Welp…I work with kids and I previously supported the ban….but I’ve done a 180.
Honest Government Ad | Social Media Ban
Submitted 5 days ago by Zagorath@aussie.zone to australia@aussie.zone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxRB5qWphJE
Comments
MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world 4 days ago
Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 days ago
Yeah don’t get me wrong, I 100% support the stated intent of the ban. It’s just a terrible method to go about it. Facebook is known to have commissioned internal studies about the psychological effects of changes to their algorithm, and then when those studies show the change causes harm, but also produce a little more profit, they go with the profit every time. Why don’t we make that illegal?
If we have to do age-gating, why not require it to be done in a privacy-preserving way, such as parental controls, zero-knowledge proofs, or blind signatures? Parental controls would, in fact, be by far the easiest for everyone involved, and the only information that would actually need to flow is from the parent to their kids’ devices, and then the devices reporting “yes, this is a child” or “no, this is not a child”.
The answer is: because the government didn’t care. It didn’t want to actually fix the problem. It didn’t want to listen to experts’ opinions or consider the broader public’s concerns. It wanted to win some quick easy PR. That’s why submissions into the legislation were open for just one day, and why Parliament didn’t even take the time to consider the small number of submissions that were able to be made in that limited window. A government that is acting seriously in response to a chronic threat (I can make some exception for quick responses into sudden, unexpected, acute crises) does not behave in this way. Ever. Good legislation takes time, and this sort of hurried response only indicates that it knew it was doing the wrong thing, and wanted to minimise the amount of time it was exposed to criticism.
melbaboutown@aussie.zone 4 days ago
👆 All of this.
Parental controls can still be used to isolate if the parents are extremely religious or abusive but this is a much more reasonable and effective way to go about it.
Will some kids get around it? Yes, some kids will get around whatever. They will also get around this impending legislation.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 days ago
Oh, I loaded up the page previously before your edit. Regarding the edit, not only will it prevent kids accessing community, but it may also drive them into darker, more unregulated parts of the Web. Similar to how porn bans (whether outright bans or stricter age-gating) only really affect Pornhub—probably the most well-regulated and “safe” porn site out there. Block that, and you’ll get people going to sketchy Russian sites where they might encounter much, much more terrible stuff.
MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world 4 days ago
Nods. The ban is only going to protect kids that have parents who want them protected/have the technical expertise to do it.
Meanwhile all the fee range kids out there…which, let’s be honest, is most of them…are just going to find a bunch seedy apps and workarounds…and guess who else is going to be lurking in these spaces.
Mountaineer@aussie.zone 4 days ago
All good, I feel like we’re in total agreement here.
shirro@aussie.zone 4 days ago
I have been very proactive as a parent keeping my kids away from shit social media. The government never asked me. I sent them feedback. They gave me a form response. I support being able to opt out of algorithms and attention spam. I should be championing what they are doing. I support protecting kids from immoral corporations who don’t give a fuck about their welfare. But the response is half arsed and full of bullshit. We deserved better.
And we deserve more variety in politics. Sensible moderate parties with sensible policies as an alternative to the ALP for Labor voters. I suspect a lot of trad liberal voters feel the same about their mob.
Longmactoppedup@aussie.zone 4 days ago
Resisting the urge to send this video as a reply to the boot licking email my kids school sent to the parents regarding this bullshit.
Mountaineer@aussie.zone 4 days ago
Beyond the above, I feel there’s an inherent value to anonymous conversation that will be lost.
Sure, anonymous conversation allows echo chambers where cookers come up with nonsense - but every societal upheaval in the past would have started with unsanctioned conversations happening behind closed doors.
Woman’s suffrage?
Same sex marriage?
Person-hood/voting rights for indigenous Australians?It’s easy to see them as obvious now, but once they were illegal.
Those changes occurred in public referendums that started with private conversations.Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 days ago
This law doesn’t actually change that, necessarily. It applies to “social media”, and not to “chat” applications. As such, Discord is apparently not included (though I’d argue it really should be, under the letter of the law, because it straddles the line between chat and social, but in my experience it sits mostly on the social side of the line), and apps like What’s App, Messenger, and Signal are definitely exempt. The law also doesn’t actually require deanonymisation. Just reasonable steps to demonstrate they are old enough.
You can see how AZ has chosen to go about complying. Other sites might comply just by looking at the age of an account, or usage patterns (e.g., accounts that have talked about jobs, taxes, and home ownership might be presumed to be older, while accounts that talk about Roblox are assumed under age). Or they might use the identifying options of facial recognition and government ID, but through an intermediary so the site itself never traces your account to your real ID. Indeed, this last option is arguably how it should have been required to be done—using blind signatures or zero-knowledge proofs involving trusted age verifiers—with methods that could identify the person directly being banned.
Mountaineer@aussie.zone 4 days ago
I understand that I’m making a slippery slope argument, a fallacy in itself.
I just don’t trust that the purpose of this legislation is what it says on the tin because it’ll never achieve it’s stated aim, it’ll just teach a whole generation how to break the law.
And having failed, will the government stop?
No, they’ll try to ban VPNs, or something else equally vacuous.
Nath@aussie.zone 4 days ago
I think this about sums everything up. I just pinned it to the top of Local with the non-satire post. 😀
Fleur_@aussie.zone 4 days ago
Thinking piefed for my next instance when I get banned? Any other suggestions lads?
Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 days ago
fwiw I just DMed a link to this comment as my age verification. I don’t think Lodion is being too strict about it. Just DM a story about some cultural touchstone from your childhood and you’ll probably be fine. No real need to go elsewhere.
If you do decide to move elsewhere though, Piefed sounds pretty good these days. I’d probably avoid quokk.au (even though it would actually be my first choice otherwise). Lemmy, Piefed, and Mbin are pretty much the entirety of the threadiverse as far as I’m aware, though I’m not sure how feature rich Mbin is and I’d probably avoid it on that ground.
Fleur_@aussie.zone 3 days ago
They can take my word for it
Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 5 days ago
😆
Zagorath@aussie.zone 5 days ago
Juice Media are always great, but this is excellent even by their standards. The fact that they lead with the fact that banning kids is just a patch on the real problem (which is harmful algorithms) is just bang on. Also highlighting the many beneficial things social media can do, the fact that the ban introduces major privacy risks, and the incredibly untransparent way in which it was rushed through Parliament.
MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world 4 days ago
I can’t believe it didn’t occur to me that what should actually be done is regulation of the algorithms.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 days ago
Of course, we are talking about the same Government that commissioned a study into problem gambling, and then completely ignored it after it came back with 31 recommendations, including the phased-in banning of gambling advertising (recommendations 16 and 26). Two and a half years later, the Government has given no response. This despite the fact that they are required by House of Representatives rules to respond within 6 months. So actually solving problems, even when they’re given a clear roadmap to how to solve the problem, doesn’t seem to be high on Albanese’s agenda.
shirro@aussie.zone 4 days ago
YouTube’s parent controls allowed me to set “age appropriate content” sort of(my kids are older) disabled comments, remove ads with premium. But they never allowed me to remove shorts or recommendations either for myself or my kids because they want the addiction dial set to 11. The government have made a mess of things but the companies are far from innocent. It’s a shame the govt went after age verification instead of consumer rights to disable all the crap. Very poorly advised. Big tech will come out of this stronger and more evil and will work out ways to target vulnerable people without logins.
Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 days ago
Enhancer for YouTube works on your computer. YouTube ReVanced works on Android phones, if you want these features.