Big Tech Slams Australia's Youth Social Media Ban
- Reference: 0175563161
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/24/11/29/1315219/big-tech-slams-australias-youth-social-media-ban
- Source link:
> Snapchat parent Snap said it leaves many questions unanswered. [...] Sunita Bose, managing director of Digital Industry Group, which has most social media companies as members, said no one can confidently explain how the law will work in practice. "The community and platforms are in the dark about what exactly is required of them," she said.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/big-tech-says-australia-rushed-social-media-ban-for-youths-under-16/ar-AA1uXN2w
[2] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/24/11/28/1316247/australia-to-ban-under-16s-from-social-media-after-passing-landmark-law
Fox ... (Score:3, Funny)
... slams hen house security measures. News at 11!
Re: (Score:2)
What security feature?
Your comment should read; Hens put up tissue paper fence to keep out foxes and close their eyes as chicks walk through and play with foxes, wolves and bears.
Wolves annoyed by farmer's fences (Score:5, Insightful)
They're angry at the reduced opportunity to condition children to accept zero privacy as normal. They're upset at the lost data mining and advertising opportunities.
They absolutely do not give one shit about the mental health of a kid exposed to finely tuned click bait.
If you're pissing off social media giants, you're doing something very, very right.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> They're angry at the reduced opportunity to condition children to accept zero privacy as normal.
Except this law does the opposite: it removes privacy from children (and, in the zeal to verify the age of everybody who connects to the internet, also removes privacy from everybody else).
Re: (Score:3)
The only other solutions are:
1. Regulate these platforms, placing limits on content - in other words censorship
2. Do nothing, and just accept the harmful effects
Re: (Score:2)
> 2. Do nothing, and just accept the harmful effects
A perpetually undervalued option!
Re: (Score:2)
3. Require parents (or legal guardians) to actually take responsibility for being a parent. maybe by making them at least partly responsible for their offspring's misdeeds while they are still legally a minor (subject to due process, naturally).
Kids are well aware of Real World Shit at an earlier age than many people, and especially parents, like to think, and that includes a LOT of topics that might not be a parent's first choice to talk about, but it's still a much better option than them finding out t
Re: (Score:2)
3.1 require a "driver license" to use the internet, both for parents and kids. Most people are clueless about the dangers of internet and are themselves addicted
Re: (Score:2)
3. Let parents actually you know, parent their children. The entirety of Australia's underage are not collectively wards of the state, at least I hope that's not what people think.
Re: (Score:1)
It amazes me how people think that others will do what one refuses to do for oneself. Nothing in this law is about protecting the children. If you can't see that then you are underestimating what children are capable of.
Re: (Score:2)
When I was a kid, it was Penthouse magazines. Sometimes Playboy.
Yes, every year there was a day where some kid would raid his dad's stash and show one off. But you know what? We didn't all have constant unfettered access to porn. I'm not terribly confident that was all positive, but that's not terribly relevant to the point I'm making here.
Throw up barriers, you will reduce access.
Re: (Score:2)
When I was a kid alcohol, cigarettes, porn, drugs were easily available despite laws making such items illegal for children.
These are not barriers since the responsibility falls on others to do the job of the guardians. How are you going to prove that that's not grandma looking at porn and hold social media responsible?
Re: (Score:2)
No one is forcing you to upload your private life to social media. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit etc. can be used in perfect anonymity aside from the background scripts that can appear on any other webpage. The only reason people put private stuff there is due to their own narcissicm.
But you know what erodes my privacy? Having to provide a cellphone number or a government issued id for verification to those very same companies.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. They all demand certain hooks that will give up your identity. For if they allowed truly anonymous behaviour I could visit twitter without an account. Try visiting and seeing content on Facebook or Twitter without an account. Reddit will allow it for the most part, but Instagram nags you. The others just say log in to see this content.
Re: Wolves annoyed by farmer's fences (Score:1)
If you think you can use social media anonymously, then god dam you're the dumbest person in the history of flagrantly willful dumbasses.
Re: (Score:2)
Millions of people do it everyday. Maybe you can gaslight Aussies into accepting a "papers please" Great Firewall but you won't do it to the rest of us.
Re: (Score:3)
DUDE you nailed it! If social media really cared they would have done this already. But they realize it will lead to less clicks, less addictions.
How less addictions? Because kids will have to find other means to amuse themselves. You know like maybe going outside? Doing sports? Having a hobby? There have been quite a few studies that have indicated social media at such a young age is not good for the development of the mind. Once you are older it is less problematic.
Prove your identity (Score:2)
What this means is that pseudoanonymity is dead. In order to be on social media, you will have to prove your identity, which will then be tied to your account. This will be valuable, saleable information for the social media sites. The big tech companies are secretly thanking the Aussies for this gift. Frankly, I'd have a close look at the bank accounts of the politicians who pushed this...
Also, the information will inevitably leak or be stolen - meaning that effectively every social media user will be do
News at 11 (Score:4, Insightful)
Cigarette companies slam bans on selling cigarettes to minors...
Re: (Score:1)
Government praises new policy giving government more power and information
Re:News at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Industry condemns limits on its ability to harm...
Maybe there are no good guys here, but at least governments can be given the boot.
Re: (Score:1)
> at least governments can be given the boot.
Well, there's the crux of the issue. I'd say that shitty companies are way easier to avoid/get rid of than shitty governments. Gems like the DMCA, Japan's pixelated porn, Disney's perpetual copyright and the MiFID II ban on free market research are here to stay with us forever. They will outlast Facebook, they will outlast Facebook's replacement Tiktok, and they cannot be ignored the same way I ignore both Facebook and Tiktok.
The dark web doesn't have age restrictions (Score:2)
Pushing people into unregulated spaces will backfire.
Re: The dark web doesn't have age restrictions (Score:2)
By that reasoning we should just do away with laws and let people do as they will.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe parents should be expected do their job and we shouldn't collectively punish millions of youth.
Murderers slam death penalty (Score:2)
Regardless of what you think about the practicalities of enforcing such or law, or the ethics of limiting children's access to things, these companies do not deserve any sympathy, nor even any say on this matter. They have had years in which to make their products safer but done the bare minimum, instead investing in making them more and more addictive, because profits.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm glad that we managed to shutdown thepiratebay with such effective laws. /s
Pretending to fix something does not solve the problem. I believe this is theatre. There is more money to be made from identifying users than protecting children. If we pretend that something is being done to appease the masses then we can get laws passed indirectly. I'm pretty sure that some time in the future we will find that this was initiated by social media the same way as recycling plastic was by the oil industry.
Self-interest strikes again! (Score:1)
"Major technology companies criticized Australia's new law ..."
Because of course they did.
They're only trying to appeal to stakeholders... (Score:2)
Maybe if "major technology companies" didn't consistently and obviously act in bad faith, anyone else would give a shit.
Them: [1]Social media isn't harmful [apa.org].
Also Them: [2]Using every addictive design tactic they can get away with to improve engagement [harvard.edu].
[1] https://www.apa.org/news/press/op-eds/zuckerberg-social-media-harmful
[2] https://blog.petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/2024/10/14/addictive-design-and-social-media-legal-opinions-and-research-roundup/
A child's faith ... (Score:1)
I remember being told at Sunday school by a priest that: "... there is nothing like a child's faith". I didn't completely understand what he meant since I was rather young at the time but it stuck with me because even at that age it sounded iffy to me. A few years later it hit me that what the guy meant is that any kind of indoctrination is most successful if you start it during early childhood. The same applies to all other things, whether it is a conspiracy theorists, a political movement with an agenda o
Was anybody asking them? Why? (Score:2)
Why should we care what a big tech corpo thinks. Multiple studies shown that Social Media is cancer, makes people unhappy and for youths it's even worse. Companies would still be selling asbestos lining and leaded fuel if we let them.They don't have and never will have community interest at the list of their priorities. That's why as much as I'd like to have a small government it's just not realistic when greed is the name of the game.
What ID? (Score:2)
It's a good thing my social contacts involve restaurants and pubs, no need for identification there, and good food has always been good for my mental health.
Kids should try engaging in ways that don't involve electronics, preferably by following good examples from adults.
Re: Australia (Score:5, Insightful)
How is are age restrictions on addictive/vice things an attack on free speech? This is a really bizarre take. Do you feel the same way about pornography? Should kids be allowed to participate in pornography in the name of free speech, like how it worked in Denmark for a while?
Re: Australia (Score:5, Insightful)
No this is not a government issued license to allow you to speak. Children can continue to speak. They can continue to interact on the Internet. However... people drive at either 16 or 18. People are considered adults at 18. People can legally drink from 16 to 21 depending on the country. The list goes on there are plenty of restrictions and they make sense. Free speech is not absolute. Otherwise if you really believe it you would not be a paranoid anonymous coward. You would put your money where your mouth is.
Re: (Score:2)
In Australia, kids just need to go on xhamster.com to hold their conversations unimpeded.
Re: (Score:2)
They need to say they are lower than 18 years old... they can also lie in the age question and use facebook... what is your point?
you are still free to do what you want, but now at least social network will not target young people and will require login to use.
probably roblox is more dangerous than many social media, but one problem at time... one of the main problems is parents also having no clue what is the internet, are then self addicted to social networks and think it is fine to share personal data
Re: (Score:2)
> How is are age restrictions on addictive/vice things an attack on free speech? This is a really bizarre take. Do you feel the same way about pornography? Should kids be allowed to participate in pornography in the name of free speech, like how it worked in Denmark for a while?
You sound like you don't think kids know how to access porn today.
Re: Australia (Score:3)
I'm taking about child porn, not children consuming porn. Denmark allowed child porn in the name of free speech.
Re: (Score:3)
The key question is, how do they expect companies to verify the ages of everybody who uses their services?
From the summary: "no one can confidently explain how the law will work in practice. 'The community and platforms are in the dark about what exactly is required of them'. "
There's an essential contradiction here; some people are saying that corporations collect too much data about people, and yet here Australians are stating that corporations should collect even more data about people. Ultimately, this w