Image by Thomas Breher from Pixabay
By Jo Nova
What looks, smells, and works like a Trojan horse to force all adults to use a digital ID?
Incredibly, we have only until today (Friday) to put in submissions on this major, world first, social media ban for under 16s. Feel the panic. It’s as if our PM is running out of time to ram through complex legislation before the Donald Trump inauguration? Perhaps he’s hoping Elon is distracted.
The Good News is The Australian Misinformation Bill appears to be dead. Congratulations! The Bad News is the Internet ID bill (posing as a ban on Under 16s using social media) has support from both major parties, even though it is wildly ambitious, vague, dangerous, and the first in the world. The government can’t answer questions on how this will be managed. Instead, the people who have screwed everything up, say “Trust us” we will work out the details later. (Thanks @Craig Kelly)
The laws, supposedly, will pass next week, but then there will be a 12 month “consultation” to work out what will be banned. Since when do we pass the laws and consult later?
Everyone knows this is just an excuse to make adults upload passports, drivers licenses, facial recognition or use some new form of government ID token in order to use X or any of the social media platforms.
As Theo says on X:
Funny I found out through SOCIAL MEDIA that I had less than 24 hours to make a submission.
The government would like to parent your children for you. The government say they are helping parents, but parents can already ban social media or smart phones, or get apps to help limit or monitor their children’s behaviour. This legislation treats Australian parents like they are children themselves. It will remove parent’s choices.
What about kids in the Australian outback who live far from friends? Too bad if they feel suicidal because their account and online friends are about to be nixed by the government. If only farmers were smart enough to manage their own kids, eh?
What does “Social Media” mean? Whatever the Government wants…
Somehow, thanks to the angels in Parliament, students will still be able to see government funded propaganda at school, the mainstream news, and Google Classroom, but they won’t be allowed to seek out other views on X, Instagram, TikTok, Linked In, Facebook or Youtube. [Apparently, kiddie versions without news feeds, like Youtube kids, and “messaging services” like WhatsApp, and Facebook Messenger would be exempt, or maybe “SnapChat”– according to the ABC]. But that’s the point. Google is a political player, as is X, but one of them is banned, and one endorsed. The Conservatives are fools for falling for this.
The definition of “social media” is so broad any platform that allows user interactions (ie. comments) could potentially fall under this ban. (Does that mean blogs like this one?) The responsibility for ensuring all commenters are over 16 would fall on the platform. No one seems able to explain how that works in a global internet. What if Australians use VPN’s (will they ban them too) and what if say, American children genuinely want to read an Australian site, and ask questions? Fines are up to $50 million or jail time.
This could be particularly burdensome or onerous for small bloggers and sites to comply with. Not to mention that readers may not want to speak up if they know their comment is tracked, or their information may be hacked. That’ll put a dampner on things.
The Liberal Party (supposedly conservative) are supporting this legislation. Bizarrely.
It’s the start of your social credit score
In the name of saving children from bullying on Facebook, we’re going to risk giving them a totalitarian dystopia.
Mandatory ID makes dissent so much more difficult, and that’s the point.
Would you like be a whistleblower or government critic? Just put your face on the camera please. It will be so much easier for the government to track and collate all your comments, and probably guess how you vote.
When hackers steal the data, employers, the CCP, insurance companies, and marketing teams will be happy to buy the details for the right price.
Not so many people will be able to retweet or “like” something risky, so great thoughts and wicked jokes will disappear like a drop of rain in a desert. Unliked, and unshared, and mostly unheard.
Read the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 [Provisions] here (or PDF here). Or just search X for all the views on the social media ban. (While you still can).
So much is unknown. Voice your concerns today!
Social media ban or big brother control? The government, with support of the Liberals, is proposing a ban on children under 16 accessing social media, justifying the measure by claiming it’s “popular.” Oh, really? It’s ironic that the same parties that accuse One Nation of… pic.twitter.com/QbyLYdyEfi
— Malcolm Roberts 🇦🇺 (@MRobertsQLD) November 20, 2024
The goal is always the same: They want control of the media.
The lamestream news already answers to government regulators, and multinational conglomerate investors. But since Elon Musk bought Twitter there is freedom on social media. It’s a disaster for crony capitalists and career socialists.
The Twitter files showed that the CIA was able to get social media giants to shadowban or block the voices they didn’t like. Forced internet ID is just another way to stop free-speech on the internet, especially on X for allowing The People to speak their minds.
Anthony Albanese’s excuse for doing this is so that parents who feel they need to ban their own children don’t have to stand up to teenage peer pressure, they can blame the government instead. We all care about our children, but there must be a better way than a blanket ban which forces every Australian to use ID online.
Instead we could be teaching young children what bullying looks like and how to deal with it. A skill they will need for the rest of their lives, especially against The Government.
Please put in a short submission. It would help if you could also email your local Liberal representative and senator to ask them how they can possibly justify this. There is still time to stop this. If you feel strongly, let Liberal Party members know you will go out of your way to help small independent parties win votes on this free speech issue. Perhaps you could even hand out minor party flyers or How To Vote cards?
63C Age-restricted social media platform
(1)For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted social media platform means:
(a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:
the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users;
the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users;
the service allows end-users to post material on the service;
As much as I hate kids stuck on a computer all day, the reality is that kids communicate with each other over the internet these days. Hello, its 2024! Or how are kids supposed to interact with their friends next time there is a “lockdown”?
What happens to on-line gaming?
Australia, the wowser totalitarian state.
350
Based on that definition, young people will not be allowed to make phone calls, nor send SMS anymore.
190
How will kids interact with their friends???? Easy, welcome to the dark web. From the frying pan into the fire.
Australia the biggest nanny state in the history of the planet.
50
Isn’t it frightening how quickly this is coming to pass … yes, it looks – from comments in the press – as if this is quite likely to come to the UK, too.
I am not sure my comments – not being n Australian – would matter to most legislators in Australia [or anywhere outside the UK. And not much here, I fear], but this is a really bad idea.
Again, it’s a Government doing ‘more’.
Did we ask them to do ‘more’ – not usually.
I read today – online – in the Grauniad, a lefty ‘newspaper’
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/nov/21/labours-new-public-bodies-are-likely-to-come-at-a-high-cost-thinktank-finds
– that our new Government, whose ‘landslide is broad but not deep, getting about 20.2% of the votes from those eligible to vote [so perhaps no more than one in six people actually voted for them], has already set out 17 new Quangos [almost one a week since the election].
To be manned and paid for …
The Silly Walks Regulation and Oversight Board is not – so far as I can find – amongst them.
This is why the UK Government – less than 70 million souls, including our recent migrants, and me – is spending £1,200,000,000,000 this year.
Give or take billions …
Jo – thank you for the work you do.
Auto
280
Auto — thanks to you to. This is a battle we will all face. I have updated the post. The Australian Government is launching an” age verification test”, and it’s with the UK Consortium Age Check Certification Scheme.
So, yes, this presumably is coming to the UK asap.
270
I do not support severing the ‘special relationship’ between the United States and the UK (and Australia for that matter), but as the slide towards techno-totalitarianism continues in the rest of the Anglosphere, it is a question that American conservatives are beginning to ask themselves.
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2024/11/21/why-again-do-we-still-have-a-special-relationship-with-the-tyrannical-uk-n2648018
The ‘special relationship’ is based upon shared values between the anglophone countries regarding ‘natural rights’ that no government should be able to infringe upon. But more and more, it seems like America is the only country that still believes in natural rights, rather than ‘privileges’ that the government grants … and can revoke. That is the pathway to totalitarianism.
190
I was pondering what sorts of things make other things the very coolest things for every 15 year old kid to have.
40
Ponder long, Homk!
20
“I was pondering what sorts of things make other things the very coolest things for every 15 year old kid to have.”
Parents that understand how difficult the years 14-18 can be and help their children cope with the ups and downs of the pubertal years.
30
Honk,
Ponder this.
For the religious, if the Devil punishes bad people, does that not make him/her a good person/entity?
Geoff S
31
‘bad’ . . . by whose standards?
And, do we know the punishment that we are told about?
Just askin’
Auto
20
Kids are probably more tech-savvy than the government. How long will it take them to find a work-around?
PS. I’ve put in a brief submission, prepared in a hurry but clearly opposed to the bill, and sent same to my MP.
20
The domination of the far left factions of Albanese Labor
90
… and, it appears, the far left factions of Dutton Liberal.
120
The good-old “Australia Card’, on steroids.
And, if you do not have a trackable and hackable, internet presence, you will be an “Un-person”, subject to the whims of the sociopaths..
This did not come about overnight, or in “isolation”.
Also remember; Paranoia is an IRRATIONAL fear. Fear of real threats is utterly RATIONAL.
Some character called Benjamin Franklin is on record as saying:
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. ”
As for those who demand that others be stripped of their liberty on the same grounds……..
See also:
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” – H. L. Mencken.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable.”
“Men go mad in herds and recover their senses one by one”
See also, Voltaire:
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”
200
There’s no such thing as “real threats” … there is real violence in the here and now, and there are perceived threats of future violence which haven’t happened yet.
My point is that every threat is an interpretation of the current situation mindful of problems that may or may not turn out to be real … therefore by its nature must be a subjective thing.
Looking back in hindsight of course, it becomes possible to reinterpret the events and figure out what was real at the time. All scientific measurements must be in the past … you cannot measure things yet to come. You can imagine those things might happen but that’s still your subjective imagination.
80
Tel,
That isn’t up to your usual standard: getting all philosophical over a minor word choice. Why not just suggest Bruce use “plausible” instead of “real”?
The “subjectivity” you refer to can be pretty academic. Parachutists carry a reserve chute for the “subjective” risk that the main one won’t open. But what if the secondary fails too? I don’t expect they consider the ground rushing up towards them being a very subjective thing, even though they haven’t been hit yet. Yes, maybe Superman will swoop in and save them, but would you really quibble about them calling the threat “real”?
81
Imagine, a social media ban AND the next lockdown.
At least Albo doxxed himself.
80
Of course this Age Verification ID is designed to identify personally anyone making a comment on any open website.
One obvious consequence ? As did Brian Fisher (BAEconomics) during the 2020 election campaign, make accurate comments on the economics and scientific aspects of AGW. You will be doxxed and very quickly find bricks thrown through your windows at 3 am.
As I said, ask Brian Fisher. Who doxxed him ? Holmes a Court, who has sneakily since admitted it and hypocritically apologised … that’s the way. Deliberately do the nasty damage then pretend to be contrite.
Who will doxx you ? Anonymous Canberran public servants working through NGO’s sympathetic to leftie causes. (I’ve had exact personal experience of this).
230
Hey, wasn’t that this guy?
Tony.
30
You can see the link with the misinformation bill. One bill allows them to place a legal restriction on what we post and the other bill allows them to identify the person responsible. And to claim this is all for our own safety is the Orwellian red flag.
240
Having spent a generation in their ‘long march through the institutions’ the Left agained majority control of the media. At first when social media was new they ‘owned’ it, and it was GREAT. But now that the general population has engaged with it, it’s drifted back to the middle. So not only have they lost control of social media, it’s threating the control they have over the traditional media.
100
My quick submission (for what it’s worth)…
“This bill is not about protecting children.
It is about forcing adults to use age verification or identity verification (such as facial recognition technology) to access social media (and perhaps the internet itself, depending on how ‘social media’ is defined).
Such legislation has extraordinary consequences for privacy and political debate.
It is reprehensible that the major parties are even contemplating such legislation, let alone rushing it through at pace such as to avoid all scrutiny.
I note that sensible solutions to children accessing inappropriate content (of which certain aspects of social media are but one part), such as mandating use of parental controls at the point of sale, do not appear to have even been contemplated (these controls are inbuilt on, for example, the iphone).”
170
FWIW here is my version (slightly revised). I wrote and sent prior to seeing dlk’s:
Dear Senators,
As a [STATE] resident, I urge you to vote against the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. Placing a ban on access to social media poses many grave questions which have not been adequately addressed. These questions include whether the government should take over the role of parent, and the potential necessity to have a login system for all social media users. This latter possibility invites fear that it represents a wedge into creating a social credit system. It is unnecessary to place a barrier to adult access to social media and represents government overreach. Freedom is not best supported by licences to access information.
I hope you will vote against this bill.
Best regards,
[Name and full address to show the Senators you are a resident of the state they represent]
50
Have they asked their teenage children?
40
When the present “social media” giants were in their infancy, I enlisted in half a dozen to evaluate them, deciding back then that they were not for me and henceforth ignoring the. I have not felt any disadvantage.
Our children are adults, our youngest grandchild is 15, so the government Bill is not relevant to us in the particular sense.
Should we be interested in the general sense, should we spend time on objecting? No, there are better ways to spend our time.
Social media will pass its peak when many other people feel the benefit from life without it. Geoff S
34
missing the forest for the trees
110
Agree.
But others WILL differ, as is their right.
At the moment.
FWIW. I tried one or two.
I am still on Linked in – it keeps sending me job ads for ‘retired’ positions. How good is their AI?
Also – KIDS WILL BE KIDS.
Nuff said.
Auto
30
Geoff Sherrington,
I see you found time to post a supercilious comment at Jo Nova’s.
60
Ok. So you don’t have kids under 16 who will be affected. But you will be affected and so will your adult kids.
To access any social media you’ll have to prove you’re of a suitable age. You’ll have to identify yourself for every online “social media” interaction. (whatever they decide that is).
Maybe you do already and therefore there is no concern for you. But that is currently your choice to do so. When you see governments talking about social credit scores and freezing bank accounts etc, not always identifying yourself might be a wise thing when making comments online or sharing information that the government of the day doesn’t like. Or even associating with some people the government doesn’t like.
120
As discussed in another blog post, in my experience there isn’t a better way that works in practice.
I’d be interested in hearing how many commenters here have early-teen children that will be affected by the ban?
It’s not just about bullying although that is one problem area. There are many other aspects of social media that are harmful – I can’t list them directly as the words mean my post would be stuck in moderation. Start with eating disorders and adults masquerading as children and go from there.
62
there are parental controls available that satisfy the proposed legislation’s alleged purpose without requiring creation of a Chinese social credit score system.
if it was a bona fide proposal it wouldn’t be getting rushed through in a week with 0 scrutiny.
110
Not in my experience or that of many other parents.
Do a search for “why parental controls are not working” (e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/iphone/comments/1526bfn/why_is_parental_control_so_ineffective_on_ios/
If you’re part of the Apple ecosystem then you quickly realise that their parental controls are laughably bad.
10
Nope.
People don’t know how to use the iphone screentime app properly.
It needs to be locked down with a secure password so that the enfant terrible cannot simply change it.
As i have said above this should be explained / done at the point of sale where a child is the intended user.
30
In our last discussion Dry Liberal, even you admitted my suggestions “can work with primary-school aged children”.
So 12 years after the introduction of the smart phone and selfies, society is coming to grips with it, parents are better prepared. They know now they have to start younger to build confidence, networks, moral and ethical strength.
So we are talking about the subset of some kids who are now age 11-15, who didn’t get the social support, spiritual help, or guidance, or were just unlucky and got loaded genetic/environmental/something and are now vulnerable, but already at that independent and difficult age, where they are not so amenable to suggestions from parents.
Children who are 15 are only going to lose social media for maybe a few months to a year. Maybe that will be the reset button, or maybe it will just pause things until the old habits return? It’s quite possible these laws won’t help them.
At best, the new laws *might* help a small percentage of the population — sure, if it’s your child, it’s everything, I totally understand — but you’re forcing 100% of adults to get a digital ID, and you’re demanding all of our children grow up in this digital ID world, when you already have the option to take away your child’s phone. You have the options to move house, move school, arrange counseling, find a church, take your child on a backpacking holiday, etc et al. These are tough choices, but if your house is burning down, have you tried moving?
I don’t know what the solution is, but you have all these options already. This law doesn’t add any choices, it just reduces them.
It doesn’t make sense that every citizen has to lose anonymity, suffer the tyranny of more protection for the corrupt and powerful and less protection for the working poor. Societies without free speech get poorer, more corrupt, and some get gulags and death camps. We will be one step closer to the gates of hell.
All these diabolical losses are just so some parents who were unlucky, caught off guard — would rather the government solved a problem which is their responsibility. We might save a few kids now, but thousands of other kids today might end up in prison because they speak up against pedophilia, crime, and crooked elections. People are already being jailed for these things in the US and UK.
Other people have died because of forced injections that people were not allowed to speak up against. Even more get punished for decades with side effects because we didn’t have free speech. Neurological problems, cancer, dementia, ongoing pain. The punishment never ends. How many babies were never born because we didn’t have free speech?
The sole benefit of these laws is just so a few parents don’t have to face the wrath of a 14 year old who says “but my friends can use facebook”.
There are so many better ways, the Australian option is the most draconian.
120
I realise we’re going over old ground here, but I think it bears repeating even if you, or others here disagree.
These suggestions won’t fix the problem and something like “moving school” would probably make it even worse.
If your house is burning down you first get out, then put out the fire (if possible). Moving is only an option if you’ve got time and at present that isn’t the case.
I don’t expect the government to solve the problem although I expect them to be part of the solution. The real solution would be if social media companies moderated their content properly in an age-appropriate way, but for a variety of reasons they choose not to do that. The most obvious reason is that it would reduce their profits.
That’s trivialising what is a serious harm to early teens. As I mentioned above, the real harms are far more serious than that – the most obvious ones can’t even be mentioned here due to moderation.
00
Dry Liberal, I’m right with you on the dangers present. I wrote: The plague of mental illness in teenage girls.
I’m not trivializing the problem, I’m trivializing the Government solution. The government isn’t even trying to help you. They are pretending to just so they can achieve what they really want — which serves them, not you. You are being used as a political toy.
The worst bullying I’ve seen online was on Discord (and we’ve been privvy to some very bad behaviour, which started in primary school and involved social isolation, ostracism, and threats). But these messaging Apps are now not even covered in this. The government is not interested in solving teenage mental health. They want to take down Twitter and monitor everyone on Facebook. They want to stop the newsfeed sites going viral by forcing everyone who *likes* something to put their name on it. The ABC used the word “newsfeed”. News is the governments problem, not your childs issue. Their solution has got very little to do with 15 year olds being horrible to each other, or posting selfies of anorexic harm.
For whatever it’s worth, hypothetically, if I had children with mental health issues, ponder that I would not feel I could discuss it in blog comments even if I wanted too. Not while I write in a professional environment with a trackable identity. How many parents just like you, using anonymity right now, will be cut off and isolated from getting help and advice from other like minded parents? Soon you may not be able to post the comments you currently post without ID.
This legislation might buy your family slightly less online danger (maybe) for what — 18 months? Your child/children will still be subject to the messenging apps anyhow and emails and SMS, and if they use VPNs or workarounds, there might be no benefit to you at all. But it will buy my children (and yours) a lifetime of being tracked, with all the harm to civilizations because government crime and mistakes will go unpunished for longer, and the victims of government suffering will suffer alone.
If your house is burning, don’t wait for the government to help you. Even if this legislation is voted in, even if it does some tiny bit of good, they are going to do 12 months “consulting” anyhow, and trial their ghastly digital ID. You can do something about your problem today. You can take the phone away, and try a dozen other things (which I’ve suggested already). You could move schools faster than this legislation will work.
40
The underlying stated premise of the Bill is false.
To establish a minimum age for social media use can only be achieved by harvesting 100% of social media users’ authenticated identities.
That is the real purpose of the Bill, to intimidate people from free expression of views which would result in government doxxing, cancellation and persecution.
The Bill’s strict government censorship intentions are obvious, by necessarily compelling 100% of social media users to self identify.
The stated premise of the Bill cannot be achieved by any other means.
Members and Senators should be warned that their turn will come too, where they are prevented from commenting, from satirising, from alerting the public to the malfeasance of those in power.
It is offensive to all Australians that a Bill would be presented to Parliament founded on covert lies as a Trojan Horse for oppressive censorship of public opinion.
The Australian peoples’ ability to contribute to public commentary without fear of being targeted for punishment by organised groups is an established and even sacred expectation in our society.
By outsourcing the responsibility for compliance, the government is attempting to turn social media platforms into vigilante censors, whose methods will appear to leave the government’s hands ‘clean’.
Not in 123 years of Australia’s federation has the public seen such a malevolent and deceptive approach to legislative drafting.
On the following segments and criteria of the Bill, each is the most extraordinarily obvious tapestry of lies ever presented to an Australian Parliament:
• Establishing an obligation on age-restricted social media platforms – the obligation lies with the parents and guardians of the children. Neither the government nor social media companies are parents.
• Defining the regulated entities and regulated activity – you cannot define that which is in a constant state of change
• Privacy Protections – there are none. This is a clumsy and deliberate lie.
• Review – there will be none. This is government ‘theatre’ and everyone knows it.
• Consultation – there will be none. This is government ‘theatre’ and everyone knows it.
• Statement of compatibility with human rights – there is none. Its purpose and intent are to flout all human rights in respect to freedom of political speech.
The Bill indicts all those whose fingerprints appear on it, and it must be rejected in totality.
180
This may possibly be the catalyst that finally activates”The Men Who Want to Be Left Alone”
70
The entire rock-show is about “provocation”; to clearly identify the objectors for detailed “attitude adjustment” when it suits the “gods”..
Power politics 101.
10
See also:
“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” – Benjamin Franklin
And finally, and most tellingly, from one of the greatest butchers of the 20th Century:
“Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searchers, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.” – Adolf Hitler, from his decree for the “Protection of the People and the State” in 1933.
10
As in:
“The most terrifying force of death, comes from the hands of “Men who wanted to be left Alone”.
They try, so very hard, to mind their own business and provide for themselves and those they love.
They resist every impulse to fight back, knowing the forced and permanent change of life that will come from it.
They know, that the moment they fight back, the lives as they have lived them, are over.
The moment the “Men who wanted to be left Alone” are forced to fight back, it is a small form of suicide. They are literally killing off who they used to be. . .
Which is why, when forced to take up violence, these “Men who wanted to be left Alone”, fight with unholy vengeance against those who murdered their former lives. They fight with raw hate, and a drive that cannot be fathomed by those who are merely play-acting at politics and terror. TRUE TERROR will arrive at the Left’s door, and they will cry, scream, and beg for mercy . . . . but it will fall upon deaf ears”.
See also; the caveat about watering the Tree of Liberty.
20
Amen.
How many more “conservative” voters are the Liberal party willing to lose in trying to poach some of the disgruntled Labor/green voters.
This is a woeful idea.
160
https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/proposed-social-media-ban-under-16s-australia
90
It’s not as though the Albanese govt hasn’t got a heap of other urgent things that need attention.
They could have fixed the bullying problem by teaching kids what the OFF button does.
80
Well I dunno ( again) – But but but, what is all the cafuffle about? Stupid smartfones … Ours is a COMPANY fone – anyone can use like anyone can use the Desktop PC here. What’s the problem? Jings if anything, even the Dogg can sign in ( and so does our tractor(s) – BTW I Identify as a tractor when it suits me: sometimes the Combine or Forage Harvester. and as for my age? Och the easiest to remember is 1/1/01 if 1/1/11 doesn’t work for me.
( 2/2/2 doesn’t cut it) Since when did I need to log on to use my Spanner or hammer? THis is just another tool. ( you can do all sorts with a fone nowadays .. measure, take foties, find your way around, drive advertisers nuts with their stupid algorithms. Want to see my eyeball, take a look at Geordie the Highland Bull, or Peter the Black Angus. I’ll gladly jump through hoops for them and fill their databases with Sheight, right ?
40
There is no way they will be able to stop kids from accessing the aps. so why bother? Perhaps they think it will require the suppliers to identify every user and so weed out the under 16’s. ??? and capture all that lovely personal digital information) it just wont work, apart from the parents who dont care and will “help” get age approval, the kids themselves will work it out in no time at all.
30
My Submission FWIW (based on dlk’s above)
Submission Regarding: Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024
Protecting children online is a worthwhile aim, however, it should be done via parenting, not via heavy handed government legislation. Sensible solutions to children accessing inappropriate such as mandating use of parental controls at the point of sale, do not appear to have even been contemplated.
My major concern is that this bill will be forcing adults to use age verification and identity verification (such as facial recognition technology) to access social media and even the internet itself, depending on how ‘social media’ is defined.
Such legislation has extraordinary consequences for privacy and particularly for political debate. It is a very short step from this to cancelling dissenting opinion.
It is reprehensible that the major parties are even contemplating such legislation, let alone rushing it through at a pace apparently designed to avoid public scrutiny and discussion.
I fully oppose this legislation.
90
So according to leftists, at 15 years and 11 months children aren’t smart enough or mature enough to use social media. Yet, miraculously, one mont later they are mature and knowledgeable enough to vote on complex political issues. You can’t make this up.
I could understand Victorians voting for this, given their preference for putting their lives in the hands of the government, but surely other voters aren’t dumb enough to reelect a govt that imposes this.
10
Car accidents harm and kill more children than social media … why no ban?
Oh that’s right, cars don’t hurt people’s feelings.
20
They are doing their best to take away all private transport and force people onto a public system where they can be easily controlled.
Not sure if it reduces accidents but heck that sure makes a good excuse!
10
Owa, owa or is it hou’a, hou’a ? Was a big nail you hit there! ( ie a very big hammer needed)
00
Below I will cut and paste details for NSW Senators. Note that Sen Cadell does not have an email contact listed on his parl website. As there will be many links it probably won’t post as it looks like in the basic text editor (.txt) from which I am cutting and pasting:
Contact details of NSW Senators at Cth Parl House:
Email:
Hon Tim Ayres – senator.ayres@aph.gov.au
Senator Andrew Bragg – senator.bragg@aph.gov.au
Senator Perin Davey – senator.davey@aph.gov.au
Senator Mehreen Faruqi – senator.faruqi@aph.gov.au
Senator Hollie Hughes – senator.hughes@aph.gov.au
Senator Maria Kovacic – senator.kovacic@aph.gov.au
Hon Jenny McAllister – jennifer.mcallister@aph.gov.au
Senator Deborah O’Neill – senator.oneill@aph.gov.au
Senator Dave Sharma – senator.sharma@aph.gov.au
Senator Tony Sheldon – senator.sheldon@aph.gov.au
Senator David Shoebridge – senator.shoebridge@aph.gov.au
No email shown at Parl website:
Senator Ross Cadell
https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=300134#t1-content-panel
Electorate Office
(Principal Office)
Ground Floor
28-30 Bolton Street
Newcastle, NSW, 2300
Telephone:
(02) 6492 0586
Parliament Office
PO Box 6100
Senate
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Telephone:
(02) 6277 3413
————————————
Websites:
https://www.aph.gov.au/Senator_Ayres
https://www.aph.gov.au/Senator_Bragg
Sen Cadell: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=300134#t1-content-panel
https://www.aph.gov.au/Senator_Davey
https://www.aph.gov.au/Senator_Faruqi
https://www.aph.gov.au/Senator_Hughes
https://www.senatorkovacic.com/
https://www.aph.gov.au/Senator_McAllister
https://www.aph.gov.au/D_O'Neill_MP
Sen Sharma: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=274506#t2-content-panel
also https://www.davesharma.com.au/
https://www.aph.gov.au/Senator_Sheldon
Sen Shoebridge: https://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian?MPID=169119#t2-content-panel
also https://greens.org.au/nsw/person/david-shoebridge
I understand if this post must be rejected by the moderator.
20
https://www.senatorcadell.com.au/contact
Senator.Cadell@aph.gov.au
20
Thank you so much nb.
Right now, we need to update all the parliamentary contact lists. This is such a help.
We need to storm the Liberals to get them to stand up for the true liberalism — free speech.
Or we need to get Senate control in the hands of minor parties an independents who are real conservatives and libertarians and not fake ones.
30
To access any social media you’ll have to prove you’re of a suitable age. You’ll have to identify yourself for every online “social media” interaction. (whatever they decide that is).
What does this mean with respect to all middle schools that require notepads to be issued to all students?
Especially if the parents refuse to have the “status” of their offspring “documented”.
10
Using a notepad isn’t itself social media. It depends on the App or program or web site the user is accessing as to whether the use is social media, and that’s where the control probably comes in. Typing up a school assignment on a notepad, or doing a class exercise, wouldn’t be “social media”.
In a school you’ve pretty well got your offspring documented already. Any kid logged into the school network would probably not currently be able to access a range of web sites and social platforms. The latter I’m assuming on the basis networks can block sites and schools wouldn’t want kids on Facebook during class. Like some schools don’t let kids have mobile phones on during the day.
10
I have emailed Peter Dutton directly. It may do nothing except register my deep concern, but at least I know I have done something.
60
I’m wonder now if the absurd Misinformation & Disinformation wasn’t a ruse to distract us from this more worrisome Bill?
While we where all (rightly) outraged at the MaD proposal they were scheming to whisk this Trojan horse bill through Parliament before Christmas.
40
I keep hearing advice from various senators that this legislation is dead in the water, that ALL the 7 independent senators will not allow it to pass. What am I missing?
00
Ross, if the Liberals support the Labor Party, there is no way it can fail.
The Liberals opposed the Misinformation Bill and therefore the independent senators counted.
30
Mental note to self. Read the damn article and not get confused between MAD legislation and U16’s social media ban. Thanks Jo.
20
Don’t feel silly Ross. I saw so many on Twitter last night asking the exact same question. It’s not like the ABC has been explaining these two laws and what they really mean.
20
‘Greens torpedo misinformation bill as top Trump ally raises concerns.
‘The Greens cited concerns that the bill doesn’t ‘actually do what it needs to do’, as one of the top Republicans in the US Congress accused the Australian government of seeking to ‘censor speech worldwide’. (OZ)
20
From the bill:
Would that mean scientific purposes would not be a social purpose? Jo may be able to dodge the bill by claiming this blog site is for non-social scientific purposes? That’s mostly true, although recent discussion about the Misinformation bill might be one of the few exceptions.
It would be better for the bill to be blocked.
Speaking of compliance, I cannot see how a blog run by a foreigner on foreign infrastructure could be made to comply with this bill.
If asked to comply, the easiest method for a foreign blog would be using IP addresses to try to block all users in Australia from accessing the service. However that would not be accepted by the regulator who are undoubtedly aware it can be bypassed by using a VPN.
The bill sounds like the equivalent of an Internet Driver’s License, which could be good or bad entirely depending on how it is actually used in future (not just the reasons stated up front).
How would this authorisation work? If an email address is known to be for a non-Australian the authoriser could answer “yes” trivially because the legislation doesn’t apply to that person, but if the address is known to be an Australian citizen they have to check the DOB too. That means the answer to the authorisation query is not an age but a yes/no. This also means the authoriser may not be able to say Yes when nothing is known about the email address.
So the scheme is entirely dependent on knowing at least the citizenship status of any given email address. How will that be accomplished by a blogger?
Conceivably someone (the government?) could run a checking service (API) which blogs and other platforms would have to integrate with. But that is a huge impact to potentially all blogs in the world. Once again, as with the MAD bill, the government seems obsessed with the major social apps run by megacorps and doesn’t think about the impact on blogs.
But that is making some assumptions about how this age restriction would be implemented. We should not have to make assumptions, the legislators should have more detail about how the account approval is given so that the politicians know what they’re agreeing to on our behalf. The rush in the 1-day consultation is suspicious in itself.
I just finished racing against time to get my submission in before 4pm (5pm Canberra) but I don’t know exactly what the deadline was.
30
I did get a submission in before close of business:
Public submission regarding the proposed Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024.
To whom it may concern,
As an Australian citizen, I strongly oppose the passing of this ill conceived bill. While the claimed goal of preventing the use of “Social Media” by persons under 16 years of age may be desired by some parents, willing to abnegate their family responsibilities to government, the societal dangers inherent in the construction of enforcement mechanisms far out weigh risks to minors. Risks that would be more reasonably be addressed with more Internet safety education for children and parents.
Regardless of the goal, enforcement of such a ban inevitably slides towards age verification via mandatory digital ID for all citizens. “Reasonable” age verification individually run by hundreds of thousands of current and emerging Internet platforms, that allow communication between individual citizens is not viable. However government controlled mandatory digital ID offered as a “convenient solution” to ensure “safety for children” is a road to hell, regardless of intentions.
Internet safety for children is an issue for parents. The only government activity should be assisting families to find their own rules and parental controls.
Try mandating digital ID for Internet communication on this, or any other “safety” excuse, and the apparatus of permanent government will be stamping a “use by” date on its own posterior.
Yours sincerely,
Mr. Konrad ——–
One thing is clear, the rush, the limited time for submissions, indicates both wings of the UniParty know they are doing the wrong thing, and that their claimed objectives are not their true objectives. And the crazed objectives of the Lib/Lab UniParty here, are the same as they were with the ACMA censorship of citizens (but not GOV or Lamescream Misledia) bill that the Liberals created. The parasite class cannot withstand anonymous free speech happening on the Internet, so they seek to destroy it. But their efforts to do so are destroying themselves.
20
It’s late, but submissions are still open. My rushed document is here: https://joannenova.com.au/wp-content/Under-16s-ban.pdf
Submission regarding the:
Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 [Provisions]
This ill-begotten, immature, vague and dangerous legislation must be stopped.
It is the start of a “social credit score” like the Chinese Communist Party has.
We are playing with fire.
This will silence whistleblowers and victims. It will stop Australians from speaking up, hearing and sharing information which is critical to the health of any democracy.
The title of this legislation is deceptive misinformation
Clearly the real aim and impact of this legislation is to force all adults to use a digital ID which is the only way a platform can be sure participants are old enough to use their services.
In the name of saving children from bullying on Facebook and X, we’re going to risk giving them a totalitarian dystopia.
Mandatory ID makes dissent so much more difficult, and that’s the point.
Now whistleblowers or government critics will have to first put their faces on camera, or give up their identity. It will be so much easier for the government to track and collate all your comments, and probably guess how you vote.
When hackers steal the data, which they will, then employers, the CCP, insurance companies, and marketing teams will be happy to buy the details for the right price.
This will open Australians up to extortion and blackmail.
Viral newsfeeds allow millions of Australians to “like” or share the key issues of the day. Effectively this process filters and amplifies the most important issues to millions of minds, so the key concepts that matter can rise to the top above the fog of distraction and clutter. These laws will cloud up, reduce, and impair that filter as many people sit it out instead of participating.
Great thoughts and wicked jokes will disappear like a drop of rain in a desert. Unliked, and unshared, and mostly unheard.
This law doesn’t add any choices, it just reduces them. It gives more power to the government, and takes it away from the people.
It doesn’t make sense that every citizen has to lose anonymity, suffer the tyranny of more protection for the corrupt and powerful and less protection for the working poor.
Societies without free speech inevitably get poorer, more corrupt, and some get gulags and death camps as well. We will be one step closer to the gates of hell.
The sole benefit of these laws is just so a few parents don’t have to face the wrath of a 14 year old who says “but my friends can use facebook”. It’s not worth the risk.
While Australians might superficially want more restrictions on Under 16s, few would understand the major impact this will have on free speech online. Both Labor and Liberal members should be ashamed and disgusted at their lack of honesty, and the lack of public discussion, and the ridiculous speed they are pushing these far-reaching and dangerous changes.
Sincerely,
Joanne Nova
November 22, 2024
PS: I should probably have added that the government can not be trusted to hold such sensitive data. And to spell it out, what happens when an elected member, doctor, person on a govt powerful committee, or judge, “likes” or reveals their political leanings or thoughts on a contentious topic. They could then be open to extortion by hackers, and thus in the control of whatever party bought this information.
30
It will just make people hate politicians more … stifle the safety valve of free debate, without which society inevitably heads toward violence and revolution.
Politicians cannot force people to like them, they can only start listening and actually doing what the populace want them to do. More and more draconian rules, just lead to more and more hatred of politicians.
20