Skip Navigation
48 comments

  • So we still have no idea how exactly this age verification is supposed to take place in a privacy preserving way.

    I still maintain that the only acceptable way to do this is via platform-based APIs and child lock software. Your operating system must have a setting parents can set (locked so children are unable to edit it) with their child's age. The browser and other apps must check that setting via an API. Websites would check the setting via a browser API.

    It puts the onus for actual age verification on parents. So it's completely privacy preserving. It's not bypassable by some of the simplest methods like finding a fake photo of a driver's licence. It's certainly not going to completely bug out and give nonsense answers like AI age detection from selfies.

    The fact that it's not being done in consultation with platform providers is pretty indicative of the myopic, frankly idiotic approach of both the Labor Party and the Coalition when it comes to tech.

    • My kids run Arch linux on their desktops. I won't let them use a closed source foreign adware/spyware operating system that doesn't give full control of hardware on principle while they live under my roof and expect me to provide tech support. So operating system restrictions are out of the question for me.

      My kids have zero curiosity or interest in social media outside of youtube where they mostly watch really cool creative, education or gaming content which I support or if I think content is low quality brain rot it is something we discuss.

      I am very content not to engage in social media if age verification proves too intrusive. Its a time waster for me and increasingly I feel like I am responding to prompts to train corporate AIs to replace employees, creatives etc. The human aspect of it all is getting lost. I think we need to learn how to live offline more. It could be our national competitive advantage. We are half way there already with our shit Internet.

    • How does that work for folks that don't have any need to run age verification software? I'm sure as hell not installing it

      • @ada

        Methinks Zag was suggesting (possibly) that 'age verification' should be a device and operating system (& platform) feature that would be inactive by default.

        In other words, there should be nothing for an adult (without kids) to do in order for their devices to function as they do now.

        A parent would be required to activate a 'child lock' feature on a device before handing it to their kids.

        Unfortunately, all governments are too chicken-shit scared to compel parents to do this small thing.

        Governments prefer the option of compelling ALL users to provide 'age verification' (possibly Gov't issued ID) to the relevant platforms.

        For the 'Liberals' this would be a natural extension of their right wing fascism.

        For the Labor party, it's merely a reflection of their general incompetence.

        @Zagorath

        auspol

      • The government's plan? No idea, because they still don't have any idea. It might involve requiring you to install software to use any social media legally. Or it might not require new software, but require you to upload your photo ID or a selfie (on the promise that they will totally delete the photo as soon as they're finished verifying it, pinky swear!). The law was passed 6 months ago in a rush, and is now 6 months away from coming into effect, but we still don't know. Because the government did not do its due diligence in planning this out. It didn't even have sufficient time for proper public submissions.

        If you meant my idea? I didn't specify. It could be designed either way. To assume anyone who hasn't specified an age is an adult and allow them through, or to block by default in order to ensure age verification is being proactively provided. Personally, I would advocate for the former, but even the latter would be vastly superior to any other system I can think of.

        Importantly: it wouldn't be any software you have to install. It'd be a basic feature of the operating system. Like your operating system probably already has child controls on it; you just don't use them. (Windows, macOS, iOS, Android, and at least Ubuntu Linux all certainly do, to different extents.) In the stricter scenario where it blocks if no age is provided, you would have to set your age up through your operating system's settings. The key is: it relies entirely on trust. You can enter whatever age you like; there's no checking of your face or your documents, so there's no possibility of privacy invasion. This provides compliance with the intent of the law for children by requiring parents to enter the correct age for their kids and set sufficient locks on it to prevent the kid easily bypassing it.

        including any Lemmy, Piefed, or Mastodon servers, unless they can receive a specific exemption—and whether fediverse owners try to receive such an exemption and operate legally without age verification, or they implement the system, or they simply try to fly under the radar and hope they don't get in trouble, is going to be a point that all fediverse admins where either the admin or the server are based in Australia are going to have to consider once the law comes into effect.

  • How many minutes will it take for a 17 year old to break the system this time

  • Oh this again. I had forgotten about it. According to the bill's definition of "Social Media", we (aussie.zone) meet it. Which means we need to somehow adhere to whatever the government deems necessary to confirm our userbase's ages. Thing is: I can't see any instance outside the country caring about this law. Why should they?

    I genuinely have no idea from a technical standpoint how you'd enforce this.

    • Which means we need to somehow adhere to whatever the government deems necessary to confirm our userbase’s ages

      As I see it, you have three options.

      • Adhere to the regulations, whatever the fuck they end up being (frustrating that we're halfway through the year and there's still no clear indication of what that is). Technologically, who knows, this may be more difficult than it's worth. It may expose the admins to liability in terms of privacy laws. May also involve a financial cost if 3rd-party providers are required.
      • Reach out to MPs and Ministers to try and seek an exemption. If granted, probably the ideal case. If not granted, it puts you on their radar pretty explicitly.
      • Try to fly under the radar. If they had any sense, the bill would have required the Minister to name social media platforms to which it applies, or at least have included an automatic exemption for platforms under a certain size (say, under 1000 MAU, what have we got? Not that, surely). In the absence of that, it's likely (though not certain) that realistically nobody in Government knows about this place and no police are going to bother investigating it. Opens up major risk if those assumptions end up being wrong.

      I can’t see any instance outside the country caring about this law. Why should they?

      It's the same as the EU when it creates legislation and says "if you have any European customers, even if they're not in Europe, you have to comply". It's bullshit, and they know it. They can't even enforce it on non-European companies that do provide a service to people in Europe. This will be enforced by the big guys with a global presence, and it'll kill off small social media in Australia, while small social media elsewhere will just choose to ignore it.

      • Adhere to the regulations, whatever the fuck they end up being

        I'll send everyone a DM: "Hey, are you over 18? Yep? cool."

        I have verified that all our users are over 18. 👍

  • Whole thing is a moral panic. No good evidence exists of harms, but nobody needs evidence to believe what they want to.

    You could like ban algorithmic endless feeds if that was bad, you could enforce content moderation standards if bad content was the issue. But no, this is just surveillance state expansion and traditional media handwringing being cheerfully assisted by the feckless "think of the children" crowd.

    • I think the harms are real. They're not exclusive to children.

      There are three categories of harm:

      • Radicalization, as the algorithm deliberately feeds you bad takes from your political opponents and good takes from your political allies, to keep you engaged.
      • Overstimulation, the YouTube Kids channel Cocomelon is way too addictive for kids. This isn't exclusive to social media, and YouTube Kids apparently has an exemption.
      • Addiction, social media eats into hours upon hours in kid's days. Time they could spend with their family/friends or processing their emotions, instead they're being numbed out on their phone.

      I think we should ban algorithmic recommendations (or strictly limit them), ban the practices of Cocomelon, and ... I'm not sure what we can do about the addiction thing (humans are super prone to addiction). I'd also ban smart-phones in schools, kids should only be allowed flip-phones/brick-phones.

      • Produce studies and I swear to god if it's that one where they say kids are scroiling Instagram for 9 hours a day when the report using it as a messenging application I will reach through the screen and strangle you.

        Legislation should not be based on vibes ffs. I think Mark Zuckerburg should be hung in a public square and skinned alive for the evil he has wrought with shit like aiding genocide but there is not sufficient evidence that social media, which covers everything from usenet to lemmy to Instagram to youtube, causes harms warranting age based bans. This is a world where we allow coca cola and factory farming, "it's probably bad for some people some of the time" is clearly not the bar for criminalisation.

  • No.

48 comments