61
votes
Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s with world-first law
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- A social media ban for under-16s passes the Australian Senate and will soon be a world-first law
- Published
- Nov 28 2024
- Word count
- 799 words
It’s striking the extent to which people no longer even seem to understand what the internet is anymore because their ideas of how it works is based entirely on using one of the social media platforms as an entry point.
It’s also a shame that people have decided that using the internet to socialize is the problem rather than algorithmic feeds. AOL Instant Messenger was not causing a mental health crisis in teens. Instagram and Snapchat did that. AIM was basically like talking on the phone via text. What’s different? Kids should be able to chat with each other outside of school. What they shouldn’t get is waves of abuse and bullying from anonymous online accounts and algorithmic feeds encouraging them to feel bad about themselves because depression and isolation is good for engagement. The critical thing though is that this shit isn’t good for adults either. The feeds should be banned not the socializing. In fact, the Meta suite isn’t even good for seeing content from people you actually know anymore. At this point my feed is almost 100% slop. I don’t see any updates from old friends and acquaintances unless they are getting married, announcing the birth of a child, or dead. It’s becomes completely useless as a way to be connected to people and really nothing has replaced it.
I also couldn’t find in the article any concrete definition of what “social media” is but it says it will make exceptions for educational sources like YouTube and WhatsApp. YouTube isn’t “social” unless you’re a YouTube with a bajillion followers. The comments are technically social but nobody uses them to socialize they just respond to the video. WhatsApp is chat app, and actually is social in the way that I’m talking about. But I also don’t view it as especially problematic aside from the ways in which it allows disinformation to cascade when people forward chain messages from random group chats. Thats solvable though, and more often than not it’s adults who fall for this (and then take action, like lynching people) based on it. I do not believe there is an epidemic of bullying across Discord or WhatsApp among youths. Maybe there is and I just don’t know, but it doesn’t seem to be the main vector.
I think this might be a little naive about how kids treat each other on social media. Bullying can happen both online and in person. Some of the worst offenders are below 18.
Algorithms aren’t necessary for memes to spread; it’s an evolutionary process and all you need is reply-all and cut-and-paste. A lot of bad stuff will happen due to poor moderation alone, if kids who are into that can find each other. I wonder how many kids use 4chan?
If logins are restricted, kids will find anonymous chat rooms.
I don’t think so. It’s not as if people didn’t bully each other via AIM all the time too. It’s just that if you’re annoyed with them you simply log off. But when your entire social life is in your phone pinging you at all times because the platforms that gatekeep it want to keep you hooked into an addictive usage loop, that’s when the bullying starts to feel more organized and persistent.
One thing algorithms do is encourages people to speak and react dramatically while also creating gamified incentives for trolling. Both of these both encourage bullying and prime people to being more sensitive to that bullying. They also, by establishing themselves and their moderation policies as the gatekeepers of what enters your feed, force you to accept whatever their standards are for good behavior for someone to interact with you. You don’t get to do that yourself. They take this power from the user because it’s more conducive to keeping you engaged and to serve you ads, but these are both against the user’s interests. Some amount of bullying will always be there, but the extent to which the platforms rob people of their ability to control who they talk to and who they hear from makes it much harder to escape.
Yes, smartphones becoming common results in a different dynamic than when we just logged in using a desktop computer at home. I'm not sure that it's any particular algorithm, so much as the device, though? (And OS-level notifications.)
A very simple algorithm like "notify me when someone replies" will result in faster-paced conversations than when people only check in at certain times of the day.
Perhaps rules about not using smartphones in school will help? There is a new law about that in California.
That’s part of it, but there’s also a way in which these applications are designed to foster addiction that’s independent of the notifications. In fact, the default scheme for notifications is itself designed for this. There’s no reason you need a push for every message. AIM would just bing for me once and have a red badge if I had any new messages since last opening it. It didn’t demand my attention every time.
That would be a lot better. I usually turn off notifications entirely instead.
(Somehow I end up checking Tildes all the time without any OS-level notifications, though.)
Same. And, critically, I don’t check it if I’m having a bad day. I end up doing stuff that’s actually restorative instead because it’s not trying to suck up my attention.
This isn't going to do anything. I feel like this was made to make subsequent internet control laws easier to implement.
This is really it. Prime the public for things to come. Good policy if it's followed
How do they propose to enforce this? The social media sites have no method for authenticating age at sign up, nor do I suspect that people really want that. Best case scenario, all the biggest sites block Australian access. Worst case, they just continue on as they have and dare Oz to do something about it.
Honestly I would love to see it. This would be an interesting experiment.
All I'm reading everywhere this new law is discussed, is "that's useless, you can't enforce this".
Besides the fact that there are technical means that can be used, I don't think that "how are they going to enforce this?" is a question that should be relevant when enacting a law. Most things that are forbidden by law are not preventable (only punishable).
You already can't register an account nearly anywhere if you're not 13. I think most people agree that this is a sane rule to apply, and removing that law would be a bad move. Yet it is not more enforceable than that new Australian law.
Edit: I'm not criticizing you for asking that question, Promonk. It's a valid question whose answer is interesting. I meant that when I usually read comments asking it, they more than often imply "you can't enforce this, ergo this is useless".
It's also completely ignored, precisely because it has no teeth. Instead of limiting the impact on children, it teaches them that micro-deceptions are a necessary and normal part of being online. Upon reflection, that's probably a correct lesson, considering the number of EULAs we've all affirmed we've read over the years.
The true issue I take with the general approach of this law is that I think it addresses the wrong problem. I don't think the real issue is so much that children can get on social media, it's that these companies tune their algorithms to maximize engagement with no regard for the actual content. If some anxiety peddler composes a post about a body image issue shared by a large number of people of any age that compels engagement, it will get amplified regardless of whether it's true or helpful. That creates incentive to create posts that prey upon anxieties. Children may be more susceptible to these things and they may not, I can't say. At the very least, they aren't the only ones susceptible to it.
Think of it this way: if someone opened up a cyanide bar and somehow managed to make it a trendy, hip place to patronize, it would be odd for authorities to hyperfocus on ensuring it excluded minors. Is carding kids really the biggest issue there?
You don't need a fictional example.
We have regular bars which sell recreational poison, and yes, while there's licensure, the day to day focus is mostly about ensuring minors don't have access. Social media algorithms are not inherently lethal and neither is alcohol. The comparison works fine.
So yes, it isn't really weird that the focus is on minors as that's how most of our vices work
I don't think the focus on minors is strange, per se, it's that it seems to be, I dunno, kind of defeatist or something? It's like everyone has given up on the idea of meaningfully and beneficially communicating online, and have decided to treat it like booze.
To my way of thinking, the issue isn't children accessing social media, it's what those sites serve them and how they go about doing it. There's a sort of psychic poison there that impacts everyone, not just children.
I’d be happy to see certain types of social media outright banned. People will do other stuff with their time. It’ll be fine.
Seems a bit drastic, and less "defeatist" than "defeated." Maybe there's still a shred of that early web optimism in me that refuses to die or something, but I can't help think there's some value in having the ability to communicate with the crowd.
Also, straight banning shit creeps me out. I start wondering who gets to decide what gets banned and why.
What do you feel like is the ideal solution? If you think these social media sites are functionally "poisonous" and thus impact everyone. But that it shouldn't be banned nor should the focus be on protecting minors from the "poison"
What is your ideal?
I don't know the solution entirely, DNAF, but I think it'll have to involve a move away from engagement-driven discovery and toward more stringent moderation. Changes to monetization would probably be necessary too. One of the worst things about the sites in question is that they're happy to serve you all manner of toxicity if they think that's what gets your eyeballs on ads. That needs to change for sure.
To be clear, I don't think all social media is inherently poisonous. I wouldn't be here if that were the case.
No I gathered that you didn't, but that feels more like the government taking over the sites more than regulating them. But perhaps you're thinking of different regulations rather than regulating for age, but overall regulating the algorithm/content/etc.
Personally I can't think of a way that I'd trust that given who is about to be in charge of our government in the US. But I appreciate wanting a different path. I just wanted to get a vibe for what your intent was!
I've been obsessing lately on how to shift incentives so that companies will be more concerned with their products and services than on the profit they can extract by them. We only tolerate the existence of massive corporations because they enable us to access products and services, and it seems to me that a great deal of the worst symptoms of what is called "late-stage capitalism" are down to this mismatch in priorities. It's likely I'm seeing this issue through that lens, whether that's warranted or not.
That's fair, it's just much bigger picture than I think I was parcing this with, at least.
I miss the days when social media was, you know, social. Facebook feeds would be only about my friends, what they were doing, I would get to chat with them, and it was just a lot more personable. Sure, there was still people tayloring their posts to create a certain image, but it was a lot more authentic than today. Now my feed is cluttered with crap from groups I never joined, people I never followed, and ads. It's not even social anymore. I literally only log on at this point for messaging with a few select people or posting pictures of hikes I do for my parents.
I spend a while aggressively hiding anything in my feed that wasn’t an original post from a friend. Shares, groups, anything of that sort get flagged as not interested->don’t show me anything from (original source). Some stuff still slips through, and my feed is a lot slower, but it’s mostly “real” posts now.
I also periodically trim my friends list, only adding/keeping people I have physically met and think there’s a chance of actually talking to them (not just a “maaaaybe someday” nostalgia feeling).
How long of a process was that?
Hmm, hard to say. It’s not too bad if you do it as you browse rather than front loading. Maintenance after a while is low. Think of it like bringing a garbage bag on your daily walk and casually picking up trash you happen to see on the path rather than a big Forest Restoration event.
Pruning the friends list is your best first step. Do you really care about that guy you last saw in primary school went on vacation? No, you’re never going to talk to him again, so goodbye. Fewer people sharing garbage means less garbage to flag and a much higher signal to noise ratio overall.
Then you can start flagging. Browse normally for however long you want, and every time you come across a share, tap the tree dots, scroll down and hit “Hide all from [third party source]”. Over time there’ll be less and less shares. You can also, from the same dot menu, unfollow or snooze your actual friend for 30 days - useful for people you want to keep in contact with but who are prolific sharers (eg daily good morning gifs from grandma) or go off for a while after a big controversial event (eg political commentary).
What I’ve been doing is a little different and doesn’t work for me. For example, I always mark all video shorts as “not interested” and they keep showing up. They aren’t anything my friends shared. Also, Facebook puts posts from people I’m not following at all in my feed.
Maybe I’ll try hiding posts from particular sources more, but it’s counterintuitive that it would work for posts from complete strangers. Aren’t there always more posts from strangers that Facebook will use to backfill your feed?
Yeah, the “I’m not interested in posts like this” kind of feedback is too vague and there’s so many signals that it’s hard to tell what’s working and what will undo your work. That’s why I stick to explicitly blocking sources.
As far as my feed, the only things I’m generally seeing that aren’t friends’ post are advertisements, which are obvious enough that my eyes skip over. I don’t have any standalone posts/shares from strangers though. Maybe there’s some other setting about suggested content or something that I’ve forgotten about.
Because it won't actually accomplish the goal of the bill and will mostly just be on-demand blackmail when the government needs to nudge social media to do something.
I think the real worst case would be sites enforcing mandatory ID verification for everyone connecting from an Australian IP. Could be circumvented with a VPN though.
It sounds like it also prohibits the companies from requiring government-issued ID at sign-up so hopefully that bullet is dodged.
This is all fairly poorly thought out, my best guess is we end up with something fairly toothless but the government campaigns on having tried to do something to protect the kids.
The only alternatives I can think of are bailing out of the country entirely or some sort of ripe for abuse detection of age based on an uploaded photo.
That’s already what happens for porn sites in Texas (and some other US states)
Apparently it's up to the social media sites to figure out. But, justifiably imo, there are fears it will turn into mandatory digital id
Since social networks are not allowed to check government ids (which would be the most straightforward way, used by banks) they’ll have to get creative, or shut off new signups entirely for Australians.
This is a business opportunity for someone to create a legally-compliant funnel for websites seeking new users.
I wonder if this law prevents indirect reliance on ids? For example, suppose banks set up OAuth, so a bank could vouch for you? Banks have so far shown no interest in this, but social networking sites seeking a way to allow new users to sign up would create a demand for it, assuming it’s legally allowed.
Maybe car dealers would be a source of signups, since children can’t drive? Porn sites that already check id? Any other business that only serves adults could be a source of referrals.
If only “systematic failures” are fined, it doesn’t have to be leakproof.
The social networks don't have to check the ID, the government has to provide an authentication flow where the user logs in with their digital ID that simply returns whether the user is eligible or not. Or use a captcha like solution with a browser extension.
No clue if the Australian gov figured this part out yet though.
Yes, disclosing the minimum information needed would be the ideal way to do it, whether the referral source is public or private. It would be nice if governments did this. I’m not expecting it, though, and maybe governments shouldn’t be the only source of referrals?
Most companies would like marketing data about their customers and will likely pay to get it, so they might also be interested in referral sources that provide more data.
The point of a law like this, regardless of if I agree with it or not, is not to enforce it on the children, but to stop the companies from knowingly profiting from it.