[HN Gopher] How will Australia's under-16 social media ban work?...
___________________________________________________________________
How will Australia's under-16 social media ban work? We asked the
law's enforcer
Author : segasaturn
Score : 23 points
Date : 2025-01-31 21:06 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org)
| XorNot wrote:
| In short: they have no idea.
|
| They had no idea when it was passed, and this article confirms
| the same because "there's been promising research you do it by
| <thing>".
| chris_wot wrote:
| They won't. They can't. It's baked into the legislation!
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| From top AU banning official: all [age
| verification methods] have privacy implications. There was big
| concern with providing government ID. But there are digital
| identity providers...
|
| This is the point where Gov officials shift from talking about
| privacy concerns to pretending.
|
| In this case, she's predictably offloading responsibility to a
| 3rd party provider. I will guess the official is minimally aware
| that leaks are nearly inevitable (partially due to lax laws) and
| all of that ID data will be leaked eventually. Probably by a 3rd
| party to the 3rd party.
|
| Why deceive the reporter and readers on privacy? Because
| addressing privacy is hard. It takes time, effort, _integrity_
| and thoughtfulness.
|
| Because every Gov is loaded with depts that exploit privacy
| failings to their own advantage.
|
| Because elections are funded by lobbyists that use our data
| against us.
|
| Add those up and there is so much pushback against respecting
| privacy - you could launch a spacecraft with it.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I guess it depends on what the ID data is? If it's just a
| couple pictures and maybe not even your name then there's not
| much impact in a leak.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > I guess it depends on what the ID data is?
|
| At the minimimum it will be Everything on a
| Gov ID All info demanded during the original
| collection process + demands that get added v2, v3 ...
| All possible metadata Data from other sources, added
| downstream to make it more valuable to govs/corps
|
| The ages of leak victims: 16 and 17 yo
| Under 16 because many will try Everyone else
| x0x0 wrote:
| There is a separate article
| https://www.npr.org/2024/11/28/g-s1-36142/australia-social-m...
| linked in the post. It says:
|
| > _amendments [...] bolster privacy protections. Platforms
| would not be allowed to compel users to provide government-
| issued identity documents including passports or driver 's
| licenses, nor could they demand digital identification through
| a government system._
|
| So I guess facial recognition it is. Or my personal guess, a
| government data feed on birth dates.
|
| Any other solution is too stupid to discuss -- I would be
| stunned if it's possible to use facial recognition to
| differentiate a 15 y/o from a 16 y/o in anything approaching a
| reliable way.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > _Platforms would not be allowed to compel users to provide
| government-issued identity documents including passports or
| driver 's licenses, nor could they demand digital
| identification through a government system._
|
| This leaves a lot of room for bad acting. The data collector
| need not compel. They can have 3 methods available but have 2
| be a hot mess of unreliability.
|
| FacRec has unreliability baked in - increasingly so, the
| further from white ones skin is.
| segasaturn wrote:
| I agree with everything you're saying about how hard the
| privacy issue is, but would also like to add that the social
| media companies are incentivized to act like they have no idea
| how to implement a solution, _because they want teens using
| their apps_. The Facebook Files make it abundantly clear that
| social companies see teen users are their most valuable asset,
| since the rest of the culture tends to follow where teens go.
| When the social companies, who are collectively worth tens of
| trillions of dollars, say they don 't know how to implement the
| law without convoluted, privacy-destroying, digital government
| IDs I just don't buy it.
| notTooFarGone wrote:
| What I don't get is why not use the fucking ID card?
|
| The government can build a service to verify ones identity and
| age and social media apps don't have to save IDs.
|
| The whole privacy shit is just weaseling out of responsibility.
| genidoi wrote:
| The privacy concerns and "ID everyone" are the boring, standard
| dystopian parts of this, perfectly in line with the government-
| by-nannying that Canberra types enjoy.
|
| The better question is what counts as social media? Is HN social
| media that under 16yo Australian's need to be kept away from?
| hsuduebc2 wrote:
| I'm not sure that there is a proven link between hacker news
| use and elevated probability of depression and anxiety in
| children and adolescents.
|
| So I guess it's aimed at sites that are supposed to cause these
| problems?
| kennysoona wrote:
| It can't work. Teens will just jump to mastodon instances. I can
| even see it being the case where running an instance become like
| being able to make fake ids or sell some weed or something, one
| person will do it and be cool have friends because of that.
| Parents won't know about it and it won't raise any flags in logs
| if done well.
|
| Not to mention just using a VPN or something.
| 4ad wrote:
| The system will work just fine. You seem to be under the
| impression that the purpose of the system is to prevent
| teenagers from accessing some websites. That is not the purpose
| of the system, that's just the pretext for implementing it.
| kennysoona wrote:
| You're saying the system is to get everyone to submit their
| ID so their social media can be tracked? That too will be
| mitigated by increased adoption of decentralized services.
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| They should just ban social media for everyone and see what
| happens.
| asdefghyk wrote:
| Yes if social media companies can not implement for under 16,
| just ban them in complete country. If they do not do it, put
| owners in jail.
| mianos wrote:
| As an Australian parent of a 14-year-old, I find social media to
| be a significant hassle. Yet, I know delivery drivers who are far
| more technologically proficient than many government leaders. I
| had expected that, even if the public face was somewhat just a
| pretty face and a good talker, there would be a knowledgeable
| team working behind the scenes. However, this ban has convinced
| me that there isn't a single informed voice involved in the
| process.
| ggm wrote:
| Homomorphic encryption and trusted third parties. It's what the
| Australian Privacy Commission, and the CSIRO (government funded
| (commonwealth) scientific industrial research organisation) said
| would probably work.
| jakub_g wrote:
| > 84% of 8- to 12-year-olds are already on social media. And
| interestingly, we asked, "Were your parents or any adults aware
| that you were setting up these social media accounts early?" And
| 80% of them said yes. And in 90% of cases, it was parents that
| helped them set up their accounts
|
| What's preventing the parents to do the account creation
| verification for the kids, and then kids just taking over the
| account? (Unless there's constant re-verification daily, which no
| apps do)
|
| The only thing is that the ban gives parents some way to say "no"
| but given enough nagging...
|
| Or, you know, they can find someone a few years elder, just like
| when buying booze and cigarettes.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-31 23:00 UTC)