The Australian social media limits for under-16s

[@socratesdancing]

With every post, I come to the conclusion that becoming an avid 'Clarionette' was the smartest thing I have done this year. Thank you.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

I love the term 'Clarionette'. Marvellous!

[@KanyaKanya-pj4qe]

They rushed it thru, they didn’t want any ones opinion on the bill, disgusting

[@andrew390]

Thoughtful assessment. Thanks for posting this! Rushed, broad legislation that will negatively impact vastly more people than possibly will help and no clear evidence to support what the stated issues are tells me that government simply wants more control over messaging to the masses.

[@BobOgden1]

Don't forget there are many legitimate uses for anonymity (dealing with DV, reporting from a war zone etc) that need to be catered for

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Yes, I probably should think more about that.

[@monsel97]

Why can't they stop phones in school, Since so many hours are spent there, plus the distraction it causes. What they do at home is the parents responsibility. It's not the job of Government.

[@jasonmullinder]

Many schools already have a no phone policy

[@1Mutton1]

Yes, this is the solution. - at least partly.

[@hc3657]

What about the blame game propaganda peddled in schools. We are all going to die its a climate emergency and it is your fault if it happens. Tell that to your captive audience of children that for 10 years and see how many have serious depression.

[@monsel97]

@@hc3657 yes they have been peddling miss information for years. The bill if it passed wouldn't apply to them 😂😂

[@Dane-rg6sy]

Australian citizens needs something equivalent to a US Bill of Rights

[@amraceway]

Look where that got them, unprecedented gun violence, a civil war and Trump.

[@mindi2050]

I'd prefer Australian citizens had the equivalent of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Or the constitutionally enshrined Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[@mindi2050]

@@amraceway Agreed - we don't need the equivalent of the United States 2nd Amendment in our Constitution. But I would like to see the following text enshrined in the Australian Constitution. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form." New Zealand Bill of Rights.

[@amraceway]

@@mindi2050 Motherhood statements are all very good but I would prefer clear impartial laws. I find it ironic that many who preach freedom get into a frenzy about those with opposing views and resort to calling them bots to shut them up.

[@Dane-rg6sy]

@@mindi2050 unfortunately it didn’t protect people during COVID from lockdowns and being coerced by government officials to take a experimental injection, particularly middle aged people and especially children who had little to no risk of dying from COVID.

[@Rainy679]

This is not just for kids it’s for everybody.

[@kathybenniadi6150]

Parents need to take responsibility for their children.. government doesn’t need to anyone co parent … this is not about children this is 1000% about digital ID and biometrics and another way to censor us the MAD bill was defeated this is worse and must be defeated too ..

[@thomasp6034]

This is about censorship and keeping tabs on the whole population's activity on social media. Not coincidentally, social media is commonly used to organise protests, which governments are also trying to restrict or ban.

[@roxee57]

I used to be for removing anonymity. Then I realised many users live in countries ruled by authoritarians who like to harass, jail & kill dissenters, including dissenters online. I don’t like the idea of of requiring identification for everyone anymore, including in Australia where increasing political tribalism is resulting in social harms to people who don’t subscribe to current orthodoxies - see the trans rights vs women’s rights debate.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Good point.

[@danaveye3977]

Is a person's name really germaine to the conversation?

[@ZestySea]

Good point

[@raceace]

Never trust a political intention with an impending respond by date.

[@AndyJarman]

Bloody cheek give us 48hours and a couple of sides of an A4 sheet of paper. Surely this is a wholly inadequate consultatuon.

[@1Mutton1]

Cheek is not the right word. Evil is.

[@charmingpea]

I was able to draft and submit a submission for the first time ever. This thing is a shambolic mess being rushed through and is an utter disgrace.

[@geordannicholson2854]

That is an insanely widespread definition that the executive should not be given the power to alter unconditionally! This is inanity!

[@DadNotmyname]

To enable any form of underage restriction requires the entire population to undergo a stricter identification to use the same services. That control of identification is the primary agenda of this bill. Then there is the money the government will make from online services through licencing and fines. Then there is the control the government will gain over the services who must do as they are told or not get their licence.

[@sophitsa79]

Don't we already hand over all our details to companies and government?

[@LadyPatienceK]

Not all of us.

[@sandyfoot]

Going to be an awful lot of under 16 year olds who have no idea where to go for their weekend sport. 🤣 Let’s also remember that no parent is allowed to access their child’s Medicare records once they turn 14. So what’s going on here ? Are children responsible for themselves or not? Make up your mind govt!

[@joansorensen-young2962]

These clowns should be blocked from creating any legislation until they are booted out: they are dangerous!

[@ZestySea]

It's bi-partison. Both sides of the house agree, in fact it ws introduced by the Liberals.

[@Burgo361]

There are so many potential problems with this bill, it shocks me that they would attempt rush this so much. There are problems with education, social needs (many kids grow up in isolated communities), privacy (something we are already dangerously lacking online) etc. The only thing I can agree with about this is that the internet is a dangerous place and children have not been well protected I've seen some things that I wish I hadn't, I don't see this actually solving that problem though it's oversimplifying a complex issue and could do more harm than good to these kids, this seems like a decision that should be made very carefully after a lot of thorough research not something that should be rushed through. Also personally I am very selective about where I verify my identity and there are many websites that I would never trust with my personal information, I spent too long studying cyber-security artificial intelligence and data analysis to just blindly trust these platforms.

[@adamsmith1846]

They dont want any chijdren educated by anyone not government approved.. what sort of government does thar?

[@SpeedySystems]

Age of Criminality is 10 in most states. Seems incongruous.

[@Kwistenbiebel100-ns5ko]

I wish there was a drive to reduce legislation instead of an endless stream of new invasive legislation. Less is more.

[@imabarcard]

I’m 17 and I like your videos, I might be your only under 18 viewer :)

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Terrific. Glad you are here. Do encourage your friends.

[@robc5704]

Yes, as a government we MUST be seen to be doing SOMETHING, despite the fact those in Canberra have, for many years, not demonstrably indicated they are competent to draft anything more complex than a shopping list (any party).

[@christophergame7977]

Any excuse, any trick, to control the people.

[@JWLearning]

I was hoping very much you would do a video on this topic. The moment it was introduced I couldn't see how this could possible hold up in the high court because it restricts a child's ability to speak freely. Any restrictions on speech is something for the parents to administer, not the government. But it doesn't just affect the child, If some type of id were to be required for an adult user and he or she refused to agree to those terms then it means that adult user is not being allowed to speak in the way he or she wishes, it's literally the government dictating who, how and where you can express your views. The question also begs whether there are alternatives to the bill that would actually better address the issues it's trying to solve, and I would argue there is. In particular parental controls on the devices which are seldom used. I'm pleased to hear your uncertainty over the validity of this law, this will inevitably be challenged in the High Court.

[@gxtoast2221]

The UN-WEF reaches deeper into Australia.

[@amraceway]

Change your conspiracy theory to one that might have some element of truth in it.

[@DavidNotSolomon]

@@amraceway Change your rebuttal to one that is evidence based. There is plenty of evidence for WEF agenda's globally cases in point: 1. Mass immigration across western nations (which no-one voted for, and most vote against), 2. $10,000 cash ban proposals - which came from no Australian community body, Law enforcement body or politician - but from the 'bureaucracy' supported by debunked claims about 'black economy" - fortunately defeated by community action, 3. Destroying the energy systems in Western nations and in place destroying the environment with ineffective and carbon-expensive to produce solar panels and wind turbines 4. War in Ukraine to control Russia, 5. A global pandemic and follow up dangerous treatments forced on the populations. I could go on. But the fact is, these people declare exactly what they are doing - and have since at least the Georgia Guidestones, just watch the videos of their meetings.

[@gxtoast2221]

@@amraceway you're commenting in a channel hosted by a lawyer who has spent a lot of time suing people and organisations who "conspire to commit fraud". The UN-WEF are committing fraud globally, everywhere in all Western countries. The EU in particular. The Swiss are talking about it because the UN-WEF offices are in Switzerland. FIAN published a press release about the UN-WEF merger in 2019, condemning it along with over 400 other UN Civil Societies in an open letter to the UN SG.

[@peteregan3862]

The Constitutional Clarion is essentially a free university course in law by a top professor without having HECS debt or paying Uni fees. The Bill provisions will have some good effect in giving support to parents and schools doing policing - they can say to their kids that the rules apply to all kids, not just their own. The law will be another legal weapon for thousands to wage lawfare against social media businesses that are perceived to have money or are run/owned by people they don't like. The law is also another weapon to attack people whose command of English is poor - like the many that reelected Trump. Law has been used in this way forever. 48 years ago I was a witness in court when my migrant taxi driver was arrested by plain clothes police in inner-Sydney for what he said to them as they loited blocking a road. They opened the driver's door and took him. They then opened the rear door and told me to "piss-off" - I did not know who the guys in suits were, I thought they were going to kill the driver. Being pissed-off at losing my late night cab ride, I only pissed-off far enough to collect evidence unobserved. Neither the police nor I could identify each other. Most of my time in the witness box was taken up by the prosecutor with my understanding of the meaning of words - perhaps reasonable, I was studying engineering at USyd. At court, I discovered the taxi driver was charged was offensive language. The police did not appreciate being forcefully told to get out of the way. The solicitor later told me the magistrate found him not quilty. 'X' apparently has access to appropriate judges in Texas for using the power of the US to respond to international lawfare against it. 'X' polices many things on its platform. Its standard for speech is that set by the US Supreme Court - a standard that has stood the test of time, but is hated by many. Our e-safety commissioner, a Canadian whose views sound very California Democrat, has gone quiet. As Anne suggests, the law will be hard to apply to technically literate kids, or anyone learning, or knows, another language other than English, such as most people with a migrant background. They will be on internationally hosted platforms in Chinese, Hindi and dozens of other languages.

[@debugin1227]

It’s just stupid. Let the parents parent .

[@7mmScout]

What about the privacy of all the adults who now have to provide identity information, what about the identity theft risk, and the security of data storage? This is stupid.

[@paulinebell4873]

in all likelihood the bullying will revert to what it traditionally has been, live and in person. problem not solved

[@hc3657]

It starts in person, face to face where it counts the most. The social media is the cherry on top.

[@almc8445]

Your take on forced identity is TERRIBLE. There are plenty of examples where anonymity has huge consequences, such as when voicing dissent. “I don’t like it because someone might say mean things” vs a MASSIVE boost to the ability to criticize a government one might feel threatens them… I know what I choose. I do appreciate your raising of the data privacy concerns though, and you succinctly covered the major challenges on that front.

[@capability-snob]

As an Aussie who makes websites and information systems, having to demand evidence of age just so you can use my site feels all sorts of wrong. I'd much rather normalise not handing out personally identifiable information, especially for minors.

[@fellowcitizen]

Perhaps personal data could be assigned a value -- for instance, to track a mouse around a page for 5min might warrant setting aside $100 for the reader, and keeping their DOB might provide them $15,000. If the data is useful then this may be worth it, and if not then they might finally stop vacuuming everything.

[@jasonmullinder]

@@fellowcitizen Personal data is assigned a value, that's how social media makes money. This video did a really bad job of understanding what social media is

[@augustsnowfall5189]

This is about digital ID surveillance.

[@ZestySea]

You already have digital ID surveillance. You have a phone or a computer. What do you think ASIO does?

[@wcbbsd]

The slow march through the institutions and everything else.

[@fatherburning358]

Seriously. Just rushing it through before holidays is something we can begrudgingly accept from an LGA. But not from our federal government. No should be the vote on that alone.

[@AndyJarman]

What documentation will people require to prove their age? An ID card perhaps?

[@BrandOdyssey]

Thanks professor. My daughter has attended many of your classes as part of her law degree at usyd and she was always complimentary of your lectures. You really show up this law as a complete political farce.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. I'm glad you daughter found the classes useful.

[@flashknight7720]

Thank you! This is such a crucial topic. The impact this will have on privacy for ALL Australians is detrimental for human rights. Appreciate your perspective bringing attention to it.

[@jennysmith3874]

So they are pushing the platforms to do their diry work with the digital I D

[@SKW-12]

Thank you. Excellent points.

[@hypnopompicstate9910]

Rather disingenous to sight malicious intent as the only reason for wanting anonymity, in light of the current political climate in the West. So tragic to see political prisoners (of speech) in the Motherland. 😢😡

[@beauzo9965]

Yeah Nah, this bill is cooked but the uniparty want digital ID

[@MrMikejhowe]

It seems like they need to include the role of a parental monitor in these sub 16 social media groups. It would kind of like having an organised club with parental/adult supervision or seeing an M rated movie with younger people

[@AuspolExplained]

Just a comment on the end: young people do watch political education videos. My analytics show that in the past 28 days my audience was comprised of 4.7% people aged 13-17. This equates to roughly 20,300 unique viewers according to KZbin analytics, though usually that number is lower.

[@magpielark]

There's probably more 13-17 year olds than that. Plenty of kids under 13 lie about their age making accounts, so quite a few (who did that a few years ago) would be listed 1-2 age brackets higher

[@nathanchandler1433]

​@@magpielarkexactly, why would you be honest about your age when it locks you out of content that you want to get to.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Good to know, @AuspolExplained. I'm glad you are getting those numbers. Hopefully mine will eventually grow too!

[@sid8913]

I really thank you again for your analysis. My somewhat limited professional opinion as a Criminology student; it's a bill that is not fit for purpose and I think should it be challenged as it is now law, I would find the High Courts judgement a very interesting read. Correct me if I'm wrong but the government I think has been trying to fix issues related to it's failed Federal Court challenge of X (formally Twitter), so they have been trying to find ways around jurisdiction to regulate and legislate against the internet. Thoughts?

[@lynndonharnell422]

This is digital id by stealth. Whats the bet that the digital id database gets hacked.

[@davidnowhere2637]

A Digital ID has already passed both houses on May 16 and comes into effect on December 1. No one seems to know this. Copy and past this into a search engine. The Digital ID Bill Parliament of Australia

[@megantong1345]

@@davidnowhere2637 who voted for it?

[@josephemmanuel76]

Anything they want to ‘push past’ like this is completely dodgy! & unacceptable! As you explain it’s got so many holes in it’s not funny

[@peterschief9778]

We need more people like you in Australia. And they need bigger platforms. Do you think in Representative Government at least your opinion is getting through to our Representatives since in our system they’re supposed to replace the need for us to pay close attention?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. I think I have a small degree of influence in relation to constitutional matters, because I also do media interviews, and politicians tend to know who I am. I also often make submissions to parliamentary committees and give evidence to them. On the rare occasion, when I've tipped a bucket over a badly devised bill at a committee hearing, I've felt that I've convinced both sides and the bill has been dropped. But if there is a strong political interest in doing something, nothing I say or do will shift the dial. All I can do is spread awareness of what is going on, which is what I try to do on this channel. It doesn't have a huge audience, so there is minimal cut-through unless someone with influence sees on of my videos and uses it. But the audience is gradually growing, and one day it might of itself be a powerful tool. You never know.

[@1Mutton1]

"conspiacy theory"? Tell that to the brittish servicman that just got 2 years jail for re-posting political content. Anonymity is critical to not allow governments becoming dictatorships .....something we are on the verge of becoming. This is labours third attempt to circumvent the will of the people or remove their right to express it.

[@sophitsa79]

Why do you mention Labor? Are you not aware of the Liberal parties policies that limit protest?

[@1Mutton1]

@sophitsa79 because labour are the ones that did what I mentioned. Yes the libs are not great with the laws they put in several years ago, but not nearly as bad. The anti demonstration laws are not that bad.....just look at all the violent protests that are being allowed now. I'm not 100% on the details but thought they mainly crack down people blocking traffic, and other antisocial behaviour during protests.

[@copycat21c]

WTAF?! That’s the dumbest idea ever! Censorship writ large.

[@marilynwood6934]

I see this as the governments way of making big money from Facebook X etc because it will be impossible to police. Can I let my small grandkids play games like chess and solitaire on my iPad ?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

The bill is only addressed at the platforms giving account to people under the age of 16s. If your grandkids don't need a personal account to play chess or solitaire on your iPad, then there's no problem.

[@paveldvorak4076]

The essence is that the author every post on "social media" is identified by a GovID. That also implies reads, interactions, reactions and other expressions of thoughts, views and opinions.

[@AlexBaz143]

I feel silly about this, but it never occurred to me that this bill would affect this channel! Strange how the brain works

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

It probably won't - people can still watch my videos on KZbin without an account. But it would prevent people from making comments and asking questions. When I speak at school constitutional conventions, I find that the students come up with terrific questions, so it's good to get them engaged.

[@matthewcruz1709]

Why are they trying to get it done "by Christmas"?

[@Robert-xs2mv]

That says it all. If a highly educated person like yourself find it difficult to link the intention of the bill with the perceived harm, how does the average person mend to understand?

[@CriticalLinker]

I take care never to be abusive or threatening in my online interactions, yet I still value my anonymity. I don't want to become a target for any crazy who may take exception to my opinions.

[@briananderson7285]

Like the government?

[@CriticalLinker]

@briananderson7285 😁😁😁 Exactly.

[@megantong1345]

Domestic violence victims are less likely to be targeted online on social media platforms if they don’t use their real names. It’s to protect them from their violent abusers who would use it to hunt them.

[@CriticalLinker]

@megantong1345 Good point.

[@anavictoriacarlos7297]

Thank you. Rest assured I have already recommended you KZbin channel to my 16 year old daughter. Thanks Professor for another video.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. Much obliged.

[@KZgun4hire]

This also doesn't address how social media platforms that require a parent subscription in order for a child to participate (which is most gaming platforms) will police the unregistered children of those subscriptions. My children do not register with Sony PlayStation directly or indirectly. I the playing parent do that. How does Sony police the children on it's platform that are never registered to Sony?

[@GazGuitarz]

Is there anything within our Constitution that actually benefits and empowers ordinary Australian Citizens and allows us to hold our out of control governments to account ...because I'm not seeing it?.

[@wyattfamily8997]

Every action by Governments (and the Opposition in this case), is designed to gather personal data and restrict freedoms wherever possible.

[@DavidNotSolomon]

Technically a constitution is to limit the powers of governments (and of Monarchs) but in Australia's case it basically allows anything - and only allocates these powers to either the states or the federal government. The Governors and Governor General do nothing, and also even with an allocation of - say health - to the states we still have 5000 people employed by the federal health department. Also the courts do whatever they please - Lionel Murphy established the principle that justice should be ignored and only the letter of the law observed, yet when it came to COVID the courts decided to ignore this principle and instead just interpret things how they wanted them to be - this "absolutely free" travel between the states became 'not free' - such are our rights under the constitution enforced - or rather removed.

[@rodneyholland1867]

I might set my son up with a KZbin account just so he can be the first under 18 subscriber to your channel!

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

It seems that another viewer got there first - from the comments. It's still showing 0% however, so the demographic info provided by KZbin seems a bit dodgy. But do encourage him to join a very select group!

[@georgehoyn916]

If passed it should be repealed period freedom of thought and speach is at risk & shows teaching & education is at risk in view of this a bill of rights should be requested to be adopted and. Enacted

[@crazyham]

Thank You for your comments regarding the Misinformation & Disinformation (MAD) bill. I'm so pleased you voiced your opinion 🙏💜🙏 I'm now watching this Video 👌

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

The bill has been dropped by the Government - which is both good and bad. There was actually some good stuff in there, about requiring digital platforms to be transparent about their policies, including complaint processes, etc. It's a pity if they abandon that part.

[@margaretkobier]

Thank you for this in depth explanation. I know this bill is wrong but couldn't pin point what I was sending. You have helped me understand

[@Rainy679]

It sad if kids hobbies like music and art is at risk

[@johnguppy2120]

Won't someone please think about the children. This bill seems to me to be a snap decision to silence negative press with little thought to any unintended ramifications or even benefits of the bill.

[@bmyhrr]

I believe that the primary responsibility should be to prevent and swiftly remove content that is illegal in the "real world," rather than focusing solely on restricting access for users under 16 years old. Using social media has become an essential part of navigating today’s social and professional environments worldwide. Denying access to our youth places them at a disadvantage, for example, if an under-16 Australian were to relocate overseas, (from Australia) their online engagement experience would be behind that of their peers - other students, and/or job opportunities.

[@CascaydAzgard]

Who gains from this bill? Follow the money?

[@myspace_forever]

How about they focus on, oh I dont know, say, THE COST OF LIVING CRISIS

[@sophitsa79]

You know that they have been doing that, don't you? You also realise that there are several different government departments that each specialise in different areas, so that teams of people can be working on different incredibly important issues at once. This is why there could be a war somewhere so our military is doing its thing while the education department is still delivering education to kids here.

[@nhobb]

As a software engineer, I find the mechanism of age verification the biggest worry here. Followed closely by the definition of "social media". You mention the cesspool of internet comments. I agree that it is a bad situation but as we can see on Facebook, attaching names and faces is not enough to clean up the comments. Not to mention we are a tiny drop in the bucket of internet traffic. On what counts as social media. Does my blog count as social media? What if I add a comments section? By my values the internet should not draw borders based on geography and at a technical level it is very hard to confidently say which country traffic is coming from. I strongly believe in the right to anonymous speech even if it's abhorrent. The Federalist Papers were published anonymously. Any requirement to verify age necessarily implies a restriction on anonymous speech. I do not see the benefit of this bill and I do not see the support for this bill from the public.

[@JimCullen]

As a fellow software engineer, you should know that it _is_ technically feasible for the government to implement this age restriction in a way that maintains privacy. There are good reasons to expect that it won't be done that way, but it _can_ be done, in theory. There's a little more detail in the comment I made elsewhere under this video, but in short: the mechanism is what's called a blinded signature. Essentially, the government or another trusted body could sign a blinded token after verifying the person's age, and then the person could hand that token, unblinded, to the site where they wish to prove age.

[@martincross.id10tgames]

@@JimCullen I don't think it's too unlikely to be done this way, it would give the government the ability to disable a persons (or even the whole countries) token(s) should they say something the government doesn't like.

[@JimCullen]

@martincross.id10tgames no it wouldn't. That's the point of blinded tokens. They would be completely unable to connect a person who got age-verified to their accounts.

[@Kelly-wf5ie]

Unalienable rights

[@Dxyze]

@@JimCullen Not only is this technically possible, it's precisely a feature of the Trust Exchange system that Bill Shorten announced a few months ago.

[@Julia78309]

I believe ways around these bills would already exist.. Critically harsh bullying already exists on messaging apps.. Also any discord irc snap chat.. It's up to you the parent to know if your child is being manipulated online... It happens to adults also.... You stop your kids from doing drugs and being abused by the local gangs? That's all online now.. Be a parent!! Excuse me..? Penalty units?.. Social credit score? Excuse me.. Pardon?...

[@paulkruger4156]

I assume the main aim of this law, is to have an excuse for them to take the next step in mandating the requirement of a digital ID!

[@KenDavis761]

I have never come across a more steaming pile of legislative excrement. Australia really is a nanny state. And a really dumb one at that.

[@PixieTinsel]

I’m not committing a crime by posting a comment under a different name. I just don’t want my business or family to suffer because I may have a different opinion OR decide to share it. Even Elon Musk making liking posts on twitter has allowed people to express their opinions without being shamed or canceled by the internet. I like your content and regardless of whether you are mainstream or controversial, my watching, liking or commenting shouldn’t mean I’m forever tarred with the brush of authority over it. If I was of a culture or religion or employment or government that was authoritarian then I’d be silenced because I would be easy to find. Can you not see that? Or is that the whole idea…?

[@TheInappropriate1]

Extremely good explanation about this hastily constructed piece of legislation.

[@zen1647]

For data privacy there should be an external verification auditor with negative and positive vetting. Automatic escalating fines for breaches.

[@moviesynopsis001]

Does this mean that the young people of Australia will be unable to participate in this online creator economy that has made so many other countries youth filthy rich? Sounds like a massive disadvantage for the young Australians who might have become famous content creators who will now no longer have that option. I also find it really strange how much the government cares about Australian childrens well being online but do nothing to assist so many families who are severely struggling due to this hyper inflated economy with their housing or food. My neighbours have been pouring buckets of water over their kids for bathes because they are unable to fix their shower or pay for the hot water so they leave buckets of water in the sun to let them heat up during the day.

[@graemeevans214]

This is a very good assessment of the proposed legislation and it’s ramifications imho

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Thanks. It was an effort on a very busy day.

[@Carl-md8pc]

Parents can just set up an account and let their children have access. Simples

[@copycat21c]

Or use a VPN. Or use a fake birth date. Or any other of a raft of different approaches. It is idiotic.

[@chrisnewman7281]

so much for Labor’s pledge reinstate some of the process rigour that had been missing for a few decades

[@doctorshoot]

One point is that cross platform sharing will still be available, one assumes, then material from a banned platform could be shared by an adult to a minor on an open messaging app

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

There is no legal prohibition on adults giving children access to social media - eg an adult establishing an account and giving their child the password so the child can access it whenever they want. The only legal prohibition is directed at the platform, requiring it to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from having their own account.

[@mamajax7551]

How is this legal ? What can we the public actually do to stop it?

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

Parliaments can pass laws. The only legal impediment is the Constitution. As I discuss in the video, there may be a problem with the implied freedom of political communication. If the public wants to put a stop to it, they should contact MPs and let them know they oppose it. The primary reason this bill is proceeding is because politicians believe it is popular and a vote-winner.

[@PeterKnagge]

1) everyone already verifies their identity on social media anyway 2) you are extremely underestimating how much damage US social media does to the world. Kids are dying, you sound like an internet addict, go touch grass.

[@someone9608]

I respectfully disagree. The primary reason for the introduction of this bill is a means to require all Australian citizens to have digital ids. This is a well known WEF agenda and many other western governments are also pushing this goal. Australia is the political litmus test to see how the public will or will not fight back. Sadly, the majority of the Australian public is so apathetic about government policy and politics in general (the teenagers too), that we are effectively sleepwalking our way into an Orwellian society.

[@Julia78309]

Exactly ​@@someone9608

[@DavidKrane1645]

@@constitutionalclarion1901 Well documented that the Labor-Liberal Uni-Party are shills for their WEF NWO corporate masters. Both parties consistently handball legislation back and forth to each other in order to achieve their Great Reset, Agenda 2030, 4th Industrial Revolution goals.

[@copycat21c]

Thank you so much. I saw headlines about this earlier in the week and, as a parent, was genuinely concerned. As far as I knew, we weren’t moving towards becoming a police state. (Keep the Spud outta the Lodge!)

[@braytongoodall2598]

One point at 11min 30s in: you can have ID verification with anonymous or pseudonymous posting. Given the US founding fathers themselves were writing pseudonymously, as did Kierkegaard, Voltaire, Lewis Carrol, George Orwell and many female writers, we can't really assume that ID verification would lead to visible identification of comments. Just that there'd be easier recourse against speech. If pseudonyms were made illegal, then in essence you're removing capacity for selective disclosure of identity. To me this is a major privacy concern (would usernames in a game be valid? would nicknames on facebook be?) and a free speech issue (due to chilling effects).

[@mindi2050]

It's not that I don't support protecting our young people. But I honestly don't see how this proposed legislation is going to work in real life. Same with some of the other bills that have been proposed lately.

[@jasonmullinder]

Facebook and other platforms already have ID verification systems in place that get applied randomly when issues over if someone is who they claim to be are raised, it also a tactic used by scammers. Being in the "not having photo ID" class of citizens, I clearly understand how I will be disadvantaged, but would prefer some consistency on enforcement to waiting for AI or randos who disagree with me to mass report me and get my accounts frozen

[@lazyfrogonalog]

This bill is more about helping newspapers, TV and radio to survive by putting obstacles in the way of the crowds of people giving up on their rubbish content and changing over to social media sites for news, education and entertainment. That's why old media are singing it's praises without a hint of scrutiny. The under 16 protection excuse is just a smoke screen in my opinion and I have an 11 year old.

[@musicalneptunian]

I absolutely agree. Meanwhile the old media run gambling ads in prime time sport. Precisely by sheer coincidence when young eyeballs are ripe for the picking.

[@GlennBurbridge]

Another bad law, how much more do we have to put up with.

[@michaelsecomb4115]

Can't understand why gambling platforms are not covered by the U16 ban, when gambling is such a major social problem. Glad to see KZbin excluded, as there are numerous worthy KZbin sites. I have used them for teaching English language to refugees. There are numerous international VPNs which Australians could connect to, and pretend to be based in another country, so the ban should be easily bypassed.

[@michaelsecomb4115]

How would the Australian government enforce this ban against platforms based outside Australia? They could just ignore it.

[@briananderson7285]

The government has an iron in the fire $$$$

[@amandamandamands]

@@michaelsecomb4115 Or they can do like Facebook has done when they are faced with things like Canada making it a requirement to only show local news. They addressed that by geo-blocking all news to Canada. I could easily see the various platforms deciding it is easier to geo-block us rather than work out way to verify age.

[@maccanorton]

I am very amused by the idea of young people watching the Clarion to protest government policy!

[@jools-jt9nd]

Control, control, control that's all it's about!! I'm very sorry for anyone who has been the subject or effected by bullying etc but as a 64 yr old its always gone on and there was no internet in my day. Agree it's more prevalent and probably easier as it can be done anonymously and witnessed/viewed by more people today but I don't see this bill serving any useful purpose other than control.

[@llamarama111]

Should we put kids in a bubble until they are 18, then let them out into a world you can’t navigate, or do we let parents parent and let them teach their children how to live in the world?

[@scottc3166]

The problem is that social media has been shown to harm children's development. And some bloody irresponsible parent allow their 10 year olds to access it. Which brings themes into the classroom that 10 year olds should not be exposed to. I all for not coddling our children, but within reason. I dont want some irresponsible parents affecting the development of my kids. Let them ruin their own kids lives

[@llamarama111]

@ yes I understand that argument but I don’t think that we can legislate stupid out of every scenario. It comes at a cost.

[@williamgray4341]

Every politician signed up to the e-safety online ACT ACT

[@1Mutton1]

This legislation will be as effective as the banning of pirate bay. Ie, absolutely no impact. .....and cost a crap load of money. How about the government focus on fixing legislatuon thats a problem instead of creating more problems.

[@adamsmith1846]

It's not designed to track ages, it's designed to bring in digital ID so they know who to arrest of they disagree with the government.. see UK arrests

[@ricshumack9134]

The separation of powers is being abused. More judicial power to politicians is how they like it, like ministerial discretion over gold mines.

[@PiedButcherbird]

As someone more familiar with the technological aspect of this bill, I would likely be more concerned if the government did specify precisely how to prevent under-16s from having accounts with the platform, as technology changes incredibly rapidly, and I would fear obsolete, ineffective, or insecure practices being mandated by law.

[@constitutionalclarion1901]

It's a dilemma. On the one hand, I agree that flexibility is needed because of the rapid change in technology. Freezing a particular method in law would be problematic, as it would soon become outdated or inappropriate. On the other hand, the current law gives far too much power to the Minister and creates considerable uncertainty, because Parliament effectively passed a law requiring people to do something, without clearly specifying what that something actually is.

[@adamgardner3364]

This legislation and the lack of a proper consultation makes me sick to the gut. What should ostensibly be a measure to protect our kids will be both ineffective and will result in the normalisation of PII collection by large social media companies who can hide behind a need to comply with this. Of course kids will hop off the Instagrams and tic tocs and into the dozens of wild west versions of these platforms where they will be expressed to much worse. As a voter from Greenway I will have to think very hard about my decision next year.

[@davidwilkie9551]

One might expect teaching the older folk what they have probably missed about the real significance and practices of Constitutional Democracy, always the current problem, to be at the top of the list of viewers who wil be affecting their children and children's children etc. Bit of a key communication Principle and absolutely necessary. Gret thanks to CC of course.

[@johnfitzpatrick2469]

Hi Professor. PART V (s) 51. The parliament shall, subject to this constitution... I suppose a responsible government 1890 is different to responsible government 2024 🌏🇦🇺

[@tinfoilhomer909]

Public identity for commenting is fine, so long as people also have freedom of speech, specifically the freedom to denounce religion.

[@barbmurphy3112]

Anyone looked into the Murdoch news corp starting up a “kids news” platform🤔🤔🤔 nothing to see here

[@tschannelrph]

God Save The King… God Bless the UK! Greetings from the Queen among the 27 Million Happy Australians. Iya Pacifico-Huggins.