I've been wondering about this myself. The standard classical-liberal response would be to say "Ha! The censorious authoritarians think this is gonna stop kids from looking at social media? Kids are a helluva lot smarter and more resourceful than these pearl-clutching soccer parents."
But that kinda logic can also be overstated, eg. apparently, alcohol consumption during US prohibition actually did decrease considerably(just not enough to prevent the explosion in organized crime). And I don't have a priori objections to keeping certain material away from kids(eg. we couldn't buy porn when we were under 18, and it's still technically illegal for kids to do so). So I'll be interested to see how this turns out.
In a year's time, the politicians and civil servants who pushed this law through will be either a) hailed as saviours around the globe"They did what everyone said couldn't be done!!"), or b) mercilessly ridiculed around the globe("My parents couldn't stop me from looking at Playboy, but these guys thought they'd keep kids off the freaking internet?!")
My local library used to have a collection of Playboy interviews with no photos of anything, so apparently the literary content did have some appeal on its own.
I've heard people here in NZ complaining that it appears the social media sites also think they need age identification. It seems that there is no such prohibition here.
I'm not sure if it's a mistake or if somehow the corporations think they might as well prevent young people in other countries accessing the sites as well.
I've heard people here in NZ complaining that it appears the social media sites also think they need age identification. It seems that there is no such prohibition here.
You mean that people in New Zealand are complaining that the corporations which own social media are calling for regulation of social media?
No I mean that when they try to login from NZ the site asks for age id. As it would in Australia.
I can't verify this information, I overheard a conversation in a cafe! I don't use any sites where this might be an issue.
Thanks. Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how those claims shape up. Sometimes, there can be a post hoc ergo propter hoc effect, ie. in this case, routine sign-in problems get spun into slightly paranoid assumptions and rumours about illegal regulatory overspill from Australia.
Or maybe there is something to it. I'll speculate that if this effs up internet access for a large number of users in non-participating New Zealand, THAT story might overtake the domestic impact of the law as the main topic of public discussion.
As an American, I struggle to imagine how such a law could be enforced without parental cooperation, or even with. Kids are clever and remarkably single minded when they really want something.
I guess it might be easier to build a panopticon online than IRL, but it's still an awful lot of bother.
I don't know exactly the demographics across Australia but I suspect there's a fairly large Asian community in places like Melbourne and Sydney. Those communities often don't use "western" social media anyway, so I expect there's a brisk trade in switched on teens telling other teens how to use services beyond the scope of the legislation and/or regulatory authorities.
I found young people in Australia in the places I went fairly switched on and engaged with the world. Of course I didn't see more than a snapshot, but I can't really see how this is going to be more than an inconvenience to them.
One good thing is it is making parents more aware of what their children view online and the downsides of social media. As a casual relief teacher who teaches a lot of kids it's amazing how many kids are on things like Roblox or watch TikTok unsupervised who have parents who have no idea of the risks. Not all adults follow the news or parenting experts or even speak English. I'm sure many kids will find a way around it, and some parents won't care, but it is leading to good parents reducing screen time and thinking twice before buying their child a smartphone.
As quoted by ABC(Australia), an American psychologist has praised the law, as offering children "the childhood that we older people remember", because that's what the kids "long for", having "only seen it in movies".
He also phrases the law as "free[ing]" children from social media, this pretense to emancipatory intent justified by the claim that children only wanna go on social media because "that's where everyone else is".
I think the writer is philosophically confused, and is using the language of negative liberty to defend a policy of interventionist protection. Not that there's anything wrong with interventionist protection in regards to children(the law rightfully treats minors separately from adults in numerous contexts), but it's kinda grating to read the guy trying to make it sound like the Australian government is giving the kids exactly what they want on this issue.
HELPFUL PREDICTION: If you are an Australian adult who supports this law, you will NOT find universal approval for your position among the under-16 crowd. Probably the opposite.
I don't know exactly the demographics across Australia but I suspect there's a fairly large Asian community in places like Melbourne and Sydney. Those communities often don't use "western" social media anyway, so I expect there's a brisk trade in switched on teens telling other teens how to use services beyond the scope of the legislation and/or regulatory authorities.
Sorry to ask for clarification again, but...
Do you mean that Asian communities in those cities have a lot of members accustomed to dodging firewalls in overseas nations, so they'll be able to apply those skills to the new regulations in Australia?
I don't know exactly the demographics across Australia but I suspect there's a fairly large Asian community in places like Melbourne and Sydney. Those communities often don't use "western" social media anyway, so I expect there's a brisk trade in switched on teens telling other teens how to use services beyond the scope of the legislation and/or regulatory authorities.
Sorry to ask for clarification again, but...
Do you mean that Asian communities in those cities have a lot of members accustomed to dodging firewalls in overseas nations, so they'll be able to apply those skills to the new regulations in Australia?
Chinese people tend to use Chinese social media, as an example. I don't remember the name of the main one.
Anyway, I don't suppose English speaking Australians will use exclusively Chinese language services but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't other services from China or elsewhere that are beyond the scope of the Australian laws which maybe some teens will be helping their friends to access.
Parents are tired. And in a lot of ways, it's kinda like TV these days. Everyone wants passive entertainment to pass the time and stave off ennui.
And FWIW, in terms of facilitating social interaction, the internet, including social media, is WAY better than television. Even if it's just kids modifying and circulating some stupid meme around, that's better than just being zonked out in front of the TV watching sitcoms for hours on end.
I don't know exactly the demographics across Australia but I suspect there's a fairly large Asian community in places like Melbourne and Sydney. Those communities often don't use "western" social media anyway, so I expect there's a brisk trade in switched on teens telling other teens how to use services beyond the scope of the legislation and/or regulatory authorities.
Sorry to ask for clarification again, but...
Do you mean that Asian communities in those cities have a lot of members accustomed to dodging firewalls in overseas nations, so they'll be able to apply those skills to the new regulations in Australia?
Chinese people tend to use Chinese social media, as an example. I don't remember the name of the main one.
Anyway, I don't suppose English speaking Australians will use exclusively Chinese language services but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't other services from China or elsewhere that are beyond the scope of the Australian laws which maybe some teens will be helping their friends to access.
As an American, I struggle to imagine how such a law could be enforced without parental cooperation, or even with. Kids are clever and remarkably single minded when they really want something.
I guess it might be easier to build a panopticon online than IRL, but it's still an awful lot of bother.
What I've just been wondering...
If kids find a way to dodge the ID requirements and their parents don't stop them, will the law treat this the same way as eg. kids routinely bringing cigarettes into the home and smoking them with the parents' acquiesence? IOW if word gets out this is happening, child-welfare or even the police could maybe pay a visit?
Or is it just the state says "No minors", hopes for the best, and if it doesn't work out, oh well, we tried, and that's that?
I read in the NZ press that the government here looks like it might soon be following suit. If they want to do it before the current Parliamentary session ends, they are going to have to be quick
It strikes me that there's a whiff of something knee-jerk rightwing and deliberately anti-LGBTQ about this. Banning social media means that teens in these vulnerable groups are going to be increasingly isolated, one might think.
I saw a comment in an Australian newspaper where the benefits were said to be that it prevents Australian young people feeling compelled to be on social media for fear of being "left out".
Permanently ensuring that the entire cohort of young people are "left out" seems like quite an interesting way to achieve this goal.
The government here in Australia is centre left. Concerns have been raised about LGBTQ children who might live in rural areas or religious families where their sexuality will not be accepted. Perhaps there will be a work around for this. However isolated LGBTQ children can also be at high risk from predators on the internet. There have been a number of cases of LGBTQ children being groomed by adults pretending they just want to help them understand their sexuality. Definitely a complex issue and the law could be supported by right wing politicians or parents who think they can control children's belief systems by preventing them connecting with people of other beliefs, however that is not what the laws were put in place for in Australia.
The government here in Australia is centre left. Concerns have been raised about LGBTQ children who might live in rural areas or religious families where their sexuality will not be accepted. Perhaps there will be a work around for this.
What work around do you envisage?
However isolated LGBTQ children can also be at high risk from predators on the internet.
I believe even in the case of LGBTQ children they are more at risk from domestic abuse than stranger danger.
LGBTIQ+ Health Australia oppose it - noting that it will harm kids, they prefer targeted regulation of the various platforms.
The aim to protect young people from harm on social media platforms is commendable. However, this Bill is a blunt instrument for a nuanced problem. Evidence suggests that young people’s harmful experiences online—such as exposure to bullying, misinformation, or
exploitative content—are not addressed simply by banning access. Instead, harm is mitigated through targeted regulation of platforms to address dangerous and predatory behaviours, alongside comprehensive education, fostering resilience, and equipping young people with the tools to navigate the digital world safely.
I think this makes more sense as young people can easily bypass the ban using VPNs and if they then get onto an unregulated sewer of bad content they - like adults with poor digital literacy - can come to harm.
I think it's sometimes missed that older people are at risk of being groomed in different ways - eg for scamming purposes and radicalisation. People older than the age of consent get raped and murdered IRL by people they met online too. Banning kids from social media not only doesn't make them safer ( fire up the VPN!) but it doesn't make other at-risk people safer, while regulating social media platforms better can make a difference for everybody.
Even just putting back the few safeguards there were, which Musk and Zuckerberg took away, would be a start.
(And this is before we start on how digital age verification for all to enforce these age limits can be a both a potential tool of dangerous state surveillance and a tremendous crime risk through hacking)
As a general rule "Beware moral panics based on 'won't someone think of the children!'" still has a lot going for it.
I keep getting slideshows about what kids used to do in the 50s or 60s that would be banned today. One that is very prominent is kids would be allowed to play unsupervised all day. That is the way I remember it. That, and drinking from the garden house (a number of other things too.)
Here is an article from the American Psychological Association advocating more unsupervised time for kids.
Myself, I think the 16 age limit is too high. By the time kids are in middle school they are doing research on papers, robotics, STEM programs, and the like. Just recently I heard of a group of middle school students from NJ who have developed a strip test for lime disease. They competed against similar students from around the world. While they did not win the overall prize, people who saw their research were saying this might have diagnostic implications for other diseases too.
The government here in Australia is centre left. Concerns have been raised about LGBTQ children who might live in rural areas or religious families where their sexuality will not be accepted. Perhaps there will be a work around for this.
What work around do you envisage?
However isolated LGBTQ children can also be at high risk from predators on the internet.
I believe even in the case of LGBTQ children they are more at risk from domestic abuse than stranger danger.
I'm thinking of places for LGBTQ youth to meet run on the independent pages of reputable LGBTQ organisations with thorough regulations and moderators to boot any predators.
I agree with Louise that it would be best if social media companies did this themselves and protected adults too, but can't see it happening. All they care about is money, clicks and ad revenue.
The Australian government has also brought in laws that aim to force social media to repay scam victims if the ads were from their sites, but it remains to be seen how well that will work when they are used next year.
I suppose the danger of this, as it might be perceived by LGBTQ+ youth, is that it would be a prime target for anyone wishing them harm. Legal groups could lock them in litigation which they would probably not afford. It could even be a target to steal their data.
It rarely has the desired effect when a state tells marginal people which private or charitable services they should be using whilst locking them out of the services they want to use.
Even excellent charities may not be able to run those kinds of services on that basis.
I keep getting slideshows about what kids used to do in the 50s or 60s that would be banned today. One that is very prominent is kids would be allowed to play unsupervised all day. That is the way I remember it. That, and drinking from the garden house (a number of other things too.)
I had a relatively free-range childhood, largely caused by my parents and grandparents having lifelong impacts on their lives from two world wars. I wasn't living on a farm, but even in the suburbs there was plenty of mischief to get up to. Some of which could have gone fatally wrong (falling out of trees, jumping into rivers, playing with rubbish on wasteland) and some has left me scarred for life. I don't want to overstate or exaggerate, many in my generation had it much worse.
And you only have to go back a generation from me to widespread child deaths and high infant mortality.
I don't really think that we want young people to experience that, they largely don't want it and there's no reason why they should.
There is certainly an issue where young minds are exploited by the things they watch online. For example I was at the beach the other day and it is certainly noticeable that young people are nurturing a particular appearance which does not seem very healthy. Some were spending a lot of time lying directly in the sun and so on.
But then many young people have difficult lives and few aspirations for their lives. In a way that people in my generation and older did not have.
When things were bad, people in my generation still believed in the hope that they could be better. Hard work (often) was rewarded. There were opportunities for promotions and so on.
A big proportion of young people simply don't have that.
There is certainly an issue where young minds are exploited by the things they watch online. For example I was at the beach the other day and it is certainly noticeable that young people are nurturing a particular appearance which does not seem very healthy. Some were spending a lot of time lying directly in the sun and so on.
Hardcore sunbathing is a social media-driven phenomenon? I've been avoiding beaches for the last four decades or so, but I seem to recall it being a thing long before the internet came along.
Or is the problem that it's now specifically young people who are doing it?
There is certainly an issue where young minds are exploited by the things they watch online. For example I was at the beach the other day and it is certainly noticeable that young people are nurturing a particular appearance which does not seem very healthy. Some were spending a lot of time lying directly in the sun and so on.
Hardcore sunbathing is a social media-driven phenomenon? I've been avoiding beaches for the last four decades or so, but I seem to recall it being a thing long before the internet came along.
Or is the problem that it's now specifically young people who are doing it?
It was a definitely a thing long before the internet came along, and it was primarily young people doing it, at least where I was.
I'm old, I've seen a lot of stuff. But my recent visit it was particularly noticeable that people want a very specific look on the beach and want to film themselves. Maybe it is just something about young people in NZ, I have never seen such large numbers of young people on the beach who look so similar.
Elsewhere I've seen families, old people like me, men with beer bellies, and so on. What I saw wasn't that.
The Australian government has also brought in laws that aim to force social media to repay scam victims if the ads were from their sites, but it remains to be seen how well that will work when they are used next year.
I assume there has to be a criminal conviction before compensation is paid? Otherwise, what's to stop two con artists from running a double-fake scam, where Con 1 pretends to be a romance fraudster, sends Con 2 mushy love letters for a while, asks for and receives money supposedly for surgery, then seemingly stops contact, and then Con 2 sues the social media company for the amount he supposedly gave Con 1?
I'm not expecting anyone here to have the answer to this, just kinda ruminating on the possible unworkability of this law.
I'm old, I've seen a lot of stuff. But my recent visit it was particularly noticeable that people want a very specific look on the beach and want to film themselves. Maybe it is just something about young people in NZ, I have never seen such large numbers of young people on the beach who look so similar.
Elsewhere I've seen families, old people like me, men with beer bellies, and so on. What I saw wasn't that.
So, families, old people, pot-bellied men etc have stopped going to the beach? Or maybe they still go, but are crowded out by all the young people flocking in with body-types dictated by social media?
I'm old, I've seen a lot of stuff. But my recent visit it was particularly noticeable that people want a very specific look on the beach and want to film themselves. Maybe it is just something about young people in NZ, I have never seen such large numbers of young people on the beach who look so similar.
Elsewhere I've seen families, old people like me, men with beer bellies, and so on. What I saw wasn't that.
So, families, old people, pot-bellied men etc have stopped going to the beach? Or maybe they still go, but are crowded out by all the young people flocking in with body-types dictated by social media?
It seemed like the families were at one beach the teens at another.
Main point here is that there were hundreds of teens and none that I saw that broke a very particular type of body shape.
Maybe it is just something about young people in NZ, I have never seen such large numbers of young people on the beach who look so similar.
Perhaps you just haven’t been at the right beaches. I mean, I’ve seen the old men with pot bellies too, and the filming may be relatively new. But I definitely saw my share of lots of young people working on and hoping for the popular look of the day in the 1970s, 80s and 90s.
I'm thinking of places for LGBTQ youth to meet run on the independent pages of reputable LGBTQ organisations with thorough regulations and moderators to boot any predators.
So how do these come about, who mandates them and who runs them? Note that *government* funded programs of this kind are prone to attack by right wing interests throughout the Anglo-sphere. The reason youth are likely to take to the internet in the first place is because the isolated, and not in the kind of environment where they are likely to be surrounded with like minded peers.
And again, as above, domestic abuse is a significantly higher risk factor than stranger danger.
I agree with Louise that it would be best if social media companies did this themselves and protected adults too, but can't see it happening. All they care about is money, clicks and ad revenue.
There's no reason why we should expect that these sites would 'naturally' regulate themselves, we don't expect this of any other industry, this primarily amounts to a failure of will by government to regulate these sites.
Regulation of this sort suits large social media companies just fine, as they are able to capture ever more information, and smaller - often community run - sites are driven out of business by regulations that are fine for the large companies but are onerous at the small scale.
There are already organisations out there providing services and advice, though at a glance they tend to be for over 16 year olds. I agree that these services would be targeted and accused of grooming children if they targeted a younger demographic. There might also be legal ramifications. So that leaves out children ages 11 to 15. What would be the solution for that age group?
Yes domestic violence is more common than attacks by people outside the family, but this is not about 'strangers danger'. Children can make real friends online, but adult or older teen predators can befriend and form relationships with a view to abuse as well. I know a 12 year old targeted by a 14 year old, without going into distressing details. Given his age he didn't face legal repercussions then, but he has been in more trouble with the police for various crimes now he is 16. He was her boyfriend in her eyes, not a stranger. They had met in real life but most interactions were online.
Parents are tired. And in a lot of ways, it's kinda like TV these days. Everyone wants passive entertainment to pass the time and stave off ennui.
And FWIW, in terms of facilitating social interaction, the internet, including social media, is WAY better than television. Even if it's just kids modifying and circulating some stupid meme around, that's better than just being zonked out in front of the TV watching sitcoms for hours on end.
I would tend to agree, though the way my kids use some video outlets I'm sometimes skeptical. It's less organized and a lot more hyper-sensory. A lot of youtubers aren't much different than TV shows. They just put out content and people watch it.
It's far too early to tell yet, and no-one here (I'm in Australia) thinks that it will stop all kids using social media. It's been made clear that the under 16s and their parents will not be prosecuted - but the media platforms may be if they're not trying hard enough to keep under-16s off. My 15yr old granddaughter has been kicked off Snapchat and (according to her mother) hasn't yet found a way round this! And she's cross. But she'll survive it. At the moment we're hearing a lot of protests about the new law, and they are noisy. Whether they remain the dominant voice remains to be seen. We are hearing some teenagers are glad to be rid of the pressure of social media, but at the moment they're a minority voice - time will tell.
I do think that social norms will shift - towards parents being more cautious about giving their kids smartphones early, about monitoring phone use of 12-15 yr olds more carefully - it gives parents ammunition to step in. But it won't be foolproof.
There are concerns about LGBTQ youth in isolated areas, but I'm assuming they have enough creativity to develop alternative means of connecting with each other. No-one's stopping them using the internet or messaging.
Yes domestic violence is more common than attacks by people outside the family, but this is not about 'strangers danger'. Children can make real friends online, but adult or older teen predators can befriend and form relationships with a view to abuse as well.
Sorry, I'm going to drop out of this conversation as I just got some real life news about someone I care about. I'm worried about them and this conversation is too close to home right now. I would say more if I could, I am just praying for justice for another woman and that the woman I care for stays safe and sees sense in this situation. It's really serious and upsetting.
Sorry, I'm going to drop out of this conversation as I just got some real life news about someone I care about. I'm worried about them and this conversation is too close to home right now. I would say more if I could, I am just praying for justice for another woman and that the woman I care for stays safe and sees sense in this situation. It's really serious and upsetting.
There is actually a trend (at least on TikTok) of sunbathing without sunscreen for a dark tan in order to get tan lines - also there has been a rise in influencers that claim that sunscreen is unhealthy/unnecessary or even causes skin cancer rather than preventing it. I don't have TikTok but I follow a YouTuber called Shawna Ripari who reports on TikTok and wider social media trends, mostly ones to do with hyperconsumption but other trends too such as the dark tan aesthetic.
I don't know what the answer is. I think people in general need more offline time (myself included) and there are LGBTQ+ online spaces that aren't part of social media - I think different people mean different things by "social media", but there are sites like Tumblr and Reddit which are strictly speaking social media but aren't algorithm-driven and don't have short-form content. It seems to be algorithms and short-form content that cause more problems than the platforms per se, Instagram before Facebook/Meta bought it was very different for eg.
I don't know what the answer is. I think people in general need more offline time (myself included) and there are LGBTQ+ online spaces that aren't part of social media - I think different people mean different things by "social media", but there are sites like Tumblr and Reddit which are strictly speaking social media but aren't algorithm-driven and don't have short-form content. It seems to be algorithms and short-form content that cause more problems than the platforms per se, Instagram before Facebook/Meta bought it was very different for eg.
Yeah, I was wondering what definition of "social media" the Australian law was employing.
Specifically, I was curious what would happen if some 13-year old who is now barred from her own Facebook community started an internet 1.0 style board(eg. like SoF), and invited all her old friends from Facebook over. I assume the law wouldn't be able to touch them, because it's not social media.
Granted, I suppose it wouldn't be quite the same experience.
There is actually a trend (at least on TikTok) of sunbathing without sunscreen for a dark tan in order to get tan lines . . . .
Yep, that was happening in the 70s and 80s. Or at least a form of it was. Tanning oils or lotions that contained little if any sun screen were popular.
There is actually a trend (at least on TikTok) of sunbathing without sunscreen for a dark tan in order to get tan lines . . . .
Yep, that was happening in the 70s and 80s. Or at least a form of it was. Tanning oils or lotions that contained little if any sun screen were popular.
I mean, I'm aware of that - and then there was a significant gap in which that was no longer fashionable. Nobody is claiming that teenagers have invented tanning, simply pointing out that tanning becoming fashionable again is concerning. Much like smoking increasing in popularity, nobody is under the impression that these are new trends but it doesn't make them less of a public health concern.
There is actually a trend (at least on TikTok) of sunbathing without sunscreen for a dark tan in order to get tan lines . . . .
Yep, that was happening in the 70s and 80s. Or at least a form of it was. Tanning oils or lotions that contained little if any sun screen were popular.
I mean, I'm aware of that - and then there was a significant gap in which that was no longer fashionable. Nobody is claiming that teenagers have invented tanning, simply pointing out that tanning becoming fashionable again is concerning.
I think @Basketactortale was indeed suggesting that social media has brought about something different with regard to young people, beaches and tanning from what has been seen in the past.
Comments
But that kinda logic can also be overstated, eg. apparently, alcohol consumption during US prohibition actually did decrease considerably(just not enough to prevent the explosion in organized crime). And I don't have a priori objections to keeping certain material away from kids(eg. we couldn't buy porn when we were under 18, and it's still technically illegal for kids to do so). So I'll be interested to see how this turns out.
In a year's time, the politicians and civil servants who pushed this law through will be either a) hailed as saviours around the globe"They did what everyone said couldn't be done!!"), or b) mercilessly ridiculed around the globe("My parents couldn't stop me from looking at Playboy, but these guys thought they'd keep kids off the freaking internet?!")
My local library used to have a collection of Playboy interviews with no photos of anything, so apparently the literary content did have some appeal on its own.
I'm not sure if it's a mistake or if somehow the corporations think they might as well prevent young people in other countries accessing the sites as well.
You mean that people in New Zealand are complaining that the corporations which own social media are calling for regulation of social media?
I can't verify this information, I overheard a conversation in a cafe! I don't use any sites where this might be an issue.
Thanks. Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how those claims shape up. Sometimes, there can be a post hoc ergo propter hoc effect, ie. in this case, routine sign-in problems get spun into slightly paranoid assumptions and rumours about illegal regulatory overspill from Australia.
Or maybe there is something to it. I'll speculate that if this effs up internet access for a large number of users in non-participating New Zealand, THAT story might overtake the domestic impact of the law as the main topic of public discussion.
I guess it might be easier to build a panopticon online than IRL, but it's still an awful lot of bother.
I found young people in Australia in the places I went fairly switched on and engaged with the world. Of course I didn't see more than a snapshot, but I can't really see how this is going to be more than an inconvenience to them.
He also phrases the law as "free[ing]" children from social media, this pretense to emancipatory intent justified by the claim that children only wanna go on social media because "that's where everyone else is".
I think the writer is philosophically confused, and is using the language of negative liberty to defend a policy of interventionist protection. Not that there's anything wrong with interventionist protection in regards to children(the law rightfully treats minors separately from adults in numerous contexts), but it's kinda grating to read the guy trying to make it sound like the Australian government is giving the kids exactly what they want on this issue.
HELPFUL PREDICTION: If you are an Australian adult who supports this law, you will NOT find universal approval for your position among the under-16 crowd. Probably the opposite.
Sorry to ask for clarification again, but...
Do you mean that Asian communities in those cities have a lot of members accustomed to dodging firewalls in overseas nations, so they'll be able to apply those skills to the new regulations in Australia?
Chinese people tend to use Chinese social media, as an example. I don't remember the name of the main one.
Anyway, I don't suppose English speaking Australians will use exclusively Chinese language services but I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't other services from China or elsewhere that are beyond the scope of the Australian laws which maybe some teens will be helping their friends to access.
And FWIW, in terms of facilitating social interaction, the internet, including social media, is WAY better than television. Even if it's just kids modifying and circulating some stupid meme around, that's better than just being zonked out in front of the TV watching sitcoms for hours on end.
Thanks. Yeah, that sounds plausible.
What I've just been wondering...
If kids find a way to dodge the ID requirements and their parents don't stop them, will the law treat this the same way as eg. kids routinely bringing cigarettes into the home and smoking them with the parents' acquiesence? IOW if word gets out this is happening, child-welfare or even the police could maybe pay a visit?
Or is it just the state says "No minors", hopes for the best, and if it doesn't work out, oh well, we tried, and that's that?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/360912270/australia-just-banned-kids-social-media-will-new-zealand-and-subscribe
It strikes me that there's a whiff of something knee-jerk rightwing and deliberately anti-LGBTQ about this. Banning social media means that teens in these vulnerable groups are going to be increasingly isolated, one might think.
I saw a comment in an Australian newspaper where the benefits were said to be that it prevents Australian young people feeling compelled to be on social media for fear of being "left out".
Permanently ensuring that the entire cohort of young people are "left out" seems like quite an interesting way to achieve this goal.
What work around do you envisage?
I believe even in the case of LGBTQ children they are more at risk from domestic abuse than stranger danger.
Find their submission to the consultation on the bill here
https://www.lgbtiqhealth.org.au/submission_on_online_safety_amendment_social_media_minimum_age_bill_2024
I think this makes more sense as young people can easily bypass the ban using VPNs and if they then get onto an unregulated sewer of bad content they - like adults with poor digital literacy - can come to harm.
I think it's sometimes missed that older people are at risk of being groomed in different ways - eg for scamming purposes and radicalisation. People older than the age of consent get raped and murdered IRL by people they met online too. Banning kids from social media not only doesn't make them safer ( fire up the VPN!) but it doesn't make other at-risk people safer, while regulating social media platforms better can make a difference for everybody.
Even just putting back the few safeguards there were, which Musk and Zuckerberg took away, would be a start.
(And this is before we start on how digital age verification for all to enforce these age limits can be a both a potential tool of dangerous state surveillance and a tremendous crime risk through hacking)
As a general rule "Beware moral panics based on 'won't someone think of the children!'" still has a lot going for it.
Here is an article from the American Psychological Association advocating more unsupervised time for kids.
Myself, I think the 16 age limit is too high. By the time kids are in middle school they are doing research on papers, robotics, STEM programs, and the like. Just recently I heard of a group of middle school students from NJ who have developed a strip test for lime disease. They competed against similar students from around the world. While they did not win the overall prize, people who saw their research were saying this might have diagnostic implications for other diseases too.
What work around do you envisage?
I'm thinking of places for LGBTQ youth to meet run on the independent pages of reputable LGBTQ organisations with thorough regulations and moderators to boot any predators.
I agree with Louise that it would be best if social media companies did this themselves and protected adults too, but can't see it happening. All they care about is money, clicks and ad revenue.
The Australian government has also brought in laws that aim to force social media to repay scam victims if the ads were from their sites, but it remains to be seen how well that will work when they are used next year.
It rarely has the desired effect when a state tells marginal people which private or charitable services they should be using whilst locking them out of the services they want to use.
Even excellent charities may not be able to run those kinds of services on that basis.
I had a relatively free-range childhood, largely caused by my parents and grandparents having lifelong impacts on their lives from two world wars. I wasn't living on a farm, but even in the suburbs there was plenty of mischief to get up to. Some of which could have gone fatally wrong (falling out of trees, jumping into rivers, playing with rubbish on wasteland) and some has left me scarred for life. I don't want to overstate or exaggerate, many in my generation had it much worse.
And you only have to go back a generation from me to widespread child deaths and high infant mortality.
I don't really think that we want young people to experience that, they largely don't want it and there's no reason why they should.
There is certainly an issue where young minds are exploited by the things they watch online. For example I was at the beach the other day and it is certainly noticeable that young people are nurturing a particular appearance which does not seem very healthy. Some were spending a lot of time lying directly in the sun and so on.
But then many young people have difficult lives and few aspirations for their lives. In a way that people in my generation and older did not have.
When things were bad, people in my generation still believed in the hope that they could be better. Hard work (often) was rewarded. There were opportunities for promotions and so on.
A big proportion of young people simply don't have that.
Hardcore sunbathing is a social media-driven phenomenon? I've been avoiding beaches for the last four decades or so, but I seem to recall it being a thing long before the internet came along.
Or is the problem that it's now specifically young people who are doing it?
Elsewhere I've seen families, old people like me, men with beer bellies, and so on. What I saw wasn't that.
I assume there has to be a criminal conviction before compensation is paid? Otherwise, what's to stop two con artists from running a double-fake scam, where Con 1 pretends to be a romance fraudster, sends Con 2 mushy love letters for a while, asks for and receives money supposedly for surgery, then seemingly stops contact, and then Con 2 sues the social media company for the amount he supposedly gave Con 1?
I'm not expecting anyone here to have the answer to this, just kinda ruminating on the possible unworkability of this law.
So, families, old people, pot-bellied men etc have stopped going to the beach? Or maybe they still go, but are crowded out by all the young people flocking in with body-types dictated by social media?
It seemed like the families were at one beach the teens at another.
Main point here is that there were hundreds of teens and none that I saw that broke a very particular type of body shape.
So how do these come about, who mandates them and who runs them? Note that *government* funded programs of this kind are prone to attack by right wing interests throughout the Anglo-sphere. The reason youth are likely to take to the internet in the first place is because the isolated, and not in the kind of environment where they are likely to be surrounded with like minded peers.
And again, as above, domestic abuse is a significantly higher risk factor than stranger danger.
There's no reason why we should expect that these sites would 'naturally' regulate themselves, we don't expect this of any other industry, this primarily amounts to a failure of will by government to regulate these sites.
Regulation of this sort suits large social media companies just fine, as they are able to capture ever more information, and smaller - often community run - sites are driven out of business by regulations that are fine for the large companies but are onerous at the small scale.
Yes domestic violence is more common than attacks by people outside the family, but this is not about 'strangers danger'. Children can make real friends online, but adult or older teen predators can befriend and form relationships with a view to abuse as well. I know a 12 year old targeted by a 14 year old, without going into distressing details. Given his age he didn't face legal repercussions then, but he has been in more trouble with the police for various crimes now he is 16. He was her boyfriend in her eyes, not a stranger. They had met in real life but most interactions were online.
I would tend to agree, though the way my kids use some video outlets I'm sometimes skeptical. It's less organized and a lot more hyper-sensory. A lot of youtubers aren't much different than TV shows. They just put out content and people watch it.
I do think that social norms will shift - towards parents being more cautious about giving their kids smartphones early, about monitoring phone use of 12-15 yr olds more carefully - it gives parents ammunition to step in. But it won't be foolproof.
There are concerns about LGBTQ youth in isolated areas, but I'm assuming they have enough creativity to develop alternative means of connecting with each other. No-one's stopping them using the internet or messaging.
All of this happens offline too.
Hope things work out as well as they can, Milli.
I don't know what the answer is. I think people in general need more offline time (myself included) and there are LGBTQ+ online spaces that aren't part of social media - I think different people mean different things by "social media", but there are sites like Tumblr and Reddit which are strictly speaking social media but aren't algorithm-driven and don't have short-form content. It seems to be algorithms and short-form content that cause more problems than the platforms per se, Instagram before Facebook/Meta bought it was very different for eg.
Yeah, I was wondering what definition of "social media" the Australian law was employing.
Specifically, I was curious what would happen if some 13-year old who is now barred from her own Facebook community started an internet 1.0 style board(eg. like SoF), and invited all her old friends from Facebook over. I assume the law wouldn't be able to touch them, because it's not social media.
Granted, I suppose it wouldn't be quite the same experience.
Facebook was just an example. Whatever site they're likely to be on.
Thanks.
I mean, I'm aware of that - and then there was a significant gap in which that was no longer fashionable. Nobody is claiming that teenagers have invented tanning, simply pointing out that tanning becoming fashionable again is concerning. Much like smoking increasing in popularity, nobody is under the impression that these are new trends but it doesn't make them less of a public health concern.