• Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        42
        ·
        13 days ago

        I don’t see many options between asking for a birthdate and asking for ID for this problem. I don’t see any way that this can be enforced that isn’t problematic.

        • General_Effort@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          13 days ago

          Facebook/Meta has developed software to estimate the age from a video.

          I don’t see any way that this can be enforced that isn’t problematic.

          Comes with the territory. The point is to control who has access to what information so that they don’t get wrong ideas.

          • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            12 days ago

            if you think AI software will be able to differentiate between a 15 year old and 16 year old then I have this cool bridge in Brooklyn that you might be interested in.

            This is delusional to the point where it feels like we’re literally devolving.

          • EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            12 days ago

            Trusting your face to Facebook is just as terrifying, thanks.

            (Plus I have concerns as someone who still looks teenage in her 20s)

        • JeremyHuntQW12@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          13 days ago

          I don’t see many options between asking for a birthdate and asking for ID for this problem. I don’t see any way that this can be enforced that isn’t problematic.

          The senate inquiry outlined the two likely solutions :

          1. Uploading ID to the website.

          2. 3D face scanning. This will include continual monitoring so if another person comes into view they will have to face scan in. Remember, its prohibited for chidren to even watch prohibited content with their parents.

          • copd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            13 days ago

            How can it possibly be legal to 3D face scan a child, especially if it needs to be authenticated by a remote server somewhere.

            I can only ever see option 1 working

        • Wooki@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          13 days ago

          A large part of this will help maintain liability for harm to young people. How ages is verified is irrelevant

        • Clanket@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          Problematic for who, the tech companies? They’re practically printing money. Let them spend it on actual solutions to issues that are causing problems for the World.

          • Grimy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            13 days ago

            It forces them to implement solutions that make having anonymous accounts impossible.

          • Dragon Rider (drag)@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            13 days ago

            Problematic for the children who are having their rights taken away. This change bans children from connecting with their friends in other countries, other states, and even other cities.

            Even something as simple as hopping in a voice call with your squad to play Deep Rock Galactic is now illegal for 15 year olds. That’s ridiculous. The fact that they can break the law is great, but they shouldn’t have to break the law in order to do something so harmless.

            What about using Zoom to speak to a doctor or therapist? What about contacting queer support resources through social media? What about using a text based suicide hotline? According to the law, that’s social media.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        37
        ·
        13 days ago

        It would take too long.

        Making the bet that is, it would be leaked before you are done setting up the betting system.

      • A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        13 days ago

        Australia requires mobile phone providers to verify IDs before providing cell phone service. As a result, in September 2022, Optus leaked the records of 10 million Australians including passport and drivers license details.

        So negative 2 years, 2 months.

        But this is just asking for more.

    • FuryMaker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      Identification would need to be handled by a 3rd party to even remotely work. Then they pass on the “yes they’re over 16” tick to the social media platform, with no actual identity details.

      Edit: and likewise, Identity company have no details about the social media account name or anything. Just a token transfer of sorts.

      • JeremyHuntQW12@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 days ago

        Identification would need to be handled by a 3rd party to even remotely work. Then they pass on the “yes they’re over 16” tick to the social media platform, with no actual identity details.

        The legislatiion specifically allows SM sites to handle ID.

    • kurikai@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      13 days ago

      Tech company’s probably already have enough info to know a person age without requiring an id. They could even use ai for something actually useful

    • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      12 days ago

      In my country they talked about this. And they thought of a different approach.

      The government were to emit anonymous digital certificates after validate your identity. And then the websites were only required to validate these anonymous digital certificates.

      Or even it was talk that the government could put a certificate validation in front of the affected ip.

      So the bussiness won’t have your ip. Only a verification by the government that you are indeed over certain age.

            • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 days ago

              This kind of control tend to be ip based, like cookies in the eu. So if they don’t know they won’t know. And if they know means that they knew. Nothing changes on that regard.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                12 days ago

                That depends on the law. For example, it’s possible that the US could require Meta to verify ages regardless of nationality, so you the EU (for example) would be subject to it.

                I’m not saying that’s how any of these laws work, I’m merely saying that it’s possible. If enough people sidestep the law by using a VPN, I could countries use a heavier hand (e.g. verify everyone or don’t do business here).

                I will always oppose these types of laws. I set up my WiFi to connect over a VPN to the next state over because my state has ID laws for porn and social media. It’s annoying and increases latency a bit (only like 10ms), so I’ll oppose them even if I can sidestep them.

  • BMTea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    13 days ago

    I support this move. Some here are delusionally arguing that this impacts privacy - the sort of data social media firms collect on teenagers is egregiously extensive regardless. This is good support for their mental health and development.

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      13 days ago

      This ban does nothing.

      Anything that does not force ID verification is useless.

      Anything that does verify ID would mean that adults also have to upload their IDs to the website.

      What will happen is either this becomes another toothless joke. Or the government say “okay this isn’t working, lets implement ID checks”, and when that law passes Lemmy Instance Admins would be required to verify ID of any user from an Australia IP.

      Y’all want that to happen?

      So what hapoens if other countries start catching on and also pass such law?

      Eventually the all internet accounts would be tied to IDs. Anonymity is dead.

      • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        12 days ago

        Government provided open id service which guarantees age. Website gets trusted authority signed token witch contains just the age. We can do this safely. We have the technology. They could even do it only once on registration.

        Digital id’s exist already in the EU, and many countries run a sign on service already. We aren’t far from this.

        • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          12 days ago

          Depending on what the token contains.

          There are two implementations I could think of:

          “This user has been verified to be at least [Age]. Sincerely, [Government Authority]” Assuming this is an identical token thats the same for everyone? Sure. I’m not opposed to this.

          “This user has been verified to be at least [Age]. Unique Token ID: 23456” Hell No. When the government eventually wants to deanonymize someone, they could ask the website: “What was the token ID that was used to verify the user?” then if the website provides it, now the government can just check the database to see who the token belongs to. And this could also lead to the government mandating the unique token id to be stored.

          • BMTea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            12 days ago

            Why not just look up how it actually works in the real world instead of hypotheticals

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          12 days ago

          No. I don’t want governments to know what social media I use, nor do I want social media to know what country I’m a citizen of. I don’t want any connection between the two.

      • lemba@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        13 days ago

        This ban is a wake up call to Tech Industry to implement and enforce rules against hate speech, grooming, fake news, etc. They surely cannot verify the age of a human without any official ID made in the real world. This leads to other problems but that’s not the concern of the government! Social Media wants it’s users, not the government.

        • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          12 days ago

          This ban is a wake up call to Tech Industry

          what? Why would tech industry care? If anything it’ll have the reverse effect and dimiss tech role in brain rott because “see, kids are not on it! It’s all good here”

      • CmdrShepard42@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        12 days ago

        How can you look at the state of things pretty much everywhere since social media has become so ubiquitous and think that it has no effect on people, young people especially? It’s full of hate, envy, propaganda, and brainwashing

      • BMTea@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        12 days ago

        There is no published science definitively proving that it is harmful or helpful. The effects of this particular legislation, if it is impactful at all, remains to be seen. I’m just offering my opinion based on my personal experiences. I expect it to have some success in reducing acute adolescent mental health issues. If the matter is ever settled through consensus, I’ll defer to that.

  • MimicJar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    13 days ago

    the rules are expected to apply to the likes of Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok, per the Prime Minister.

    Sites used for education, including YouTube, would be exempt, as are messaging apps like WhatsApp.

    The law does not require users to upload government IDs as part of the verification process.

    Sounds like a pretty weak law. It will require a birthday when creating an account and accounts under the age of 16 will be restricted/limited. As a result users (people under 16) will lie about their age.

    Companies don’t like this because it messes with their data collection. If they collect data that proves an account is under 16 they will be required to make them limited/restricted. However they obviously collect this data already.

    I wonder if Facebook and other apps will add/push education elements in order to become exempt.

      • MimicJar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        13 days ago

        Oh I agree. I wouldn’t want a stronger law. I’m just not too concerned with this one. I think if there are concerns with social media we should discuss how to solve them for everyone.

        We generally say 16-21 you are an adult so fuck it, whatever happens to you is your fault and ignore the predatory nature of organizations.

        We should outline the specific concerns and determine what, if any, steps we can take.

        As an example, gambling. I think it’s fair and reasonable to allow gambling. I think ensuring gambling isn’t predatory is a reasonable limitation. I expect for most people it isn’t a problem but I think providing help to gambling addicts is also reasonable. Social media should be viewed through a similar lens.

    • essteeyou@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      13 days ago

      I wonder if Facebook and other apps will add/push education elements in order to become exempt.

      I doubt it, and if they do, they’ll classify a whole bunch of nonsense as educational content in order to do so, e.g. religious content as science.

      • MimicJar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        13 days ago

        I mean YouTube has educational content, but that is far from its primary purpose. Assuming YouTube is completely unrestricted it wouldn’t be hard for Facebook to add enough content to be arguably educational.

        Hell plenty of people use TikTok for educational reasons. I’m not saying it’s right, but you could argue TikTok is educational in the same way you can argue YouTube is educational.

        Now if YouTube is forced to classify it’s educational content the same way they classify children’s content (aka poorly), maybe that’ll work.

    • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 days ago

      People should lie about as much as possible to most companies they interact with online anyway (obviously don’t lie to your bank, or doctor, or whatever). Do always, without fail, lie randomly about your age, gender, address (if it’s not relevant) or anything else that’s not actually needed to provide the service.

    • JeremyHuntQW12@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      13 days ago

      The law does not require users to upload government IDs as part of the verification process.

      No, it merely requires the sites to provide an alternative, such as face scanning using a mobile phone unlock. Using a computer ? Then you’ll have hand over your ID.

      The law also explicitly gives sites the right to onsell private information if its outlined in the terms of agrrement.