Parliament delivers a performance piece of legislative 'enshittification' that raises more questions than answers

@Gorgritch_umie_killa @Lodespawn Doesn't sound too big a technological challenge (think along the lines of when you sign into a website using Google or Facebook as your ID provider). But puts more hassle on site admins. And, more importantly, how are users going to know if a site is actually doing authentication or just gathering their ID data? Then there's the question of what sites they will try and include in the ban. Meta etc is a given, but Lucy's Australian Knitting forum? iMessage? Signal? Mastodon instances?
Then there's the concern that all of a sudden Govt have a link between all of our online nicknames etc and our actual names. That's a massive issue in my eyes and they'll need to clarify if that's going to happen.
In the end my son could, and probably will, just rent a private server in Singapore for a couple of dollars a month and VPN through that. I expect he'll set his mates up on it too. So instead of some kind of visibility of what he's doing on the home network, I'll have none.
And we'll be paying handsomely for this whole exercise.
I, like a lot of parents I'm sure, am actually in favour of not letting kids into those places. But I can't, yet, see how it can be done.

@Gorgritch_umie_killa @Lodespawn I'm envisaging them leveraging the single-sign-on type stuff they do for MyGov. But do you trust them, and the social site, to handle and appropriately, securely anonymise the Personally Identifiable Information in the transaction? And of course, that means that now under 16s need to have MyGov IDs. The idea of online nicknames etc being linked to actual persons should be a concern. Australia Card anyone?
Of course they may have a completely different approach to it. I mean, every school age child already has a Student Number. That could be a data point for them. Who knows.

The way I see it it would be a struggle for big social media sites to implement. I think they are more likely to shimmy on out of here.

63D outlines the requirement:

A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts with the age-restricted social media platform.

There isn't really a definition of what reasonable steps are but that looks like it's on the commissioner to define them under section 27 of the act. A platform is a service that basically allows interaction between users and a service "includes a website" (does that include gaming servers?) so Lemmy sites would most certainly fit the bill. It really depends how onerous these reasonable steps are as to whether Lemmy sites will be able to implement them.

Not sure how the act implementers plan to deal with servers hosted in other countries. Will they block them? If not then this is mostly a paper tiger, but also an impediment to further development of Australia based platforms.

Can't see where they state the definition for 'material', what does it say?

Meh, never liked the term.

I never felt it captured the seriousness of the undermining of the public's access to reliable information, by the ownership of these public sphere's being captured by profit maximising entities.

The temptation to skew algorithms to profit maximisation instead of best information delivery has proven too great, its why a fundamental shift away from the walled garden concept is required. In my view.

I do appreciate the irony of using CoPilot to find adjectives for “enshitification”.

If you want a more accurate and useful definition of “enshitification”, try “Microsoft CoPilot”