
> Aren't the conservatives always telling us to listen to the parents? Parents get whatever they want no matter how stupid it is?
These things always devolve to the very successful dehumanization of the other. The counterexample is the cryptoliberals demand that public schools can transition children, and the parents have no right to get in the way of that, or even know it is happening.
How far does the ruling that Public schools have more authority over children than their parents do? [2]https://cbn.com/news/us/are-sc... [cbn.com]
Incrementalism. You've probably noticed that every time one of our two political parties is in office, they overre
[1] https://au.yougov.com/politics/articles/51000-support-for-under-16-social-media-ban-soars-to-77-among-australians
[2] https://cbn.com/news/us/are-schools-secretly-helping-transition-kids-parental-rights-battle-intensifies
Re: (Score:2)
> p.s. I am politically unreliable, as I tend to analyze the issues before forming my opinion. That makes both sides hate me. I don't feel the need to go into therapy or ban people who hold different opinions - does that mean I need therapy?
No just a crypto conservative who is mired in the alt-media soup and IMO your political opinions are so incoherent and flakey that they can be safely ignored.
"We have parent's backs..." (Score:3)
Don't worry, you don't have to be aware of what your children are doing online, we'll protect them for you by banning their use of certain websites. Surely they won't work around this, and you can just continue letting your kid's electronic devices be their real parents.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I can't see this move being popular with parents at all. They've been letting YouTube and YouTube Kids babysit their kids since they were 3 by plopping them in front of a smartphone or tablet when they get cranky.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a big difference between "Supporting stronger penalties" and "Making the e-babysitting service I've relied on for the past 10 years less useful by preventing content customization"
I'm expecting a huge parent backlash against this one.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the laissez faire approach has worked SO well in the US (sarc).
Australia creating a lot of IT knowledge (Score:2)
The best way to teach entire generation of teenagers IT and networking is to implement system-wide ban like that. Future Australians will be well-versed in nuances of networking, online tracking, VPNs and TOR, etc. because there is no way they will just accept such systemic ban.
Re: (Score:2)
> Future Australians will be well-versed in nuances of networking, online tracking, VPNs and TOR
It's nice to think that, but as a parent of a 16 and 19 year old, I can tell you right now that generation is so used to everything being rolled out in shrink-wrapped, shiny, ready to use packages, that they will gain no deep understanding of networking from this. They will install an app, like TOR, on their phone / iPad if they hear it will let them access something that was blocked from them, with no understanding of the underpinnings or what is going on at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you are wrong. I learned A LOT about how PCs work due to my parents attempts to control my computer time. I might have never learned what a core dump or boot sector if not them trying to set up passwords.
More like a shot across the bow of Google & th (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with restricting access to inappropriate content - kids will always find a way around whatever blocks adults put in their way (even Australian kids).
A more likely objective is the idea that the Government can interfere with Googles business model - an idea that (if the technology works) other Governments may choose to follow. Australia doesn't have the numbers to directly impact on scale, but of these changes have any measurable effect then other countries may choose to use it as an
NordVPN (Score:1)
this story is brought to by NordVPN...
Next they will ban SlashDot (Score:2)
Everything there is harmful to children
Out of touch (Score:2)
Harmful content? Like what? YouTube is usually pretty good at sanitizing their content, to the point where its policies are almost draconian. As far as social media goes, YouTube remains the most genuine. There's worse stuff on broadcast television, to be honest... Is this just the continuation of the artificial extension of childhood in the name of progress?
It was still Our Tube in those days... (Score:2)
I mean, if YouTube doesn't want to be classified as social media, they COULD just turn off the comments. They provide very little of value to anyone.
"WHO'S HERE IN 2011?"
"I am 86 years old and I still love this from when I was 14."
"Watching this because they referenced it in [another piece of media]."
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the channel. If it's music videos then yeah, [some obscure TV show that uses this on their soundtrack brought me here ] adds nothing.
But if I want to Google informational content such as cooking, history, science, language learning, solving a Rubik's cube, raspberry pi clusters etc then the comments often illuminate. Even Slashdot with its flame-wars has some gems; the audience has sat through 2 decades of my prattling anecdotes...
Anyhow, I'm really surprised there is not already a YouTube Kids a
Up to them to police (Score:1)
Wondering when the companies are just going to go base themselves in a friendly jurisdiction, put their content on the internet and let the countries that want to censor take on the burden and cost to censor. I run a web server from the US and DGAF what the laws are in any other country. If you don't want your citizens to view the content on my web site then it is up to you to block their access, not me.
Pants on head retarded. (Score:2)
The internet would never have come to exist in any kind of meaningful form had these cunty rules and regulations existed back then. This content nannying and censorship is a regulatory burden that only large players such as Google/MS/FBetc really manage.
Effectively this rules out any innovation.. bear in mind Youtube was not created by a mega corp, FB was a startup from a dorm room. Microsoft themselves thought the internet was a fad at one point.
Parents should parent, and regulators should fuck off. Peo
Re: (Score:1)
Damn, that should have been "RL" in the title....
Re: Bann TV and Tl next (Score:5, Insightful)
TV has clear content ratings and has no comments section where kids can interact with anyone and everyone. Hardly comparable.
Re: Bann TV and Tl next (Score:2)
YouTube kids content has no comment section either and for a child profile it won't display other than kids content
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The impression I have, from the seemingly coordinated global effort on age verification and anti-sex censorship, is that we're seeing preparations for war. Three weak quasi-evidences for it:
First, these age verification systems are effectively nation-wide, systemic, government-supervised information access control systems. Right now they only control for age and have only two buckets: children and adults. But nothing prevents expanding the buckets and the control parameters via changes to the laws once they
Re: (Score:1)
The main drivers for all this censorship are christofascists (like Collective Shout) and the dogs of the Israel lobby who are panicking that all young people hate their settler colony