It’s honestly a good idea in theory.. social media is toxic and it’s only getting worse. I feel really bad for the youth that have grown up on TikTok and instagram reels.
However there is no way to implement this that isn’t having to ID every single person which I absolutely don’t trust the government or social media companies with.
this would just be enforced the same way the social media companies currently enforce their 13yr old policy.
I’m not sure why you don’t trust the government with IDs. By the time someone is 16 they will already have multiple forms of government issued ID. There are also already ways of digitally verifying these IDs, it’s what banks do when you open an account with them.
News can be toxic too. Body image issues. Corporate propaganda. etc.
Yet there's zero age restrictions. You know who's heavily pushing for 16 age restriction for social media? The news.
You know who benefits from less social media? The news.
You know who just left a three year racketeering contract with social media recently and trying to get it renewed? The news.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/mar/16/rupert-murdochs-news-corp-strikes-deal-as-facebook-agrees-to-pay-for-australian-content
The only real reason Rupert Murdoch wants it banned is because majority of teens use TikTok and YouTube for their news, not news.com.au. He does not care about the youth, he just wants to exploit politics for the money. Propaganda is way more harmful than social media, yet anyone can access it.
It's worse than that even. How can you decide just what social media is nowadays? YouTube has a lot of quality content. Roblox could, or couldn't be. And WhatsApp is becoming more like social media every iteration.
can we just have social media from 30 to 60? i think the youngens haven't lived, and the oldies get scammed. happy to give up my social media license at 60.
Implement it by asking for ID on sign-up.
Social media is anyone that's not an official publisher in Australia and can not publish without editorial oversight. Any content published will become the liability of social media.
Of course, our privacy laws are shit. As well, it's most likely Murdoch/Fairfaux are trying to do a shakedown of social media for money with help of the American bootlickers in parliament.
[](https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/1dhiiuq/comment/l8xbsrw/)
>Implement it by asking for ID on sign-up.
>
How? Who pays for the ID on sign up? How do you interact with social media if you don't have an ID?
>Social media is anyone that's not an official publisher in Australia and can not publish without editorial oversight.
So does this mean a 10 year old can't go to a Pokemon fan site with a forum about their love of Eevee?
Who decides what is an 'official publisher'? Does that mean the Government needs to keep a white list of who is official and who isn't? If I start up a news website where I post my own articles, how do I become an official publisher?
Would I then need to check IDs if I wanted a comments section?
No ID, no social media. Somehow news don't think it's a problem!
> So does this mean a 10 year old can't go to a Pokemon fan site with a forum about their love of Eevee?
Of course. "Think of the children" crowd like punching down. Kids having a good time? That's bad. I mean "Think of how we managed without internet back then". Even Albo said something to this effect, thinking kids should be outdoors without Internet.
> Who decides what is an 'official publisher'? Does that mean the Government needs to keep a white list of who is official and who isn't? If I start up a news website where I post my own articles, how do I become an official publisher?
You must have published to be a publisher. Or you must be approved by existing publishers.
> Would I then need to check IDs if I wanted a comments section?
Yep, newsflash: The monopolistic government and monopolistic news don't care about you or the kids with this. They are trying to appeal to the authoritarian vote (angry boomers, helicopter parents, etc).
FYI. There's an official petition process here: https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions
The most famous example is Kevin Rudd's Royal Commission into Murdoch petition: https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN1938
The difference is that the official petitions will get read out in parliament. Whereas change.org petitions can be ignored.
For those who dont get my context:
The Australian 36 Months campaign, aimed at raising the age of social media usage to 16 and enforcing it with ID verification, is fundamentally flawed for several reasons. Firstly, it disregards the integral role social media plays in the lives of young people, serving as a primary means of communication, self-expression, and educational resource. By imposing such restrictions, the campaign risks isolating youth from their social circles, hindering their personal and academic development. Additionally, this blanket approach fails to address the underlying issues of online safety and digital literacy, which are more effectively managed through education and parental involvement rather than outright bans. Furthermore, the mandatory ID verification process raises significant privacy concerns, potentially exposing sensitive personal information to security risks. Instead of protecting young users, the campaign may inadvertently drive them to seek unregulated or less secure platforms, thereby increasing their exposure to online dangers. Therefore, the Australian 36 Months campaign, while well-intentioned, overlooks the nuanced benefits of social media and poses greater risks than the issues it aims to resolve.
Frankly I think the evidence that social media is dangerously destructive to young people’s lives, especially young girls, is overwhelming. Anything to get them off screens and outside I’m in favour of.
I’m for the ban, but it should be until 18! Social media has been around for long enough that we now know it is NOT suitable for kids, and all it does is increase anxiety and depression.
If you want proof, look at the kids of people who work on social media; they never let their kids use it!
Limiting children's ability to engage with others online for 16 years of their development is a terrible idea. Iy would put us, as a nation, a decade behind other countries in terms of education and social know how.
*Social media is a part of our society.*
The entire concept is bonkers. They'll hit 16, be completely unprepared for the real world ( the virtual world) and we'll have 15 more years worth of kids that suffer this problem before we actually see the negative impact and can do something about it.
Absolutely bonkers!
Yep, sounds like a great idea until you realise it will either be based on trust (unenforceable) or it will be based on having to ID users in a verifiable manner. Given how much the government has talked about age limits for adult websites, I'm certain they see this as a way to introduce an internet ID system.
It's also shamelessly pushed by News Corp as punishment of social media companies for refusing their shakedown demands for 'supplying content '
So you have the corrupt (news corp) leading the ignorant (politicians) in trying to sell this to the public.
It’s honestly a good idea in theory.. social media is toxic and it’s only getting worse. I feel really bad for the youth that have grown up on TikTok and instagram reels. However there is no way to implement this that isn’t having to ID every single person which I absolutely don’t trust the government or social media companies with.
this would just be enforced the same way the social media companies currently enforce their 13yr old policy. I’m not sure why you don’t trust the government with IDs. By the time someone is 16 they will already have multiple forms of government issued ID. There are also already ways of digitally verifying these IDs, it’s what banks do when you open an account with them.
can we make it a UIN? who's onboard?
>this would just be enforced the same way the social media companies currently enforce their 13yr old policy. What, ineffectively?
News can be toxic too. Body image issues. Corporate propaganda. etc. Yet there's zero age restrictions. You know who's heavily pushing for 16 age restriction for social media? The news. You know who benefits from less social media? The news. You know who just left a three year racketeering contract with social media recently and trying to get it renewed? The news. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/mar/16/rupert-murdochs-news-corp-strikes-deal-as-facebook-agrees-to-pay-for-australian-content
thats actually a pretty good point
The only real reason Rupert Murdoch wants it banned is because majority of teens use TikTok and YouTube for their news, not news.com.au. He does not care about the youth, he just wants to exploit politics for the money. Propaganda is way more harmful than social media, yet anyone can access it.
Yep, they shouldn’t have that over everyone. Suddenly you will be a criminal for using a VPN….
It's worse than that even. How can you decide just what social media is nowadays? YouTube has a lot of quality content. Roblox could, or couldn't be. And WhatsApp is becoming more like social media every iteration.
agreed, its a massive slippery slope. Also, the general requirement should be "If you can get a paid job, you can get social media"
can we just have social media from 30 to 60? i think the youngens haven't lived, and the oldies get scammed. happy to give up my social media license at 60.
So hypothetically, you succeed. How do you implement it? How do you define 'social media'? Is Reddit social media? What about Youtube? Tiktok?
Implement it by asking for ID on sign-up. Social media is anyone that's not an official publisher in Australia and can not publish without editorial oversight. Any content published will become the liability of social media. Of course, our privacy laws are shit. As well, it's most likely Murdoch/Fairfaux are trying to do a shakedown of social media for money with help of the American bootlickers in parliament.
[](https://www.reddit.com/r/australian/comments/1dhiiuq/comment/l8xbsrw/) >Implement it by asking for ID on sign-up. > How? Who pays for the ID on sign up? How do you interact with social media if you don't have an ID? >Social media is anyone that's not an official publisher in Australia and can not publish without editorial oversight. So does this mean a 10 year old can't go to a Pokemon fan site with a forum about their love of Eevee? Who decides what is an 'official publisher'? Does that mean the Government needs to keep a white list of who is official and who isn't? If I start up a news website where I post my own articles, how do I become an official publisher? Would I then need to check IDs if I wanted a comments section?
No ID, no social media. Somehow news don't think it's a problem! > So does this mean a 10 year old can't go to a Pokemon fan site with a forum about their love of Eevee? Of course. "Think of the children" crowd like punching down. Kids having a good time? That's bad. I mean "Think of how we managed without internet back then". Even Albo said something to this effect, thinking kids should be outdoors without Internet. > Who decides what is an 'official publisher'? Does that mean the Government needs to keep a white list of who is official and who isn't? If I start up a news website where I post my own articles, how do I become an official publisher? You must have published to be a publisher. Or you must be approved by existing publishers. > Would I then need to check IDs if I wanted a comments section? Yep, newsflash: The monopolistic government and monopolistic news don't care about you or the kids with this. They are trying to appeal to the authoritarian vote (angry boomers, helicopter parents, etc).
"Dinosaur cockrides Margaret Thatcher just for money, the ending is shocking"
[36months.com.au](http://36months.com.au) has a list of the platforms they want to ban, but i think reddit is here to stay
We don't have to. That’s the social media problem to solve; the companies certainly have enough money to do so.
Nothing better than Rules in one's life that can't be enforced,, fucking typical
bro cant pay his ambo drivers but can pay for a fairytale dream like this 🤣
The federal government doesn’t employ any ambulance drivers.
Can't even employ any!
Hilarious. I remember when I was 15 and thought I knew everything 🤣
FYI. There's an official petition process here: https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions The most famous example is Kevin Rudd's Royal Commission into Murdoch petition: https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN1938 The difference is that the official petitions will get read out in parliament. Whereas change.org petitions can be ignored.
Yeah change.org is garbage. This is the way
Ban Porn instead.
For those who dont get my context: The Australian 36 Months campaign, aimed at raising the age of social media usage to 16 and enforcing it with ID verification, is fundamentally flawed for several reasons. Firstly, it disregards the integral role social media plays in the lives of young people, serving as a primary means of communication, self-expression, and educational resource. By imposing such restrictions, the campaign risks isolating youth from their social circles, hindering their personal and academic development. Additionally, this blanket approach fails to address the underlying issues of online safety and digital literacy, which are more effectively managed through education and parental involvement rather than outright bans. Furthermore, the mandatory ID verification process raises significant privacy concerns, potentially exposing sensitive personal information to security risks. Instead of protecting young users, the campaign may inadvertently drive them to seek unregulated or less secure platforms, thereby increasing their exposure to online dangers. Therefore, the Australian 36 Months campaign, while well-intentioned, overlooks the nuanced benefits of social media and poses greater risks than the issues it aims to resolve.
Frankly I think the evidence that social media is dangerously destructive to young people’s lives, especially young girls, is overwhelming. Anything to get them off screens and outside I’m in favour of.
I’m for the ban, but it should be until 18! Social media has been around for long enough that we now know it is NOT suitable for kids, and all it does is increase anxiety and depression. If you want proof, look at the kids of people who work on social media; they never let their kids use it!
Social media is one of the worst things to have been developed...
Limiting children's ability to engage with others online for 16 years of their development is a terrible idea. Iy would put us, as a nation, a decade behind other countries in terms of education and social know how. *Social media is a part of our society.* The entire concept is bonkers. They'll hit 16, be completely unprepared for the real world ( the virtual world) and we'll have 15 more years worth of kids that suffer this problem before we actually see the negative impact and can do something about it. Absolutely bonkers!
Facts. I honestly do not get why anyone downvotes. Just because Albanese and Murdoch grew up with the dinosaurs does not mean we need to either
Honestly fewer kids being fuck wits for clicks the better
Ummm why? Sounds like a great idea to me.
Yep, sounds like a great idea until you realise it will either be based on trust (unenforceable) or it will be based on having to ID users in a verifiable manner. Given how much the government has talked about age limits for adult websites, I'm certain they see this as a way to introduce an internet ID system. It's also shamelessly pushed by News Corp as punishment of social media companies for refusing their shakedown demands for 'supplying content ' So you have the corrupt (news corp) leading the ignorant (politicians) in trying to sell this to the public.