Linus Reacts to Aussie Social Media Ban

[@michaeljf6472]

Linus realizing this impacts him in real time

[@alittlebitintellectual7361]

1:14 if this wont become a meme i will be fucking pissed

[@high-captain-BaLrog]

therein lies bias

[@Ds1950x]

All of linus' enemies will be conscripting the kids to take him down lol

[@meabeck]

These oppressive attitudes are what is wrong with everything. I can't dislike Linus enough. He insults others? Someone remind him about self reflection. I hope to avoid as much as I can, him, and his ilk.

[@CptnKase]

ADHD in real time @15:30 .. love it!

[@TheBigNegative-PhotoChannel]

Growing up with myspace and ICQ i can say that social media isn't the problem shitty addictive algorithms are.

[@RandoWisLuL]

thank you lol We had no issue with these things in 2005

[@the_undead]

How many 6 through 15-year-olds had access to Myspace though, because a lot of the problems related to stuff like suicide rates are in people generally 14 or younger who are systemically online

[@AlcorSalvador]

@@the_undead A lot, did you happen to miss the Scene kids in their entirety lol?

[@RandoWisLuL]

@@the_undead oh everyone did. Everyone in high school in the mid 2000s 100000% had a Myspace account with 0 algorithms keeping us at bay. Nothing was off the table except federally illegal stuff. No AD people to keep happy. no shadow banning.

[@ThePianist51]

MSN and Skype were also a thing. Practically social media. You don’t need sofisticated search algorithms to connect to people.

[@fanshaw]

This bill was debated in parliament for a total of one hour. The problem is less about banning the under 16's, its about all the adults requiring proof that you're over 16. The Australian MyGovId was recently rebranded as MyId.

[@COVIDPLAYSOFTHEWEEK12345]

Most adults won’t need to prove their identity, as the social media companies can easily prove most people’s age without identity (this is written in the bill) and in Australia anyway the vast majority of the adult population already upload their identitiy to open betting accounts or use Uber eats (this has never been an issue). The privacy concerns around this are an absolute nothing burger, this bill is great legislation with the only real detractors being KZbinrs and influencers who will be hit in the pocket.

[@slayer8426]

NZ already had that MyId thing. Honestly I think this will be good for the next generation, have you seen how brain-dead the current generation is. Maybe the algorithmic social could be a different option but it's still good. I understand the concern you're thinking about though.

[@bingusbongus9807]

i always thought govid was funny and pronounced it like covid

[@CostaZaf]

@@slayer8426 More government is never the answer. Value your privacy and freedom

[@usernamemaxleclerc3014]

It was debated for an hour, because both major parties agreed to it.

[@Bron32]

Aussie politics student here! The current government is scrambling for political wins in the face of what looks to be imminent destruction at the coming election mid next year. The Prime Minister has had optics successes recently feuding with tech giants and seems to be trying to take another leaf out of that playbook. This whole ‘world first’ legislation has been announced and rammed through parliament with basically no consultation or deliberation In an attempt to get it done before the end of the year. There hasn’t really been any discussion about privacy or the trade off between the positives or negatives of this policy it’s just ‘think of the kids’ and not much else unfortunately

[@ThePhantomguy321]

Thanks for your perspective! What would you say is the main problem this law is attempting to address? I don't have much context on this specific issue besides this video and what you said in your comment

[@Devastator0]

Another Aussie here…it’s funny that them taking this action, especially in the way they have, will most likely cost them the next election.

[@MangoPanic]

​@@ThePhantomguy321 Australian here. As far as I've seen they're mainly talking about saving kids from cyberbullying, cyber crimes, and (to a lesser extent) data collection. A lot of the media coverage has had a focus on teen suicides caused by cyberbullying. The main concern with the law is the privacy issues, and the fact they're leaving it up to the individual platforms to figure out how on earth to ID people. 2 years ago, one of our major telecoms had a data breach that leaked the IDs of probably at least 30-40% of the nation, and had people lining up to get a replacement ID to prevent identity fraud. So I feel like it's smth people are really concerned about, 'cause it goes far beyond "Oh well, they have our data already!"

[@sunbleachedangel]

So basically it's just a shitass political stunt I hate modern politics

[@ThePhantomguy321]

@@MangoPanic Thanks. I think a lot of the replies here (and Luke) are focusing on the doomscrolling encouraged by social media, which I figured wasn't exactly what the law was targeting. It makes sense that the government would go the route of banning account creation if the concern is young people being harassed (or worse), but I still don't personally think that's the right way to go about it. To me, social media can (and has been) such an important tool for otherwise isolated or 'othered' kids to connect. I feel that regulating social media corporations more directly (requiring stronger moderation/rule enforcement?), rather than restricting the behavior of kids themselves, would be better...but it definitely is a complicated issue. Requiring ID also kinda defeats the purpose of reducing bullying/assault by tying what might otherwise be an anonymous account to someone's legal identity, which would be a huge problem in the event of a leak, as you said.

[@killedbyacat]

If life has taught me anything, it’s that if a law or initiative coming from officials contains the word “children,” it’s 99% going to be absolute horseshit.

[@Funkteon]

Will never work, because Meta and TikTok etc. have no reliable/accurate way to isolate the Australian user base. Any attempt to isolate Australian users of the platform will result in the inadvertent scooping up of foreign nationals who aren't beholden to Australian laws. Like, literally, you'll have an American tourist in Australia suddenly being hit up for ID to keep using Facebook and other social media platforms. You'll even have Aussies already living overseas suddenly being asked to submit their ID to keep using the platform - It'll be fucking chaos, and the Liberal Party are going to use this as a way to prove Labor's incompetence and lack of technical consultation on the concept... This regulation/law will be abandoned within a month or two once tens of thousands of non-Australian residents get hit up for ID when they aren't subject to Australia-specific social media regulations.

[@chemicalbrucey157]

This doesnt do anything to stop gambling adds being shown to children either....

[@sirdiealot53]

They’re literally trying to take over the internet and they’re using the same old tired technique: “Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN?!”

[@t.p.ggaming3884]

@@chemicalbrucey157 "Chances are you're about to lose"

[@natieklopper]

Just research how Australia bungled up our fibre, called NBN

[@__init__]

As an Australian I am absolutely positively 100% sure that this is a step towards requiring our existing digital ID system to be used for all social media accounts. The fact this has unilateral support from our major parties is incredibly disappointing to me.

[@Steven-yf2ef]

Just wait till the shit show the government has to do to solve everyone's ID being sold when the site gets hacked to steal ID lol. The sites get hacked daily, imagine now the hackers know these sites has every australian ID.

[@youtubedeletedmynamewhybother]

mark of the beast gets more real everyday

[@atheosxgaming]

lol.. stop watching avi yemini videos. Hes cooking your brain. The chances that happens in our lifetime borders on nil. Social media companies come and go like the wind. And a fifth element multipass world isnt remotely around the corner.

[@joeldwyer7254]

Smells like the start of a social score system..

[@jarrydlongmire9416]

every company in existance that uses the internet has your information anyway, the moment you get a student id, drivers licence, etc. the government and ANY linked body already knows everything about you. its too late to be disappointed

[@AJonVolk]

I'm in Australia, the funny thing about this bill is that it doesn't apply to adult content sites like the hub. So the Government is saying this is about protecting children but then don't use it to prevent access to adult content for minors. This isn't about protecting kids this is about controlling social media.

[@amygdala9857]

100% correct, what they are doing is either evil, or stupid, or both

[@whatcouldgowrong7914]

Close, it’s mostly about mandating digitalID which the Labor government is an arm of the WEF and we all know what they want

[@salazar1554]

They said when making the law, it's to prevent manipulation of children by foreign actors, p*rn has issues but it isn't going to lock you into a politically extremist echo-chamber at a vulnerable point in your life, nor does it incentivise sharing and embellishing life moments with the rest the world permanently in the same way. Its interacted with like TV or movies. In terms of which is more damaging to young minds, despite the risks of addiction and risk of unhealthy sexual relationships with p*rn, social media has the same or greater potential for addiction and can make all relationships(sexual or otherwise) unhealthy. Obviously most will work out fine with either, but in terms of how many aren't and the degree of the damage, I'd argue the risks of social media are higher. Of course if a digital ID is required than it's not worth it, and people will go around it anyway so it might be a bad idea in practical terms. Similar to how outlawing drugs makes them more dangerous by putting them outside of government safety regulations and gives power to criminal groups who sell them.

[@millieparker7259]

That's a completely seperate problem. This bill isn't aimed at solving the issue of minors viewing adult content, it's aimed at the negative effects caused by social media. Even if adult sites were all covered by the bill, it's about creating accounts not accessing the content, and all the adult content on site like PH is viewable without an account.

[@AJonVolk]

@@millieparker7259 social media is peer to peer uploads and sharing of digital content, which you can do on KZbin and the hub. The online safety act as they call it is about protecting children and preventing misinformation in their own words. This should be covered by it and it's arguably more harmful than social media is too children.

[@3agl33y369]

"Parents don't know who their friends is" A tale as old as time

[@fuzzyhair321]

Oh jeez, when you become old enough to understand this

[@EikottXD]

​@@fuzzyhair321I don't understand it at all. Did they mean who their friends are?

[@fuzzyhair321]

@@EikottXD exactly, their friends could be assholes for all we would know.

[@DuffDotEXE]

The algorithm is absolutely the problem with social media today. I grew up on "early" Instagram, before it was bought by Facebook. There were no algorithms, it was just a feed of what your friends or people you followed had posted. It was all very raw and organic, and it was a great way to keep in touch with people you didn't get to see often. Now, you see way more content that's not related to you in the slightest than what's been posted by people you follow. I honestly think society would function significantly better if algorithmic social media was banned, but I doubt that will ever happen. Everything's meant to be addictive now, and people aren't just going to let go of it easily.

[@MrBibi86]

It's about A-holes from bullying kids at home. back in the day the school bully was left at the gate and now it's in kids pockets

[@barongerhardt]

@@MrBibi86 That is BS. No one alive today is from before there were phones or gossip. Ban parents from giving children smart phones or even cell phones in general. Bring back the home line in the kitchen.

[@TheCosmicViking]

If I didn't have access to the online forums I did as a kid, I would definitely be in a worse off place than I was. I think it's important to be able to make sure kids aren't addicted to social media, but like this is a step way too far.

[@daniegamin]

if it wasn't for the internet I'd be a lot worse person, I see it in the friends I had growing up. the internet led me to be a kinder person.

[@darealdeal8185]

I learned what the signs of a healthy vs toxic relationship looks like thanks to social media

[@Maplaplaplapla]

The internet ruined me in several ways as a child. My children will have a smartphone, with parental controls etc., at minimum 13 years, if not later.

[@TecHippy]

@@Maplaplaplapla yeah, I agree with the sentiment. Giving a kid unatended access to the internet should be looked at the same way as giving them unatended access to drugs or firearms. But the government making a blanket ban on social media use for under 16s is just crazy

[@biaosu1160]

@@Maplaplaplapla That seems to be completely reasonable and I will probably do the same, but having a blanket ban and all the privacy issues that come along with regulating it, plus the rushed nature of it is so stupid

[@delfick]

Australian here. The point of the law is more about removing anonymity than it is about children. This affects every adult in Australia because every adult has to prove they're over 16. A lot of the internet is bad for sure, but there is also a lot of good parts and good information that just isn't available anywhere else. Our government gave only 24 hours of feedback and they got 15k responses in that time. This stuff is not thought out because the point has nothing to do with children. Also imagine in 20 years a 17 year old entering the internet with zero familiarity with how to interact with the internet. They'd be like a boomer on facebook these days and very easily exploitable. There are many things that can be done to resolve the very real problems on the internet, but removing anonymity is extremely not something that will help.

[@delfick]

Also, the ways to get around this may end up putting children into more dangerous places and in a way that will make the child not reach out for help if they get in trouble

[@jakepitura337]

Social Media companies will be required to develop their own systems with out use of Digital or government ID Besides they know everything about you anyways.... not much a piece of ID can do when they have a lot more useful information to sell

[@jellytwins1018]

@@jakepitura337 they said it has to be without government ID, also I think it's more about the government wanting more access to all the data and info these social media platforms have on their users.

[@8BitShadow]

@@jakepitura337 tell that to china

[@Cluuey]

You're assuming that nothing changes between now and then. There are already classes teaching kids about how to use the internet. I heard a report, last week I think but can't remember where - it might have been in a news story about this, that recent survey results indicated that younger kids were better at spotting scams than teenagers. 🤨 This bill was rushed, I think everyone would agree with that, even the politicians. It's disappointing, there are problems with it but there's time for changes before it becomes law.

[@Collin_J]

Imagine Instagram, but back to basics. It's your feed. It's your friends and a few ads. Idk if Stories would even make the cut. There's a world where Aussies could have that

[@SimulatedGoat]

you mean social media, but without the algorithm? Impossible

[@Collin_J]

​@@SimulatedGoatmy bad, I know it's crazy

[@AidanMacgregor-Personal]

Yhea I open Instagram once a year maybe and it's all sh** from celebrities, like who cares! Would be better on my view 🤣🤣

[@Slippypotatoes]

​@@SimulatedGoatwasn't that MySpace

[@SimulatedGoat]

@@Slippypotatoes that was most social media platforms before advanced algorithms became more widespread.

[@InfernosReaper]

"You're not going to stop interacting with your peers" Social media literally lets people make friends in other countries and keep up with people they've met on trips. How is taking that away not affecting their interaction with peers when many of their peers can only be accessed through social media? As for youth outreach, there are a lot of organizations for that with social media pages that would otherwise not be found easily.

[@jordannoell4222]

Yeah Luke's position is incredibly dismissive, especially if you take into consideration vulnerable groups that would be completely unable to interact with support networks that social media can facilitate. Florida's don't say gay bill comes to mind, as teachers and students are completely unable to discuss these topics in the classroom, and social media, for good or ill, is the only place these people might find guidance.

[@jjOnceAgain]

Studies by almost every major university have proven time and time again social media does more good than bad in underage people

[@Narwaro]

Judging by the average response times of most people these days, youre not very far off writing a letter.

[@DanDanDoe]

Yeah, I feel like modern social media is terrible, but forums and Facebook groups have brought me mainly good things as a teenager (about 10 to 15 years ago). I’ve befriended people from all over the world, learned from them, they challenged biases I had and I grew as a person. I’m still in touch with some of those international friends.

[@Crlarl]

Connecting with other peers in other countries is great but it doesn't need to be that far for communication to be hindered. Kids that live in rural areas have a limited amount of potential IRL friends and driving to a city may be prohibitive. This goes especially for kids who are homeschooled or have parents that are super restrictive. Being socially isolated is incredibly harmful.

[@ThatDJMat]

I think Lukes take about social media isn’t actually thought through. When I was a child I had no IRL friends, not because of the internet but because people are asses IRL too. All of my connection to the outside world was via the internet. Blocking that absolute means that I no longer have anyone to talk to at all outside of family. Instead of banning children from the apps, enforce actual moderation and ban addictive app design patterns that do the harm.

[@rGunti]

This was the exact thought I had as well! People who don't have an IRL network they can trust (be it friends through school, sports clubs or even just family), and they are cut off from bonds that they formed online, it's gonna be real bad.

[@ablet85]

Playing devils advocate. No social media platform can effectively monitor its users to prevent harm for kids. For every child that meets new friends online there are kids being bullied, harassed, sexually exploited. A daughter of someone I now was catfished by a creep who then blackmailed her into sending nudes (she was a child) or he would send her messages to her family and everyone she knew on social media so she took her own life. Police in Australia who specialise in child pornography had instances of accounts they created posing as teen girls being contacted by men in hours of being up. Before social media I made friends online playing games. This law won’t preventing that social aspect and if anything there are far more people gaming than ever before.

[@baileyistrying]

I wanna add to all this. Neurodivergent children who struggle with IRL interactions excel in the digital world because they can make friends online, join communities etc. they feel comfortable doing this behind a screen rather than IRL. This will absolutely ruin their mental health, this law is being treated as a one size fits all and it most definitely does not.

[@ryanhamstra49]

How do you ban "addictive app design?" That's like banning addictive games. What, just make them boring? "Sorry Coca-Cola, fat kids drink your product, you need to make it taste bad"

[@looptypoop]

But you're in the minority

[@jakobmorgan2827]

11:47 so basically how it used to be 10ish years ago when they only showed you stuff from your friends/groups and liked pages? not to mention it was chronological order. Was a lot easier to open Facebook, scroll through until you saw something from yesterday and know it had nothing left to see for tonight so you may as well do something (probably) more productive with the rest of your evening.

[@raawesome3851]

I think the greater issue comes with having to verify who is online, and linking their identity to their social media account, which would inevitably include people who are above that age, and would require basically everyone to give their identity to the government directly.

[@ryanthompson3737]

You're pretending like they can't just force these companies to give them all the data they've collected on people... hint, they can.

[@cerealport2726]

@@ryanthompson3737 That's different to a government mandated Digital ID. Why anyone would willingly give any government more authority to pry into the lives of its citizens, is beyond me.

[@Bob_Smith19]

Social Credit System in action.

[@ryanthompson3737]

@@cerealport2726 But if the only time that matters is if they get a warrant to check your data on these sites, then government ID doesn't matter. It's not like mandating digital ID suddenly removes their responsibilities to obtain a warrant for any information you posted.

[@jellytwins1018]

@@ryanthompson3737 Didn't the FBI try to get apple to hand over some of their users text logs and thye denied.

[@JoeNokers]

Australian here. The idea of a blanket ban is dumb for two reasons, the first of which is how unenforceable this is for companies. How do you KNOW the age of someone for certain other than what government ID says? You don't, the kids just lie and now they have full access. The second is as linus says, kids need places to interact with each other outside of the school environment. And the vast majority of those are social media under this law and now banned. This law should have regulated social media to have more powerful parental controls allowing parents to parent and curate what their kids have access to. For example with discord kids might only be able to access a whitelist of servers. So they can have their own discord server with their friends to play games and send memes but not freely seek out other adults.

[@lysolan269]

I agree. People in the comments are repeatedly saying things like "removing social media doesn't stop kids from talking to each other" but the problem is a lot of communication even with IRL friends is through social media because the majority of cities and communities have nowhere for these kids to interact and spend time that doesn't cost money or deny kids/teens by policy. They act like it's 30 years ago, were you can bike down to the arcade and hang out for hours, but those places don't exist anymore or cost 30$ to get into.

[@apexcrab]

If you read some of this stuff you'll see they use phrasing like "age assurance" NOT "age verification" which is basically an industry that is springing up using AI/dragnet surveillance/face scanning to predict user ages instead of using eg. traditional government issued ID

[@OriginalPiMan]

The Australian constitution doesn't have freedom of speech protections, but it does have an implied freedom of political communication. And that that implied freedom is not conditional on age. So the human rights concern under Australian law is that the new law restricts the rights of minors to engage in political communication.

[@peckc16]

I mean the ideal solution is parents parenting better. As a HS teacher, I can tell you that isn't happening at least half the time and it is absolutely destroying the youth. Also the whole phone line thing is odd... Idk why companies wouldn't respond to this with some kind of cellular product for homes. Most smart phones can be parented down to only allowed phone calls and during certain times. I don't see the issue there.

[@everythingpony]

Everything you're talking about. If that have happened to me I would not have my wife today I would be single. I would be miserable. I wouldn't be where I am today. So no I don't think it's okay to just block everything and only having a phone to chat with when Timmy down the road has access to everything else because their mom lets them. And yes, everyone has their own rights to parent their children. But if you basically tell your children, no, you can't do any interaction except your cell phone. And you have no friends except for people online who parents won't let them share their phone number. Then you have issues

[@sadmermaid]

Ideally yes, but I think parents are all so busy with work atm.

[@donkey7921]

if only we lived in a utopia where parents just "parented better." f off, the govenments have always intervened when society as whole is in danger. Mandatory seat belts and banning of drugs are examples.

[@zuko9085]

Pretty clear you aren't a parent if you think the only solution is better parenting. Not saying there aren't bad or ignorant parents. I live in Utah, one of the most religious states in the United States. There is a pernicious problem of kids being exposed to explicit material on the school bus in elementary school. All it takes is a few kids on that bus, or at recess or whatever.

[@donkey7921]

@@zuko9085 parents are a great escape goat for people that don't actually want a solution for problems.

[@reimusklinsman5876]

10:45 So I've been thinking for a while that the root of evil in social media IS the algorithm. I think that stripping it from any social media platform will make that platform fundamentally more pleasant to interact with and kids especially should not have any algo fed feed.

[@tozkal96]

yea the algo creates echo chambers, reactionary content and behaviour and extremism. it should be changed to promote good behaviour and make conspiracy theories and missinformation less prevelent.

[@GraphicAxe]

i was born in 2000 and had essentially unrestricted computer and Internet access from a super young age since both my parents worked as computer engineers. They only started implementing parental controls for my younger sister and by that time i was old enough to figure out how to bypass them. I saw sexual and violent content on the internet before the age of 10, and truthfully i dont know how much or how little that affected my developing mind. I say all that just to give context to why my opinion is as it is. The point made in the video about restricting access until theyre old enough to understand the dangers didnt really make sense to me. I dont think anyone can truly understand the dangers of social media and the Internet without being exposed to it. When I was in elementary and middle school we were taught by our teachers in a computer class about how to use the Internet and the dangers there are about talking to people you dont know and revealing personal info etc. But I know for a fact that a lot of my fellow students did not heed those warnings and were harmed by interactions they had on platforms like Kik. And I worry that growing up without learning through experience could lead to situations like I'm now seeing with my parents where despite being very tech literate they are not modern internet literate and they fall for facebook scams and AI images and rage bait. Im not saying I think people should be exposed to the stuff I was at a young age, in fact I am very against that. But I dont think it is possible for there to exist adequate education on these internet dangers. And I dont think the social media companies themselves will ever do anything to help with it.

[@Haldered]

yep, its why "stranger danger" failed at keeping kids safe and instead just closed kids off from socialising in their neighbourhood and learning street smarts and learning where was safe to go and what to look out for and who to trust. Not to mention that the most danger comes from within the home on average, but that doesn't help push the conservative vision of safety through isolation and the nuclear family

[@lf9000]

@@Haldered And the thing is, now when teens are out in public riding bikes around people automatically think they are up to no good. And yes normally a teen with a Broccoli haircut is often a problem and they are also capable of being terrible in public . But let them enjoy the world when they try to go out in it! I saw a lady post on the town forum asking what "17 year old men were doing at the skatepark". A town skatepark used by people of all ages. "why are 17 year olds with skateboards at the skatepark"

[@Funkteon]

Will never work, because Meta and TikTok etc. have no reliable/accurate way to isolate the Australian user base. Any attempt to isolate Australian users of the platform will result in the inadvertent scooping up of foreign nationals who aren't beholden to Australian laws. Like, literally, you'll have an American tourist in Australia suddenly being hit up for ID to keep using Facebook and other social media platforms. You'll even have Aussies already living overseas suddenly being asked to submit their ID to keep using the platform - It'll be fucking chaos, and the Liberal Party are going to use this as a way to prove Labor's incompetence and lack of technical consultation on the concept... This regulation/law will be abandoned within a month or two...

[@nicholasvinen]

It's almost like we learn from experience or something...

[@kona8832]

the problem is nowdays the over sexualized content is pushed as a lifestyle now, it wasn't way back then, you had to look for it, now its commonplace and the youth can send pictures and video's to each other very easily, which in quite a few cases, has been....inappropriate.

[@AlexAndrom3da]

Tbh it's pretty stupid law. We need strong regulations for kids on social media. Not a blanket ban

[@jaughnekow]

start with a blanket ban then ease it up a bit with some regulations? what do you think?

[@cerealport2726]

@@jaughnekow No - that's the worst implementation anyone could think of. With laws like this, there is only one way they go, and it's not "easing" them.

[@ryanhamstra49]

None of the governments business, parents need to step up and parent. Just start holding parents accountable when their kids screw up like they did the parents Ethan Crumbly.

[@Bob_Smith19]

@@ryanhamstra49Unfortunately most want to be friends w/ their children instead of a parent. I’m already fighting the cell phone battle w/ a 7yo. Other parents are giving me shit for it giving them one. My kids do not get phones until they’re 16 and driving on their own. And the home network is limited and monitored.

[@hunted4blood]

Why? I fail to see how any good can come of children using social media. Honestly my only problem with this is the privacy implications, but honestly I think the better answer to that is to just ban children from the internet completely. Simple as.

[@normalchannel2185]

7:32 The issue Linus's Co host (i think Luke?) is the fact that the ban just stops kids from posting themselves. It does nothing to stop the actual information being shoved down your throat

[@joshhsoj1902]

It is different though. Being able to just consume the content is how the whole internet works, if the concern is preventing kids from finding harmful content that's a whole different law. The harmful piece is the tailored algorithm which can spiral an individual into some pretty harmful content. but that only works in a truly harmful way when it's tailored. If there is no account to tie an algorithm to it's at least in theory a lot less likely to spiral.

[@lysolan269]

@@joshhsoj1902 not having an account does not block access to a site. You don't need an account to collect a pattern of interaction and then apply an algorithm to that user. KZbin generates recommendations for users without accounts, this solves nothing

[@normalchannel2185]

@joshhsoj1902 I agree. That's why I think the ban should be amended to make it algorithmical social media.

[@normalchannel2185]

@joshhsoj1902 cause right now the companies can just pull a sneaky and have "minor accounts" which takes all the data but doesn't allow them to post or comment, successfully bypassing the law

[@Gaspode_]

@@normalchannel2185 It basically is. You can find the legislation online (links here get blocked)

[@normalchannel2185]

9:41 The issue again is that this doesn't prevent doomscrolling. You can do that without an account!

[@joshhsoj1902]

But it's not tailored to you then which makes it much less effective.

[@williebrort]

@@joshhsoj1902 It is though. It is through cookies and IP/MAC. Try it for yourself in a new browser incognito and you'll notice that a lot of content will be the same as when u are logged in. If it is not, it will be after you watched about 5 to 10 things.

[@himarei]

​@@joshhsoj1902 Unless you delete your cookies and set up your privacy settings, It's still tailored to you...

[@Toberumono]

@@joshhsoj1902 it still would be. Platforms are *really* good at tracking without accounts (device fingerprinting is a thing, for example).

[@mitzee8621]

@@joshhsoj1902 Surely algorithms can be, if they aren't already, tied to the session in absence of an account.

[@AlexAndrom3da]

This ban is far to late and far to much. This will only hurt kids period. Kids will lie about there age and go incognito or will lose all there friends and connections. This is why we need regulations not a ban only kids under 13 should need parents permission to access it.

[@armdndangerfish36]

I understand the enforcement issue but if all kids magically leave social media immediately you wouldn't lose friends. That's like saying you lost friends by not having social media before it existed.

[@3000lord]

Your grammar shows you’re one of those kids.

[@daniegamin]

@@armdndangerfish36 as some one that was Homeschooled, yes. the internet was my lifeline that there was hope beyond the four walls of my house and church. this WILL harm some kids.

[@DigitalDependance]

100% parents need overview of minors accounts, this is a vey misguided approach

[@boxhead6177]

Well the original proposal for this law was 12 and under, they were asking like Facebook and Tiktok to enforce their own age restrictions. Like Tiktok says no children under 12... but when asked how do they enforce it, none of those companies do, cause there was no penalty. You see the government is not giving the solution, its just going to penalise them for not having a solution. The dumb part was the politicians got their hands on it, Musk and Zuck started pushing back and suddenly there is another 4 years. Like it is extremely dumb that in Australia, social media platforms don't lobby, they deliberately antagonise Australian politicians... I don't think there has been a single ruling in Australia that has gone Meta's way in a decade.

[@Berbatov204]

This applies to the whole population, not just Children, people over 16 will need to verify their age and identity, by giving the Social media companies identification doccuments such as Passport, drivers lisence, biometric data,

[@Epic3032]

That's a recepie for disaster ID theft will rise 10 fold

[@Gaspode_]

No they won't. They are explicitly banned from using government ID (passport/driver's license etc.). They probably already have your biometric data, and with all the metadata they have a pretty good idea of how old most of their users are.

[@jamesthefrog7988]

Im an Australian. Im in a time where about 3/4 of my friends will be 16 by the time of the ban. But I will be 15 Im scared that because most my friends will still have social media my cohort won't move to other communications and I will be stuck no talking to my friends for 6 months.

[@lunar-tick4310]

but you can still call, message and play games with your friends right?

[@spasmmcspasm]

Get a VPN connect to a server in the US and create another account. It's what everyone does to get around our censored internet and can't see why it wouldn't work the same. Just make sure your VPN is always on.

[@MagnesiumAddicts]

​@@spasmmcspasm Back when Halo 3 launched, we used to do this trick where we set our Xbox region to somewhere in Africa where nobody had halo (Zimbabwe, I think it was), so we could all get into the same games on ranked solo match making. Maybe there'll be some country like that all the teens will choose lol

[@Trunka34]

Create a new account..set age to 17...thank me later.

[@spasmmcspasm]

@@Trunka34 The whole point is the government will force everyone not just the teens to use online ID. They already have the infrastructure on the government website and they are looking for a way to enforce it.

[@redandpigradioshows]

I would rather make it illegal for social media to purposefully harm children than for children to interact with the world

[@Blaze6108]

Not harming children requires taking specific action when a child is connected, so the two things are effectively identical from the Internet perspective.

[@AlexAndrom3da]

Exactly the guy talking to Linus does not understand this law

[@RandoWisLuL]

First of all, and most important, that "guy" is Luke lol Second of all, how do you expect a Canadian to properly unpack AU law?

[@ryanthompson3737]

...So you think there's a guy at Facebook specifically pushing posts to children and recommending they befriend a pedo adult?

[@neociber24]

How would you define harm? Some cases may be obvious but for other what seems harmful for me, may not be for others

[@Voltaic_Fire]

A social media ban for minors is a great idea but there's no way to enforce it that isn't oppressively invasive.

[@Gaspode_]

They are trying, we'll see if it works. The onus in the legislation is on the social media companies to make reasonable efforts, not to be right 100% of the time. It just means they can no longer use "no it's too hard" as a blanket excuse for doing nothing to hurt their bottom line.

[@NubeBuster]

It's 1984

[@galaxxy09]

Im australian, and i find this amendment absolutely horrible. I cannot believe it passed. Give the authority over the parents rather than the government.

[@pearshaped9116]

Yeah idk, I don’t think parents really know how dangerous modern social media is, also plenty of adults are negatively impacted by the social media they consume.

[@galaxxy09]

@ social media in the long term may be harmful, but what about the positives? Also whether parents or the government should have the ultimate authority is different argument, which is what I’m making. An age verification challenge for every Australia will now need to be implemented, this could be a nightmare for all sorts of security reasons. I’d prefer to have less government access oversight than more in aus.

[@pearshaped9116]

@@galaxxy09 yeah, I would have preferred legislation that demands social media companies don’t make addictive brain cooking algorithms, but at least this way we’re not required to provide formal identification as part of age verification

[@arthurkallinen]

If this was the case when I was 12-13+, multiple of my friends would not be alive, like actually - online communities can be more bubbled, so it's the safe place for many. And I would have had a miserable life. I was bullied in schools/irl, not being able to make friends, but online I met multiple friends, my first partners of love etc. This was via Minecraft/teamspeak/skype and eventually Discord.

[@lunar-tick4310]

all of those things you can still do after the ban.

[@randomgamingin144p]

lunar-tick4310 how do you NOT believe that discord wont be banned..? theres a lot of bad stuff that shows up on discord one way or another.. i wouldnt be surprised if it did get added to the list then again, discord is a sort of place where you have to look for servers to find bad stuff.. but a single bad google search will yield a lot of that stuff, not to mention the very site im commenting on because apparently google can't properly moderate youtube oh and im 14.. then again as far as the only social media platforms i actually care about its really just discord and youtube for me.. pre 2023 it was just youtube because i wasn't old enough to use discord yet, and you might say that youtube is also 13+.. but if you are just watching videos, well everyone does that anyway so i think its reasonable for people under 13 to watch youtube to an extent.. depends on the videos if im honest cuz as i mentioned google cant moderate youtube properlyor maybe they just wont ban discord and you are right

[@Epic3032]

Australian here, I believe that, the bill is a trojan horse. For a Digital ID. They're trying to rid of anonymity and privacy. They don't want us using pseudonyms or weird usernames on social media they want us to use our real names. So they can track us on what we say and do online. IRC chat will make a comeback.

[@bdstratton1979]

yep elections have consequences. I can't wait to vote Labor out

[@amygdala9857]

your 100% correct, and i dont want to look like a nut, but, it seems there is also a push toward doing away with cash, which would be very much terrible.

[@joshmc5882]

I think darknet forums could gain a bit of popularity as well.

[@momob4276]

I hope not and I blame Facebook. Facebook is the website that started the normalization of people using their real names online. On Facebook signing up with some kind of real name a must. I tried making a new account with a fake name and facebook literally told me I couldn't and I had to have an actual name (because how are friends and family are supposed to connect and find me dur hur) I kid you not. Of course I could make up a fake name, but that is still really F-ed up.

[@Epic3032]

@@amygdala9857 It'll be a domino effect starting from this WEF idea.

[@bradhaines3142]

looks at what they're requiring for it. you have to connect your ID to your social media now. that means this can quickly and easily turn into a social credit score. its a way bigger problem than it sounds

[@mightygreen3364]

It requires platforms to do it without government ID though, exactly because of this concerns. This is also a bad solution tho, because it's basically impossible to do reliably.

[@macksii]

also keep in mind, china sttopped doing the 'social credit score' system years ago. america has had 'credit score' to keep systematic oppression in place for about 60 years

[@xGaLoSx]

@@mightygreen3364 It's a slippery slope. Once they realize it can't be done without ID, they'll make it law.

[@cerealport2726]

@@mightygreen3364 You really believe this??? The government already has the framework for Digital ID legislation in place, but they know what will happen if they try to implement it without having a good scapegoat. They'll give it a few months, then say that the social media platforms are not doing a good job, and the government will have to intervene "for the safety of our children". Labor failed with the Australia Card in the mid 80s (yes, I'm old enough to remember this), Liberals failed with the Access Card in the mid 2000s, but I fear that 3rd time's the charm.

[@Bob_Smith19]

Debanking coming to anyone in Australia that talks bad about a politician. There is only one way to enforce it and that’s a digital government ID. They put the cart before the horse.

[@foxmulder4560]

Definitely rushed through parliament just before the holidays to avoid scrutiny, however saying that, Social media have been on notice, and the governments have begged them to do better to protect kids from bullying, pornography , sensitive images, and they do nothing. Now the government has said is enough is enough.. Its a good idea, ive seen the effects of social media on children, but I am unsure how they can police it. It does however give parents a chance to say, that they didnt make the rules kids.

[@SnowyRVulpix]

As an Aussie, i would suggest geoblocking Australia. This law isn't fair for kids, but its even less fair for sites, especially like your forum. I am not anti government... But this law is absolutely ridiculous for far too many reasons

[@nicholasvinen]

I am Australian too and if another country did this and it affected me I would absolutely block them without a second thought. So if this ends up with the whole country being blocked from social media I would totally understand.

[@jonsumisu]

Also aussie, fully agreed

[@lunar-tick4310]

the age requirement for facebook and many other platforms is 13, its an extra 3 years, I think this is far more positive than it is negative. Keeping kids off social media is a huge win, kids are not old enough to understand fake accounts from real accounts, what is and isn't a scam, plus the harassment these kids go through on social media is insane. They can still have a phone, they can still call their friends, they can still text their friends, in groupchats too probably. We as a species haven't somehow forgotten how to live without facebook, instagram, snapchat etc. I graduated in australia in 2018 and can confidently say social media messed up alot of my friends.

[@bingusbongus9807]

@@lunar-tick4310 its 13 but barely enforced, the main problem aside from you apparently somehow being armish despite being australian is what the enforcement will cause

[@Guru_1092]

👏parents👏should👏just👏 actually 👏parent👏their👏kids👏 There's no good reason this should even need to be a law.

[@Gaspode_]

Laws exist because people invariably do not do what they "should".

[@Hurricayne92]

Parents very clearly aren't though

[@hawxchampion523]

People shouldn't murder either, yet we make it illegal because many people will and do.

[@SethBeMe]

Can't agree with Luke here. I grew up in a small rural town and social media like Discord and Twitter really helped me connect with like-minded people. When I was in a very depressed and unstable state my group of online friends gave me something to fall back on, and I very well believe I'm still alive today because of them.

[@DarcMagikian]

Twitter would probably do the opposite these days. lol

[@Parallax1024]

You just happened to find the right one at that moment but it could have been the other way around 50/50 also maybe is that you are not a easy to fool person, you know iq on kids is not the same as before because parents are mediocre at being a parent

[@Somerandom1922]

I'm Australian and have dug through the bill and even tried making a submission to the committee reviewing this bill before it passed. However, there was only 1 day between submissions opening and closing and I was working. It an absolutely garbage bill. I'm not even against the core premise, however, the wording of the bill gives basically free reign to the minister for communication to make determinations on how the bill works. They can decide unilaterally what companies count as "Age restricted social media platforms", and what enforcing the bill will look like. Depending on what Michelle Rowland or her future replacement decides to do, this could be as mundane as a simple TOS change, or as impactful as requiring social media platforms to work with 3rd party age verification services which require government issued ID. That last example seems far-fetched, however, there's specific wording in the legislation regarding this happening, and the protections within the legislation for people's private data (ensuring social media companies dispose of it after age verification) notably do not place any protections on the data given to 3rd party age verification services. It's an absolute failure of a bill which WILL be abused, perhaps not by our current government, or even the one that replaces it next year, but it leaves open so many large loopholes as to basically guarantee that it will be used maliciously in the future.

[@odditi8293]

Far too many people actually seem to think this ban has anything to do with protecting children and THAT is the real problem.

[@timehmalzeuzkeh7618]

Its got everything to do with children. I explained in another comment

[@odditi8293]

@timehmalzeuzkeh7618 Oh really? Well I explained it to a bird I saw flying by, beat that smart guy.

[@Mrsquiggley]

@timehmalzeuzkeh7618the legislation is about connecting a real identity to each social media account using the myGovID platform. Combine that with the also recent social media disinformation and defamation bill and you’ve got a recipe for mass surveillance.

[@timehmalzeuzkeh7618]

@@odditi8293 Here it is copy and pasted: i'm an australian, and my mother works in the children’s emergency room. On a REGULAR basis, she sees teenagers who come in who atrempted, or committed suicide and need to be hospitalised, due to cyber-related crimes. Just recently, a 13 year old’s life support had to be turned off. She was coerced into giving nudes, which were then spread across social media. The ban only addresses people under 16, because of this exact behaviour. I would like you all to reconsider, as it is directed purely for this purpose. I really hope they can implement it as it takes a toll on my mother seeing all these kids'

[@dyconiveg]

Something I haven't seen a lot of in the discourse of this is just how fast this legislation was pushed through after Meta announced that they wouldn't be paying Newscorp for their content on Meta's platforms. It's 100% Newscorp putting their thumb on the scale and giving Meta the finger because outside of the one parent lobbying group I've yet to see a single authority here in Australia stand up and back this as a good idea.

[@aussiegruber86]

It’s all about making Australians have to prove their identities to access these site etc

[@Epic3032]

SO they can track and trace where the people are using real data.

[@lunar-tick4310]

literally said in the video the platforms are to provide a way of proving age without government id. You already have to provide a email or phone number, sometimes both, you also give them your name, sometimes even your card information. you yourself have unknowingly given away so much of your information to these sites

[@blackwing1362]

I would heavily argue against discord being social media. Mainly because nothing is public whatsoever. Everything is invite only, with no algorithms dictating what you are seeing. It's a chat room, not social entertainment, aka media.

[@Gaspode_]

It's not, and is not included in the legislation's definition of "social media". They are focused on the algorithmic "push this feed down your throat" ones.

[@shar8961]

as an Aussie what I'm most scared of with this law is all the teens who are queer, disabiled and or chronically depressed loosing the ability to discover and form support groups through these social media platforms. I know for a fact that if I never had access to social media to find support as a teen when I was at my most valuable, I'd be dead. and I'm confident that as soon as this law Is enforced teen suicide rates will increase

[@Random-video]

That’s a good thing absolutely kids should not be talking to people about this nasty stuff just go to counseling

[@Khai2142]

@@Random-video 🤡

[@goldcoast8549]

This is my fear too. My sister has struggled with depression and being able to access groups online and talk to people with similar interests has almost certainly been one of the main reasons she is still here. Luckily, she turns 16 about a month before it's supposed to come into affect but I fear for the others who aren't so lucky

[@peckc16]

Algorithm social media is where I draw the line for online interactions with what my students use and what I had growing up. I typically phrase it as "social media had an end". You could be "caught up" with nothing new to look at and that was a lot more reasonable. Social media was MAX an hour of my day most days.

[@John-19k20]

11:55 I'd be ok with removing the Algorithmic Feeding parts of platforms and such, that is - to my understanding - what causes the biggest problems anyway. Algorithmic feeding, as far as I understand, is basically sort of like targeted personalized ads, there's an algorithm that keeps track on everything you do, and possible collects information on what you do outside of their platform itself, and uses that information to show you content that the algorithm has deemed interesting to you. If I understand correctly, then this would basically be designed in such a way as to entice people to use the platform for longer periods of time, and for something like X, or even worse, Kick or Instagram, this is often very bad, because it has such short videos that are more effective in keeping a young person's attention than longer videos do, and makes them more likely to watch more videos than if the videos were longer.

[@i00Productions]

I really hope all of the companies just block Australia.. X makes about 40 million a year from AU .. why would they risk getting fined $33 million.. also I am from Australia 😁.. I seriously think this is the only way that the bill will get reversed!

[@nicholasvinen]

I agree. They should all just nope out of it. The dumb law would be repealed pretty quickly.

[@Seed]

By this definition, isn’t like WhatsApp and iMessage a social media.. Wait is texting also social media by that definition?

[@Seed]

Linus.. You can’t contact them to tell them a new thing if discord is banned for them lol..?? Also landline also sounds like social media via the definition you said…?

[@mitzee8621]

Landline does satisfy the definition because you can't post content onto a landline. Text messages might, but the government has apparently promised to exempt apps/services they decide to consider "messaging services". There is some leeway for the government to exempt or add specific services to the definition by making legislative rules.

[@lunar-tick4310]

I dont think communication apps will fall under social media, exactly why discord isnt on there yet.

[@RafanAhmed-iz8gx]

Discord may not be included because the law mentions video game chats, educational platforms and messaging platforms will not be included in the ban

[@Watchmen07]

Australians will do what we have always done when it comes to laws, not care until the fine is in our hands

[@BigBoiiLeem]

My main concern with this legislation is social media companies being able to wash their hands of responsibility for the safety of young people on their platforms in Australia. They'll say "hey, you guys banned it, so if they're lying to us, that's not *our* fault".

[@Jason_Singe]

1:44 For context $AU33 million is about $CA29.8 million.

[@Hurricayne92]

Its $33 million US

[@Jason_Singe]

​ @Hurricayne92 Listen to the video again. What did he say?

[@michaelnitschke9872]

What we as Aussies are worried about is the digital ID bullshit that everyone in Australia will need to have to prove they are old enough to be on social media

[@muzlee7479]

I don't get the point tho. Luke said that they are only banned from creating an account. In which case you can still doomscroll.

[@AnEagle]

it means their feed can't be personalised at much at least/ it stops them interacting with comments sections, which are seriously toxic

[@xenon6947]

@@AnEagleit can be personalised with cookies and history.

[@kh0rney]

If you don't have an account you can't message or be messaged, probably an important part of online safety

[@Neojhun]

Not for most social media sites now. They require an account to view lots of content. They "pay wall" your IP adress.

[@muzlee7479]

@@kh0rney But then the argument is that discord is totally fine makes no sense.

[@sunbleachedangel]

The "do your own research" crowd are the worst because their research is 1) do a google search. 2) select a result that aligns with your preconceived notion. 3) research done

[@jaromanda]

Our PM, ANthony ALbanese, regarding this, proudly states "the world is watching us" - I think he meant "the world is laughing at us"

[@grahamejohn6847]

This is opening a real can of worms for Australia and I think it will take many years to really figure out the best way to go about this. It's what we refer to as a shit fight.

[@killertortoise1]

Idk what the right answer is but I will say that it could also be a worry for social media literacy. I think most people that grew up with social media are much better at spotting fake shit and disinformation compared to the older gen that didn't grow up with it but adopted it later in life. I wonder if that will have an impact. Idk but I do think something needs to be done, unsure if a total ban is the correct answer though.

[@AstoundingAmelia]

It is the worst possible solution because it also cuts off people from communities, it's great to just say interact with the IRL environment but if your area doesn't have things like meetups for certain groups well then you're out of luck, what happens if the kid has terrible parents and uses social media to find support groups for that, what happens if the kid has an interest in something but there isn't a group of people who share that interest in their community, what happens if let's say a kid who is gay wants to get information and talk with others about their feelings and stuff but their community doesn't have that or is actively against that stuff, social media for all of the negatives it has also has big positives and to cut it off completely means that a lot of kids will be left in a position where they cannot get support because their community does not have that support, it's also just terrible for any sort of social media literacy as you said

[@FernandoGranco]

When I was in middle school I would run to the computer room at my school to play little fighter 2 with my friends, the website was blocked, i used a proxy, I was 12, it was 2004, kids today will just find a way to pretend they are not in Australia and keep using it

[@da1trugamr]

Hi! I'm Australian! This law isn't going to do anything. Our government, much like America's, is largely fossils. Sure this law passed... But it's not going to be enforced in any meaningful way. Like... At all. It happens alot here where a law is passed and then our government stands there, hands on there hips proudly going "We saved the day!" Without actually enforcing the law. If this is handled at all similarly to previous cases similar to this, the law being passed is as much action as will be taken. It's just word jargen.

[@MagnesiumAddicts]

Occasionally they'll probably go and grab a few million off one or two of the social media giants when they need positive media attention lol

[@matthewbecker2387]

As an Australian who has worked in a Primary School, the amount of bullying that happens between children as young as 8 years old is sickening. Coincidentally, I have seen heaps of examples of this happening on Discord. Is this the best solution to the problem, i don't know, but without a doubt something is needed.

[@DarthChrisJ]

I don’t let my 13 year old on Discord. I’ve seen too much nonsense on servers to allow it yet.

[@AlexAndrom3da]

Why we need regulations for kids not blanket ban because u can just lie about your age for most kids

[@Brixster]

This is the kind of parenting our world needs right now. I'm 19 and use Discord to connect with all my friends and colleagues, but seeing my 14 year old sister on it makes me cringe with the communities she engages with.

[@nicholasvinen]

I'm glad you're allowed to be a parent. Our government is taking that away from us.

[@everythingisscience658]

One thing I don't know if they realised is that KZbin partially falls under these rules. A channel allows you to show content for your followers and follow other peoples content. The solution suggested is that children simply should not be allowed to have a KZbin account, therefore be free from the content algorithm while still able to search for videos if they need too. This also means that Australian kids will soon no longer be able to subscribe to LTT, loosing a small percentage of views for them immediately. That's probably not a huge deal but if this somehow spreads across the globe and no kids may subscribe to LTT, that may be an existential threat to the company.

[@Topcatyo.]

Regulate the social media and the algorithms they use, not the children

[@colinf2316]

2:30 you could argue that the people in support groups should go out and join those groups in person. In person socializing is way more beneficial to mental health.

[@Randomonster]

Right, but imagine you live on a farm with your family and seasonal hands and the closest town is 100 miles away. But that town is only 150 people and there are no support services there.

[@ThePriceyPants]

As a note The government only changed the ban to allow social media providers to use non ID forms of verification after everyone pushed back about being forced to verified with our government issued ID's. (also the reason it was rushed is due to upcoming elections)

[@xenon6947]

Australia is already remote in its location and not having online friends to play online games are going to destroy childhood.

[@armdndangerfish36]

hi this aint true

[@Kai13216]

Lmao what

[@Alias_Anybody]

It doesn't matter how remote the country is but how remote individual families live.

[@markosgage283]

This is an undebated law, any consultation from professionals was ignored. When you look at who's been lobbying for the law it was sponsored by Murdoch News Corp. and other mainstream media companies. This law will force all citizens to use ID to access *any* online content, it is designed to target social media companies. It is *not* to protect children, it is to control how adults use the internet.

[@AC-im4hi]

When government thinks its their job to parent your children

[@catmeow11111]

I live in Australia with two kids under 16. Social media platforms are predatory and exploitative, and thankfully my kids are well aware of this. I don't think this is a straight forward answer to this. Ideally, platforms should be regulated and forced to drop their bullshit practices, but that's never going to happen.

[@pieterrossouw8596]

I don't think Australia's approach will work, but I do value a country trying to do something about it - we can learn from the shortcomings of their approach and hopefully the damage social media has done to 2 generations of kids doesn't have to be done to 3+.

[@jetnavigator]

It has nothing to do with protecting children, it's about forcing all users to provide ID because how else do you prove all users are over 18? This is a government that tried to introduce internet censorship into law and has imprisoned whistle blowers.

[@pinglis00]

Australian here. I have 3 kids who are now in their early 20s so I parented through the rise of algorithmic social media. The discussions and research around the formation of this law has been raging in Australia at least for decades. I don't think the new law was rushed - I think it was decided that we simply need to try something and see how it goes. There is no way to understand all the consequences that may come as a result of this law. Perhaps it's a giant experiment that could be done in no other way. I hope other countries learn from our experiences and the evidence we gather and help us all understand the power and impact of Social media.

[@mattdoa2]

4:28 it is fair to say it cuts them off society. They are excluded from modern society - society has moved online.

[@Trade4Lewt]

As a french guy from Quebec, without "social media" aka internet pre being 16yo, I would LITERALLY not speak english as well as I do now as an adult if I was not able to access the internet the way I did pre 16, the schools I went to didnt teach me english nearly as well as I picked it up by myself over the years as a kid browsing the internet

[@Patches-vq8cd]

0:48 I don't know a single Australian under the age of 55 who can write cursive 🤣🤣

[@milamberhague8095]

Then you must live in a housing commission area and more than likely grown up in one ☝️

[@PR0XYL1NK]

guess they cant use the internet then 😊

[@slyooooo]

I learnt cursive in primary school, I was overseas for 5 years but still an Aussie 😅

[@Patches-vq8cd]

@@milamberhague8095 hahha nah! I'm more country. But insted of learning how to write cursive i was living a life of cars,motorbikes and guns.

[@Cybrlxst]

Only reason I use cursive is because I have doctors hand writing (I write that fast that my pen doesn't come off the paper)

[@darkest_eclipse8271]

Growing up in the age of social media I was still able to get around just fine without it. I never participated in it, even when family set up a Facebook for me. You interact with the neighborhood around you, and play with friends. The only issue with this is dealing with the children who have developed an addiction to it.

[@Default_Defect]

Lots of places don't have areas for kids to go hang out anymore. Parks and playgrounds get bulldozed because of "crime" and the kids get the cops called on them for "loitering" in the closest thing to social areas they have.

[@darkest_eclipse8271]

@ yeah in some areas that is true. It’s just many things that government needs to have fixed for many of these solutions to really be viable. There’s just so many issues to handle at once though.

[@arthur1670]

6:55 they could just text …. They are using a phone 📞. How did you chat Linus in 2002 with your friends ?

[@spectrum1324]

yeah and we can all get pagers again. maybe all carrier Pidgeon's. you know because social media is to dangerous. texting is ok if you have a person phone number you know how many of my friends phone numbers I keep in my phone 5. yet on social media I have over a hundred people some of which are all over the world. texting them would cost a premium. social media also allows for easier group creating and management than texting does.

[@Bunjee98]

It’s not 2002 anymore

[@arthur1670]

@ phones can still text, my buddle has unlimited texts

[@dirtygattor9109]

Wow, honestly the most sane and well thought out take i've seen on this discussion so far

[@UnnTHPS]

As a kid I lived in a village and was surrounded by violent homophobia and social media was the only way for me to build a support network of people who accepted me, on top of that I am still friends with those people now almost 2 decades later If this was taken away from me my life might've turned out completely different, or maybe not turn out at all if u know what I'm saying I am super super super anti taking away social media from kids, because I immediately think of people like me And just looking at u guys I immediately know u would not be able to understand my situation

[@AstoundingAmelia]

I agree, I was the same

[@thatguy5097]

As an Australian who wrote to their representatives and has been following this issue for a while, Lukes opinion here is so halfbaked and frustrating. Hope he salts those boots before he licks them.

[@typicalaction8619]

As an Australian who is 17 and grew up without a phone until 15. I fully support the law. Intellectually I feel far more engaged and able to communicate effectively than anyone else I know who grew up addicted to social media. I think the law is really great. People have grown up for thousands of years without social media and have done amazingly. I think the law is exactly what we need. Let children be children. I graduated with an ATAR greater than 90. And also run several successful social media pages. People can communicate with mobile numbers anyway!

[@JasonBrock]

Where was the ramifications when they introduced the Internet? That seemed kind of hasty when they push that social experiment don’t you think?

[@ThiefKingofLegend]

Sorry i thought i was in Australia, not bloody China! I'm walking through a park in Aus with multiple homeless people sleeping rough. Gov should be all focused on cost of living

[@asdboohah]

China doesnt ban children from social media..

[@ThiefKingofLegend]

@asdboohah in a way, we're sorta worse, although I believe the CCP controls the algo heavily. Gov wants a dirty win so they don't get thrown out next election

[@DeSinc]

just to add, discord is excluded, so is whatsapp and youtube, it's just some of the bigger players like twitter etc. pretty much all my concerns sold to me by the negative attention were all quelled with further info specified later on, so long as they stick to what they said

[@willydonka1041]

Didn't expect to see you here DeSinc forgot you were australian But they're 100% pushing digitalID which just, I do not want to have to give my fucking personal info to companies notorious for data breaches or even with the risk that they experience one (which isn't a matter of if) And it's already annoying enough to give phone numbers and shit for account security which then get sold to scammers and legal scammers (other companies) Most likely scenario is companies just pull out of Australia and then AU gov is left without any chokehold on companies, with VPNs being an easy way around the geoblock. AU gov probably cant do anything legally to force company's hands if they just pull out, and they'll still get australian users through VPN And even more likely australians will find ways around payment blocking too. Though they havent managed for mastercard blocking Fantia and pixiv fanbox afaik.

[@usernamemaxleclerc3014]

The ban is on social media sites. Not networking sites, so discord is fine. Xbox party chat is fine. Its the doom scrolling platforms that are banned. As an aussie I'm in support of this. It is crazy when you go to maccas/mcdonalds and seeoyoung teens not talking to each other and scrolling tiktok on their personal phone. It's not even a group experience. Crazy.

[@lysolan269]

I highly doubt Discord would not be considered social media. And all this does is remove kids/teens' access from digital Third places. They've removed the only replacement for the original Third places kids had years ago to hang out and spend time together w/o spending money or being kicked out for loitering, like arcades or parks.

[@usernamemaxleclerc3014]

​@lysolan269 KZbin isn't banned, and there is no mention of limiting comment sections and such. Therefore, discord won't be banned. As Luke said, there is no global feed.

[@BarthWarth]

The need for them to not use government ID was a last minute addition to the bill, I will also just add that discord "seems" to be safe due to it being a "chatting" app

[@Amresh10]

As an Australian, this is just politics of the Labor government trying too appeal to parents. This law is ass.

[@ungrave5231]

recalling myself from before the age of 16, I expect every kid will find some way around this and it will basically just be an inconvenience

[@micahbuni]

As someone that runs, manages, and is active in many communities that often have adult-only conversations and content, being able to guarantee kids can no longer join would be a dream. Kids are unwilling to protect themselves, and constantly sneak into these communities and even flirt with adults. I would love to see this rule extend to Discord in some capacity, or at least have a better age-verification system.

[@AJonVolk]

Funny thing is this law doesn't cover the adult content sites that have user video uploads, it gives me the impression this isn't about protecting children from that stuff but it's more about controlling social media.

[@lysolan269]

This law has nothing to do with blocking access to adult only communities. It blocks sites that would be expected to have some younger users.

[@jayb88887]

I am Australian with a 14yr old daughter, to me the problem is a lack of parenting in the same way our generation had the whole TV babysitter problem, parents who don't understand social media need to learn, this is the world we live in. We have taught our daughter to avoid toxic people in general and not associate with anyone online that she doesn't know in real life, not a new concept and still works very well. The biggest danger of this for me is just that teenagers will just make fake accounts making it even harder to identify people who are legitimately at risk of bullying or predators. Most social Media has the option for parental access to children's accounts already and although we have this enabled we don't actually use it, but the option is there if we felt the need. Kids will get around this and the solution will be as it always has been, to be more a part of their lives

[@frozencatcake]

As a Australian I've lost faith in our government it's just old people who have no self awareness

[@Epic3032]

And the old people that keep on voting on the duopoly ALP LNP

[@JamesTK]

@@Epic3032 old people aren't really the majority. The way our political system is set up, the duopoly is protected... Basically has to be one or the other

[@jakepitura337]

​@@Epic3032 Right now there are not any other parties that represent the basic Australians like Labor. I know what you'll say to that... no they aren't they are both cut from the same tree they are the same party. They are not. One tries to cut Medicare (LNP) one tries to repair Medicare (ALP) LNP Give tax breaks to the rich.... ALP Gives Tax breaks to all LNP Cut basic government services.... ALP add basic government services LNP Dont tax big corporations..... ALP are trying to And personally the biggest one I will never forget... The Former LNP PM Scotty Pisses off to Hawaii while the country burns.... during the same bushfires Albanese... who isn't even PM yet.. Everyday buying groceries and cooking up feeds for those who fought fires... why did he do that... because Albanese Was THERE.

[@zorastin]

@@JamesTK unfortunately we only have the choice of two. but dont believe the media that is owned by the right that there is no difference between the two. That is the rights narrative that they spoonfeed to the media to make people think that the LNP are not that bad(they are) Although this bill is pretty stupid and self serving labor are infinitely better the the criminal LNP. They are corrupt almost to a man and the country goes backward for everyone but the rich when the LNP are in power. The LNP always coasts on the work that the ALP does and erodes it. There are many thing that the ALP do that i dont agree with but the alternative only takes care of the Rich.

[@bingusbongus9807]

@@JamesTK not really, we have rank choice voting so unlike other countries you actually can vote for a third party, everyone i know if they are younger puts greens then labor and if they are older then just puts labor

[@geo150-l1l]

Even if legislation was rushed, it was not more rushed than the implementation of social media.. "move fast and break things" is ok for the private sector but not the public?

[@iaina3251]

The thing about this ban for me is that Australia is really really fucking big and there must be a shed load of kids living in rural or very rural communities who rely on interacting with their distant peers on social media. Social media can be toxic but it can also be an amazing place for people to come to together in virtual communities that transcend distance, timezones and cultures.

[@AnonUser-b6y]

They live in a rural area, they can go play outside

[@iaina3251]

@@AnonUser-b6y outside of America (or so it seems to me) any kid can play outside regardless of the rural or urban location. But if you live in the back of beyond your "peers" or people of like mind are going to be few and far between.

[@goldcoast8549]

​@@AnonUser-b6yI don't think people in bloody Goodiwindi or Kununurra are gonna be playing outside in the constant 40°C + days they get

[@zuko9085]

One way around the whole privacy thing would be issuing cards that could be purchased at a store. You could purchase an authentication card at a store. An employee there could verify your age (just like is done for cigarettes or alcohol), and then this card could be used to verify your id online without needing to input all the personal information or whatever. We can have privacy, and protect children from something that will cause them harm.

[@peesafpayper9688]

Forums should be made exempt because you see, social media sites are so accessible. Just few taps and you can post, or view, or search people by name, you get recommendations, etc. Forums are much less open in that way, so other than enthusiasts of a certain topic banding together, I doubt forums can be as harmful as most social media

[@DrDogtorPhD]

This law exists solely because of 2 reasons, a politicians daughter 17 was sending innapropriate things to a catfish pretending to be 17 when he was 18. This same politician also got pissy after he got called out via a member of the private media so he and his mates pushed this law. It is not intended to protect children, it is intended for politicians to go after critics of their actions

[@BenjaminRonlund]

As an Australian I can tell you this has nothing to do with child safety and everything to do with restricting freedom of speech. The goal of excluding under 16's is simply to identify everyone by requiring a digital ID. This law came in at the same time they were trying to implement "disinformation laws" aimed solely at private citizens that politicians and legacy media were excluded from.

[@ThePhantomguy321]

Thank you, this is essentially my initial sentiment after watching the video. The fine on social media corporations for non-compliance does not feel like a legitimate threat; it seems like young people themselves are being (wrongfully) targeted as the main cause of the issues associated with social media (over)use and punished for it. As painful as it sometimes is to hear the impulsive or uninformed takes of teenagers, young people need a way to express themselves, and social media is a very direct and accessible way of doing that, especially without the baggage tied to a legal (or even physical) identity.

[@Adrian_VB]

Mate freedom of speech is an American ideology used to verbalize discriminatory hate without any repercussions we do not have that we have freedom of implied political speech which is incredibly different

[@mitzee8621]

@@Adrian_VB Lot of other Australians don't realise that we don't have freedom of speech.

[@usernamemaxleclerc3014]

We don't have Freedom of Speech, we (Aussies) have Freedom of Expression. It's a big difference. As an Aussie and incredibly engaged with politics, I can ensure you that I highly doubt your statement.

[@wilbamate]

Kids growing up in a rural area are going to grow up in a very small world.

[@bluu4444]

im glad some countries are taking a step against the social media empire. even if implementation is questionable, children should not be doomscrolling ai generated content by age 7

[@ThePhantomguy321]

But how does banning account creation prevent that? Granted, this video is the only context I have for this law, but if you can still 'look' at social media, you're still going to be algorithmically fed slop (to a potentially worse degree, since you can't curate the things you see without an account).

[@DanielMYT]

At age 7, their parents should be participating in shared activities to bond with them, rather than just giving them an iPad and allowing them to fall into this trap in the first place. It's not the government's job to fill in for millennial parents who don't actually do their job of parenting.

[@janchristianursuaaguilar7434]

Bro advocating censorship against social media just because you can is unacceptable

[@janchristianursuaaguilar7434]

​@@DanielMYTcensorship much?

[@kommado7677]

@@DanielMYT It quite literally is the governments job to step in when parents are not doing their job properly. Why would child endangerment laws exist if the government has no business stepping into how adults parent their children?

[@Pest789]

My first 'online' experience was using local single line dial up bulletin boards on a modem I bought myself when I was 13. I quickly figured out that the BBSs I was using were owned and operated by people my age as well. Hopefully, this law will cause these kids to set up their own infrastructure, rather than blindly relying on corporate brain rot infrastructure.

[@davidb3491]

It's not about helping kid's, its a disguise to introduce digital ID and facial recognition 🤬🤬🤬

[@lunar-tick4310]

both of those are already a thing

[@davidb3491]

@lunar-tick4310 not here they aren't, the government is trying to build a database on the sly 🙄