Reddit: Hi, I’m an american multinational and I’m going to tell you why a law voted by the Parliament of Australia is wrong.
Will Reddit's challenge to Australia's "social media ban" succeed? | Constitutional Clarion
Submitted 8 hours ago by Zagorath@aussie.zone to australia@aussie.zone
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7CMHW1bl7U
Comments
kwero@sh.itjust.works 6 hours ago
Zagorath@aussie.zone 6 hours ago
The counter-argument would be “why does the current Parliament of Australia think it’s more legitimate than the Constitution?”
Zagorath@aussie.zone 8 hours ago
Prof. Anne Twomey seems to think the case has a much better chance of succeeding on constitutional grounds than I would have guessed, prior to hearing her analysis.
She points out that the law actually does not prevent children from accessing harmful content on social media. Sites like Reddit and TikTok can be used in a read-only mode without an account, and account creation(/ use of existing accounts) is the only thing restricted by the law—not use of the site itself, sans account. And harmful & addicting content is still available on platforms that are explicitly exempt, like games and chat apps. Worse than that, not having an account means that some content restrictions and parental controls that come with an account are no longer accessible; children may end up exposed to harmful content more often. And “shadow profiles” mean the algorithm will still train on individual users.
She says that the law is “not reasonable appropriate and adapted to achieve the legitimate end” that it is intended to achieve.
Combine that with the constitutionally-protected right to freedom of political expression, and it’s not looking good for the Government. Restrictions on political expression are allowed, but only if they are “enacted to achieve a legitimate purpose and [they are] reasonably appropriate and adapted to advance that legitimate purpose in a manner compatible with the constitutional system of responsible and representative government.” A law focused on protecting children from harm might be allowed to restrict their political communication, but only if the law is tailored specifically to minimise the impact on political communication, while having a reasonably effective impact towards that goal of protecting children from harm.
By not being able to make an account, the main thing this law achieves is restricting children’s ability to share their opinions online. It isn’t actually likely to have a significant impact on safety.