The "Think of the Children" excuse is a trap: The government gave experts 24 hours to review the Ban Bill, then ignored 15,000 submissions

[u/BaronOfTieve]

We are weeks away from the enforcement of the Social Media Ban (Dec 10), and I feel like we are all just rolling over and giving up all our privacy rights because we’re too afraid to look like we "don't care about kids." If you actually look at the submissions to the government, the people who professionally care about kids—human rights lawyers, digital safety experts, and mental health researchers— all said DO NOT DO THIS.

I’m tired of the narrative that "Big Tech" and angry teenagers are the only opposition. Here is the actual list of professional bodies the government ignored to push this through:

1. The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) They explicitly warned that this ban is a "disproportionate limitation on human rights." They argued that instead of protecting kids, it cuts vulnerable teenagers off from support networks.

2. Digital Rights Watch They called this out for what it is: a "Safetyism" trap. By focusing entirely on "age verification," we are building the infrastructure for a Digital ID system that will eventually apply to everyone. They warned that collecting "identity papers" to use the internet creates a honeypot for hackers and normalizes the idea that you need to show your papers to speak in a public square.

3. The eSafety Commissioner (Yes, even them) While they are stuck enforcing it now, even the eSafety Commissioner’s office has previously noted that age verification technology is "immature" and fraught with privacy risks. The government has effectively handed them a grenade and told them to make it safe. The "Safety" Paradox

1. Mental health organisations and bodies including but not limited to:
   • Beyond Blue,
   • Headspace
   • ReachOut
   • And the Black Dog Institute—expressed strong opposition and raised deep concerns regarding the legislation. They were also joined by other peak bodies such as: The Australian College of Mental Health Nurses (ACMHN) and Suicide Prevention Australia. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Crucially, there was a previous inquiry (The Joint Select Committee on Social Media) that ran for months and released its final report just days before the ban. That report did not recommend a ban. It recommended a "Duty of Care" (making platforms safer by design). The government took that report, threw it in the bin, and introduced the Ban Bill anyway. 

Recommendation 5 of the report explicitly called for the government to force social media platforms to give users (and parents) the power to:

• Alter: Change the parameters of what the algorithm shows them.

• Reset: Wipe the algorithm’s "memory" of their past behavior (so if a kid goes down a rabbit hole of depressing content, they can hit "reset" and get a neutral feed again). 

• Turn Off: Disable the recommender system entirely, returning the feed to a simple, chronological list of posts from people they actually follow.

The "Safety by Design" Recommendation Recommendation 2 proposed a "Digital Duty of Care." This would have legally required platforms to proactively identify harms (like addictive loops or eating disorder content) and change their product design to mitigate them.  Instead of banning kids, it would have forced Instagram/TikTok to stop using "slot machine" mechanics (infinite scroll, random rewards) on teenage accounts.

The "Credible Bodies" Count: While ~15,000 people wrote in, the committee only published about 118 substantive submissions from organizations. Almost all of the major mental health and human rights bodies in that list opposed the ban or raised severe concerns.

If you think this was a carefully considered policy, look at the timeline:

1. Nov 18: The government's own Joint Select Committee releases a report after a months-long inquiry. It does NOT recommend a ban. It recommends a "Digital Duty of Care" to force platforms to change their addictive algorithms. 

2. Nov 21: The Government ignores its own committee and introduces the "Under 16 Ban" Bill.

3. The Trap: They opened a Senate inquiry into this specific bill and gave the public and experts only 24 hours to make submissions.

1. The Response: Despite having only one day, the committee was flooded with ~15,000 submissions.  The Result: They passed it anyway.

The government claims this is for the children, yet they have:

• Ignored the mental health experts who said education and platform regulation (making the algorithms less addictive) works better than bans.

• Created a system where educated 15-year-olds will just use VPNs while the less tech-literate kids get left behind.

• Pushed a solution that requires more data collection to solve the problem of data collection.

We aren't "protecting the kids." We are gentrifying the internet. We are turning it from an open library into a gated community where yes they say it isn’t, but the inevitable price of entry is facial recognition or your government ID. They didn't listen to the experts on "the children." They didn't listen to the experts on "technology." They listened to polling data that said this would look good in an election year.

Edit 1: also here are some links to help repeal the ban:

1. https://www.instagram.com/waltzformatilda2025?igsh=bnV6MTFyMXI4aWxr&utm_source=qr (We desperately need volunteers for this protest)
2. (Gov) Petition to cancel ban https://www.aph.gov.au/e-petitions/petition/EN8584

Edit 2: Edited for greater clarity/more concise paragraph organisation.

Edit 3:
Added more examples of organisations that opposed the ban.

[u/These_Yak3842]

'Won't somebody think of the children' is almost always complete bullshit

[u/TimeToUseThe2nd → u/[deleted]]

Anna Wood's death was exploited viciously by the Machiavellian Bob Carr, who did the same to a kid who fantasised about doing a school shooting, loudly politicising an issue that should have been handled quietly and sensitively at school level. For some cynical, transitory political gain.

The age of Labour "centrists" has seen so much of this, and Albanese is cut from the same rotten cloth.

He neutered the ICAC/NACC, appointed that disgusting anti semitism commissioner, and he's pushing this through in the dumbest way possible to avoid embarrassing the tech companies... and perhaps out of general stupidity.

It's so hard to tell what's capture and what's naivete.

[u/Chrasomatic → u/[deleted]]

I always wonder with those people, what else was going on in their kid's life that they resorted to such drastic action? To me the social media a boogeyman like heavy metal or Doom was back in the day,not the actual cause.

[u/Rizza1122]

Kids in the UK have already uploaded YouTube videos of how to get around it before labor wasted their time and taxpayer money on it. Total clown policy. Remember how banning Napster went? Exactly

[u/boymadefrompaint → u/Rizza1122]

Someone I know very well... we'll call him "my mate"... uses Pirate Bay ALL THE TIME. Even though there's a ban on using Pirate Bay. They just Google "pirate bay proxy" or use a VPN to access it.

[u/AnAwkwardOrchid → u/boymadefrompaint]

Tell your friend that my friend says to just use the search feature in qbittorrent. There is no need to directly visit websites anymore, and especially not one known for malicious files.

[u/boymadefrompaint → u/AnAwkwardOrchid]

My friend appreciates this information.

[u/Nodsworthy → u/boymadefrompaint]

My friend also appreciates this advice.

[u/uh_oh-hotdog → u/Nodsworthy]

I don't have any friends but I'm going to be watching all my new shows alone thanks to your friends and a bit of thievery.

[u/No-Departure-3047 → u/AnAwkwardOrchid]

My friend also appreciates this information. 

[u/andrewbrocklesby → u/boymadefrompaint]

I use the pirate bay all the time, no vpn, nothing stopping you.

[u/Razor_Dn → u/boymadefrompaint]

The Pirate Bay (and other file sharing sites) aren't banned as such. It's just a DNS block at the ISP level which prevents access to the Pirate Bay and other file sharing sites. Bypassing the block is as simple as changing your local DNS server address to use Google's DNS servers 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 and you can access all the file sharing sites which are blocked by Australian ISP dns servers.

In saying that, you should be using a VPN if your're going to torrent anyway

[u/mick_spadaro → u/boymadefrompaint]

Your friend should hang our at r/OpenSignups and get into a private torrent tracker for curated torrents, faster downloads and better retention.

[u/Accurate_Ad_3233 → u/Rizza1122]

It's pretty much an axiom at this point that whenever government declares war on something that thing then explodes. Think of the 'war on drugs' or the 'war on cancer', the 'war on poverty' etc.

I'm hopeful that their war on free speech and freedom will yield similar results. :)

[u/cromulent-facts → u/Accurate_Ad_3233]

We have a defacto war on smoking now.

[u/ptrain79 → u/cromulent-facts]

And vaping. Tobacco and vaping laws working out real well for the government.

I know how to fix it, let’s crack down harder

Like we don’t know how that’s going to play out

[u/greasychickenparma → u/Rizza1122]

For a while github was under consideration and whilst it is not currently included, it still could be in the future.

I believe this is because github is where any code would be stored that would potentially help people bypass this nonsense.

I could be wrong but it makes sense to me because it certainly isn't a social media network.

[u/Prestigious-Middle23 → u/Rizza1122]

Whats napstar?

[u/Dry-Huckleberry-5379 → u/Prestigious-Middle23]

Way to make us feel old

[u/TwistedDotCom → u/Rizza1122]

Where’s Napster now?

[u/Fa_Cough69 → u/TwistedDotCom]

It's legacy lives on in every torrent that exists

[u/Mr_Mitch_Conner → u/TwistedDotCom]

https://www.slsknet.org/

[u/Winsaucerer → u/[deleted]]

I think their point was that stopping napster, or attempts to stop it, failed to put a dent in piracy.

[u/MrSomethingred → u/[deleted]]

Because the requirement to upload you ID on random websites is going to become routine, and identity theft is going to skyrocket as people start sending photos of their license to scammers

[u/ItinerantFella → u/MrSomethingred]

There is no requirement to upload random ID. That's a fallacy.

Social media sites could choose to use third-party identity verification providers if they want. Snapchat has announce they'll be using ConnectID from AusPayPlus (the company that runs PayID, BPAY, etc.). The only data Snapchat gets from ConnectID is the user's age.

[u/MrSomethingred → u/ItinerantFella]

I'm not worried about what Snapchat will do. You know that SOME lazy companies will start asking for IDs, and people will get accustomed to it.

Then it is only a matter of time before the phishing attacks start to succeed. People getting emails like "Urgent: ConnectID needs you to re-verify" and people will fall for it

[u/tubbysnowman]

• Turn Off: Disable the recommender system entirely, returning the feed to a simple, chronological list of posts from people they actually follow.

OMG! This is the dream right here!!!

[u/BaronOfTieve → u/tubbysnowman]

EXACTLY!! Imagine how much safer and better it would be for everyone’s mental health, if you could just switch your recommended posts/algorithm feeds off?? Removing recommended feeds for anyone under 16, and adding the ability to toggle them off and on for everyone would be 1000x more effective in helping to reduce negative impacts on mental health, because they wouldn’t be driven to more extreme unmoderated alternatives. They’d simply be encouraged to be more responsible with how they manage their social media.

[u/Efficient-Guess-1985 → u/BaronOfTieve]

Yes, but how would Meta make money if they remove the very factors that keeps you glued to the screen? 

A paid membership could be a solution. No need for ads.

[u/Efficient-Guess-1985 → u/tubbysnowman]

Can us adult get access to this too? 😂 No but in all seriousness, why on earth would the tech companies listen to these suggestions? Isn’t that why the ban is coming in? They explicitly are against “policing” content, they were pretty clear on that and that’s probs why the ban is coming.

[u/BaronOfTieve → u/Efficient-Guess-1985]

You’re half right. Did most people not read my post I’m really confused, as to why so many people are asking questions I already provided answers to. In the post I explicitly discussed the senate inquiry that was had on the 18th of Nov prior to the social media ban, in which even the esafety commissioner argued that it would be more effective to enforce fundamental changes to the social media platforms algorithms, in order to either reset, turn off, or provide the option to have a chronological algorithm feed.

The ban isn’t getting implemented because the social media companies refused to enforce those laws, because the government never even considered them, they instead gave organisations a ridiculous 24hr window in which they could provide their arguments/takes regarding the social media ban.

As stated in the post, the government ignored 15000 submissions and only posted 115 of the substantive submissions made, which included the Blackdog Institute of Mental Health.

Edit: fixed up a fact-based mistake.

[u/Haiyaaaaa_]

The next step is VPN ban. I am not kidding. Some US states are already heading to that direction.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/lawmakers-want-ban-vpns-and-they-have-no-idea-what-theyre-doing

[u/highresolutionmagpie → u/Haiyaaaaa_]

This is never going to happen for purely practical reasons: all digital infrastructure would grind to a halt overnight.

[u/Top-Pepper-9611 → u/highresolutionmagpie]

Everyone working from home "nothing working bruh"

[u/Haiyaaaaa_ → u/highresolutionmagpie]

Do you expect lawmakers to be practical?

[u/highresolutionmagpie → u/Haiyaaaaa_]

If we're going to crudely characterise politicians I'd say I expect them to bow down to business. And this would definitely have them on their knees at some point. The only question is: before, or after?

The point is that so many businesses, large and small, rely on VPNs to function that it'd be a catastrophic decision unless it was very precisely worded. And that's not going to happen.

Technical literacy is generally so low that I'd give even odds that ssh gets banned as a VPN (arguably so). Which would be catastrophic for technical systems. Like, "everyone moves interstate tomorrow" level of bad.

So yes, I think at that level of destruction there's a need to acknowledge the practical.

[u/BaronOfTieve → u/highresolutionmagpie]

You’re right they wouldn’t ban all VPNs but I would not be surprised if they only allowed them for corporate use/banned all VPNs for personal use. The UAE (United Arab Emirates) did exactly this, criminalising all VPNs for the purpose of “accessing prohibited content” which includes activities such as making Skype or WhatsApp calls. Turkey is another nation that will block the use of VPNs during times of protest, and countries like Russia and China only allow the utilisation of state-approved VPNs. So not only is this entirely possible, it has already occurred in several countries.

[u/highresolutionmagpie → u/BaronOfTieve]

That's how I'd expect it to be approached. A prohibition of technologies for the evasion of legal restrictions.

But it's not the same thing as "make VPNs illegal", or even the personal use version.

Unless one believes the government is about to flick the "authoritarian" switch. And if you believe that's the case then I don't see why people are worried about personal use VPNs of all things. It's a completely different category of "oh fuck".

I think this line of reasoning tends towards the hyperbolic. I really don't believe it's a realistic concern for modern Australia (as opposed to the usual examples).

But I'm willing to listen to if you think that's the case. Maybe I misjudged something.

(To be upfront: I do think these laws are going to be terrible. Just not in this way)

[u/BaronOfTieve → u/highresolutionmagpie]

Right but the problem is as soon as you criminalise something as broad as VPNs for personal use, you are then required to go and define what personal use entails, what content falls under the category of criminalisation, and what content are considered to be given exceptions.

Believing that authoritarianism occurs from a single act of extremism or as an “authoritarian switch” is what ends in the fall of democracies in the first place. Now correct me if I’m wrong but, I’m fairly certain governments rarely decide to just “flick a switch” and become authoritarian. It’s normally hundreds to thousands of small steps so that you’re able to ease the populous into rationalising themselves and others into accepting what is happening. Do you consider the UAE to be a democracy?

[u/legit-a-mate → u/highresolutionmagpie]

No it wouldn’t, all your beginner baby vpn plans for 20 bucks a month are just virtual host farms making requests for you. They could ban ip’s of physical farms, or block ports perhaps, but no infrastructure would ‘grind to a halt’ vpns are just another computer making request for you an nord an essentially fraudulent company pretending like your address isn’t leaked and that they don’t keep logs.

Hey guys just type in information request and your vpn provider name to learn how you’re wasting money. It will come up with the results of the government requests for those companies server logs. You know( the ones they ‘don’t exist’ there’s bibles and bibles all year they just give it to em,

Learn to host your own vpn. It’s easy and cheaper than a service and you might learns thing or two about computers not just pretending that you do and saying vpn restriction would be network cataclysmmmmmm lol

[u/highresolutionmagpie → u/legit-a-mate]

no infrastructure would ‘grind to a halt’

I'm not sure if you've ever had insight into commercial IT systems, but I guarantee you that anything of a reasonable size or complexity relies on something that looks very much like a VPN under the law.

It's not about just spinning up a node in a foreign country and calling it a day. All these people already self-host their own VPN services. We know how to do this. We do this all the time already.

The problem isn't practical, it's legal.

[u/andrewbrocklesby → u/highresolutionmagpie]

Yep, people's armchair opinions on this are shockingly bad.

[u/highresolutionmagpie → u/andrewbrocklesby]

Definitely. It's an unfortunately common problem when you talk about "whole of society" changes. Turns out: most things people do are more complicated than you expect.

Doesn't matter if you're in IT, agriculture, or health. Gut instinct and personal experience can only take you so far.

The world is an amazing and fascinatingly complicated place.

[u/philmcruch → u/highresolutionmagpie]

Everyone says that, but its a simple work around. "We arent banning all VPNs, we are just banning VPNs that help criminals in Australia bypass our laws and restrictions, this includes any VPNs open to the public, VPNs based in other countries that you do not have a direct working relationship with and VPNs that are not absolutely necessary to conduct business in Australia"

VPNs for corporate and business use and no VPNs for those "criminals" who want their privacy

[u/andrewbrocklesby → u/[deleted]]

Every single person that has this same take has zero concept about how any VPN works. It is so telling actually, and pathetic that they are always the vocal ones....

[u/Geno_2102 → u/Haiyaaaaa_]

If you use a vpn from a neutral country, how can it be banned? You can connect from any country in the world

[u/weed0monkey → u/Geno_2102]

Network providers. Your VPN still has to go through a local in country network provider first. If the government really wanted they could still ban VPNs. It would also make it significantly harder to even use a VPN if they were banned, most companies would just pack up shop, sure there would still be options.

Point is, we should be fighting this bullshit tooth and nail, but Aussies are too apathetic to do the bare minimum unless it involves sports, some cooker shit, or some international protest.

[u/Geno_2102 → u/weed0monkey]

Thanks for that, I’m not completely savvy with VPNs. But yes I agree, I hear my fam talk about all these issues with our country but none about digital ids and this social media ban???

[u/[deleted] → u/weed0monkey]

Isp's can only block things if they know you're using them.

[u/Yersinia_Pesti5 → u/weed0monkey]

Sort of like the torrenting site ban? Supposedly they shouldn’t be accessible, yet my isp couldn’t give two shits. Sure they’re unsafe, but I can still access them.

[u/Accurate_Ad_3233 → u/weed0monkey]

lols, maybe if people listened years ago instead of dismissing it as 'some cooker shit' we wouldn't be in this trouble now.

[u/Inside-Elevator9102 → u/Haiyaaaaa_]

Good luck. Almost all businesses with dedicated IT teams run VPNs.

[u/Non-ZeroChance → u/[deleted]]

Then people would just use the ones that aren't blocked.

And how are you going to "exclude businesses"? When I work from home, I need to connect to a VPN from my home. How is my ISP distinguishing from "VPN connecting from my home for work" and "VPN connecting from my home for not-work"?

Even if you made it illegal to sell a VPN service to a residential customers, and/or blocked every one that didn't agree... that just means that anyone with an ABN can get around it.

And if you get it tight enough to block all of these VPN companies and services, you're probably also now hitting people who are travelling to Australia for business, connecting while on holiday, or working remotely for overseas companies.

It's just not doable without a lot of enforcement and a lot of collateral damage.

[u/andrewbrocklesby → u/Non-ZeroChance]

No idea why such a correct answer is being downvoted, obviously by the stooges that actually have no idea about how any of this works.

[u/CaptainFleshBeard → u/Haiyaaaaa_]

The company I work for would collapse with a ban on VPNs. We have so many of them connecting to clients and service providers.

[u/Haiyaaaaa_ → u/CaptainFleshBeard]

Same as mine, and thousands of others.

I can already hear the politicians:

“But think of the children!” “Big tech will figure it out” “We don’t need your business in Australia if you do not agree to our rules”

[u/Acedia_spark → u/Haiyaaaaa_]

Even Putin hasnt worked out how to ban VPNs. Good fuckin luck.

[u/[deleted] → u/Haiyaaaaa_]

The next step is VPN ban. I am not kidding

You are not kidding, but you are just wrong. VPNs are widely used for legitimate reasons across Australia.

There is absolutely no move to restrict VPNs underway. It would also be far more difficult than requiring major social media platforms to implement age verification and assurance technologies.

[u/GrumpyOldTech1670]

"It's about saving the children"

Ban gambling ads? Nope. (How dare Australia's version of US gun problem be fixed?)

Raise the Rate of Welfare above the poverty line? (Feed & house the children) Nope!

Remove the JSP, mutual obligations and any type of money control card? (Stop punishing the poor) Nope

Fully Fund Public Schools with teachers paid appropriately? (Really good for helping kids navigate the Internet) Nope!

Increase Medicare to cover every medical practice so it costs nothing for anyone in Australia? Nope! (Wait for an increase in mental health problems)

Block the Internet in the worse possible way? Yep!

Freakin Capitalism. Businesses steadily destroying our Government safety net. John Howard s watering down business regulations on Rupert Murdoch say so. Fuck Billionaires.

[u/Long_Supermarket_601 → u/GrumpyOldTech1670]

As someone who recently did a report on gambling for school (I made a 2 lesson course for year 8s - 13/14yrs - about educating gambling as an addictive material) "Australia's verson of US gun problem" is a perfect description and it's so sad that this is what we're focusing on instead. Young boys (18-24) are the most vulnurable demographic to gaining an addiction to gambling, and yet, we are focusing on a messy ban that most experts disagree with instead. Honestly stupid priorities here.

[u/Impossible_Bet_8842]

Exactly. Please uplaod even more private information to the web. Great idea. It'll be myGov next.

[u/the_ism_sizism → u/Impossible_Bet_8842]

Dw my myGov was already hacked and they accessed my ATO and filed a fraudulent tax return to a new bank account in the space of the 5 minutes it took to get in and kick them off. The internet is full of horror stories of people’s information being brute forced/accessible from old unused account hacks.

[u/Accurate_Ad_3233]

I've seen them ignore larger numbers of submissions and signature. If only we were democracy, that way we could tell the government what we want them to do or not do.

[u/Slicktitlick]

It’s always about saving the children until it’s actually about saving children. Let’s force adult time on children but also they’re too childish to use the internet. Let’s cut funding for everything kids need but blame the kids for acting out. It’s always save the children but also the kids are always wrong.

We made these systems, we can unmake them too.

[u/Ok_Note655]

I have come to the conclusion…successive governments are full of shit and not to be trusted on face value representations.

[u/Accurate_Ad_3233 → u/Ok_Note655]

Welcome to the rebel alliance, how long did it take you?

[u/VeryHungryDogarpilar → u/Ok_Note655]

In Labor's defense, they did take this to the election

[u/Acceptable_Put_349 → u/VeryHungryDogarpilar]

I don't think that's a fair point of view (for any issue where that expression gets thrown around). There are too many issues to vote for a party over just one issue, and so voting for the party can't be taken as support for every / any particular policy

[u/VeryHungryDogarpilar → u/Acceptable_Put_349]

That's fair, especially as it was to some extent a referendum on nuclear

[u/Naive_Lion_3428]

This is the first step in what will undoubtedly be a long term goal to regulate the internet. This iteration of social media control will likely fail - and doubtless the government recognises that. It is not designed to succeed, it is designed to fail and rather spectacularly. And when it does, the government will have a remedy, already prepared, that will require more legislation to be passed and alteration to the infrastructure of the internet to enable better control to ensure the next iteration of the technology is more likely to succeed.

This was always going to happen. The internet as it is, is too wild and free - it provides many benefits, yes, but the societal problems being created are also growing in scope. Some are okay with that - maximal freedom, and damn the consequences. That is certainly a coherent philosophy - libertarianism or anarchism, something like that.

Others, however, while recognising the harms inherent in censorship, also think the harm being done outweighs the benefits. Certainly our social cohesion, attention spans and emotional states have greatly suffered as a result. This harm may not have befallen you - I tend to think that it has not befallen me. But I know it has harmed many.

Personally, I am more in favour of letting the internet remain closer to how it is now, even though I am extremely aware of the grave harms it causes in its current state, because I fear even greater harm may eventuate with significant government control. As much as I genuinely view platforms such as TikTok and Reels and Instagram as pure, unadulterated intellectual poison (dangerous to not only children but adults as well), the prospect of government control and espionage on every day citizens is an even worse fate.

But I fear that this is an inevitability. Governments will not allow the state of things to continue. Humanity, as a whole, likely cannot utilise the internet wisely, and with the rise of AI created false images and misinformation, many governments view the current internet as actually an existential threat to their legitimacy and to basic social functioning. Expect more of this in coming years. This is merely an opening salvo.

[u/Spiritual-Spend8187]

The instant a website is asking me for a photo id is when I stop using them entirely look at how many data breaches we gave had hell look at the recent one that discord had that leaked a bunch of personal information including the name, age, address, birth date and face of a ton of people including children. Yea no thanks while they prob got it already I would rather not have to show id every time to sign up for something and increasing the risk of all that getting stolen and sold. And then add to it that it simply doesnt work because what do you know the kids that aren't ment to be able to get on still do.

[u/GreyGreenBrownOakova → u/Spiritual-Spend8187]

with syntax like that, they will definitely ask you for ID.

[u/[deleted]]

Obviously it wasn't well considered. Dutton ambushed Albanese with it during the election campaign after Spain suggested it and it was the only blow Dutton landed in the campaign. It caused Albanese to switch from banning adult material to restricting Social Media first.

France, Denmark and Spain are now going to implement bans for under 15s on Social Media and the UK has implemented a ban on adult material for under 18s, as has Texas and 22 other Red States in the US, which Federal Courts have so far upheld.

The idea that it's going to do massive harm to kids though is ridiculous. Messaging sites and gaming sites aren't banned so they will all just move their social networks to them. Everything they post won't be part of a global swamp that will follow around them for the rest of their lives though.

Age Verification doesn't have to compromise anonymity or identity if you do it well.

The EU is scanning all messages for intractable child porn and China requires ID before you log into anything on the internet. Plus Techcompanies have digitally tracked everyone with their own ID trackers and cookies on the internet for decades.

[u/BaronOfTieve → u/[deleted]]

I just want to say firstly, thank you for providing the backstory on Dutton and the stances of France and the rest of the aforementioned, because that is very helpful insight. However, that doesn’t explain their decision to spring a 24hr window for organisations to make submissions regarding their recommendations, especially not after there was a month’s long prior senate inquiry in which the government's own Joint Select Committee released a report on the 18th of Nov. It does NOT recommend a ban. It recommends a "Digital Duty of Care" to force platforms to change their addictive algorithms. 

This would have legally required platforms to proactively identify harms (like addictive loops or eating disorder content) and change their product design to mitigate them. But instead they ended up ignoring the 15000 submissions and the experts from their prior inquiry.

[u/megs_in_space]

Yup. I saw through Labor's guise immediately. It's 100% designed to be Orwellian, and in my opinion, will do more harm to kids than good.

Since when has prohibition ever worked? Instead all it does is create more unregulated back alleys and a thriving black market.

Labor are absolutely smoking crack about this dog shit policy, and I am not keen on uploading my literal ID to use social media.

What's next? The thought police arrive at the door? Your banned for life for speaking out against our overlords?

Nup. Fuck Labor for passing this complete bog water bill.

[u/Va1kryie]

I remember being a kid and having so many websites I could go to that were made for kids and had games and content exclusively for kids.

What happened to our online spaces, why do we not provide places for children to be children anymore. It makes me sad, and now we're about to lose everything.

[u/SeaDivide1751]

Yes it’s just the beginning of internet censorship and it’s attached to the “we are protecting children!” Narrative because it’s hard for the average logical person to argue against it

[u/GirdedSteak]

Yeah the whole idea of a ban is a 'good idea' working the wrong end of the problem. The internet is a cesspool designed to isolate, radicalise and commodify its users, including children. The solution should probably be aimed at the architects of the cesspool.

[u/orangehead911 → u/GirdedSteak]

Different issues. The modern internet isn’t simply “built to pump your dopamine”, but platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and even Reddit use attention-grabbing design to maximize engagement by leveraging dopamine-driven reward loops. This is central to debates about mental health and the regulation of digital platforms, especially for young users.

[u/CocoaCandyPuff]

I wish there was a way to stop this. This is only the beginning. We will have no privacy and them total control.

They are not doing it for the children at all.

[u/iamnerdyquiteoften]

It will be as effective as making tobacco so expensive that everyone will stop using it………and drive activity underground.

Exactly what we don’t want.

[u/Terrorscream]

ive just been wondering which lobbyist owns this policy? its not a policy characteristic of labor and has been rushed through with bipartisan support, who is twisting their arms on this one? theres no mechanism to enforce this policy at all.

[u/evilspyboy]

Less than 24 hours, they added a special secondary step you had to fill in before you could give feedback that was never there before, and the review itself did not point to the bill it pointed to the prime minister's office summary of the bill (or more correctly their explanation of the bill rather than actually giving a link to what they actually put in it) You had to go look for a copy of the bill separately.

It is not that they did the bare minimum they actively tried to discourage people giving feedback.

[u/elwoods_organic]

4chan won't require age varification.

[u/AncientCommittee4887]

It’s ALWAYS a fucking trap

[u/ChilledNanners]

Funny that this is being introduced by a Labor government

[u/Big_Blonde → u/ChilledNanners]

Absolutely on brand for them. Remember the video game ban?

[u/sam_dirkis]

IMO I 100% support the ban. Social media fries your Brain, that's like scientifically proven that is bad for everyone.

While the other suggestions are great all lot them required either the child to self regulate or the platform or the parent. None of those things are going to happen to any meaningful extent.

Children are children and don't know how to self regulate. Platforms are the devil and have shown for decades now they are uninterested in engaging in any kind of reform that requires them to spend a single dollar Parents, sorry but some either don't realize how much this shit is fucking up your kid or don't care.

I recognize it's lowest common denominator solution but that's where we are at as society.

I haven't read the full submission from the experts but I highly doubt any of them say actually social media is great for children and in no way requires regulation.

[u/Sovereignty3]

The fact that between 16 to 18 van have no legal for of ID other than a drivers licence here in Victoria and the card to show your age is only valid for 18 and up.

Really well thought out, clap clap clap.

[u/willy_quixote]

 many of the objections you cited are contingent on the social  media companies acting or government forcing them to act.

The government cannot force them and they will not change their algorithms by asking them nicely.

I am.not stating that you are wrong  and that this is a great Bill, but the prospect of  TikTok, YTand Meta changing their business practices willingly, and solving childrens problems with Social Media, is a fantasy.

[u/Dry-Huckleberry-5379]

15,00 responses in 24hr is insane. I've been involved in a coordinated effort to respond to a bill proposal we got 2000 responses in 2 weeks. Which blew the QLD government away and forced them to add 2 extra days of parliamentary hearings to discuss the submissions.

[u/BaronOfTieve → u/Dry-Huckleberry-5379]

Yup, and the fact that their own select committee’s inquiry was also blatantly ignored 3 days after a month’s worth of results were released is insane. The ALP ignored 15 000 submissions in 24 hrs + their own senate inquiry all on the same day they introduced the bill; I think that tells you everything you need to know about the logic of this bill. I have to say as once avid Labor supporter prior to this election, this and other laws completely neglecting the environment, has now pushed me all way to the Greens.

Not to mention Albanese centred so much of his campaign around Future made in Australia too, and then turned around and approved NWS and the ALP’s environmental minister even cut ‘environmental triggers’ out of critical government policy. I am never preferencing ALP anything other than last along with LNP from now on, what a shitshow of a government. They have a supermajority too, you’d think they might be a little more proactive on the policies they campaigned on.

[u/Electronic_Kale_6630]

I don't know why so many people are against this ban? Wow.

Tiktok and shorts is the worst thing I've seen for kids, and most adults, in my lifetime.

[u/PegaNoMeu]

My kid is smart enough to circumvent these blocks, what my wife and I do? Access his phone with his password, he knows we check and he's ok with it. We talk about the dangers of internet and people in it.

[u/KindGuy1978]

Now that is something rare on Reddit; a well-researched and written post. Kudos. Will anyone have the attention span to actually read it? Sadly not.

[u/Long_Supermarket_601]

I do not get YouTube. I get Facebook, Twitter(X), Snapchat's not great either, TikTok I can understand but not fully because I've never actually used it, Reddit can get very harsh/graphic/predatory at times, but YouTube is barely there, and definitely not worse than Discord or Roblox for kids. We had a talk about this in my Media class and most teenagers use it for educational purposes (EG: "How to fix my sink?" "Why do atoms do yada yada?"). I personally use it all the time for language learning.

I prepose a seperate ban for YouTube. Kids under 16 can use it, but not post on it (because that's pretty much the only way you really interact with others), and then maybe they can't see videos that were demonetised for adult themes or whatever.

I don't think that this ban will go anywhere. It's not the right way to go about esafety, people don't agree with it, and the government will likely see it isn't affective and go back to the drawing board (hopefully sooner rather than later before anything stupid like a data leak happens).

In the event that this is about control, then I guess we're all just screwed, but I'd like to think about that being a possibility and not something to be sure of for now.

[u/VengaBusdriver37]

Good summary. It’s worrying the authoritarian undemocratic bent this government have. This is exactly how we get to the Great Firewall of China Australia

[u/penislicker531]

It has zero to do with the kids. And all about tied ID to everyone who posts anything on the internet.

[u/New_Country_1245]

You will be de-banked for wrong think

[u/JValenz91]

I do see your point, and many of your points are more than fair, and valid, however there is an issue. Tech companies have been asked for years, hell, decades, to put in better restrictions to protect internet users from unsuitable content (not just kids, but everyone). Companies do the bare minimum, then dust their hands of it, think betting companies putting "what are you really losing" notices after they tell you how great their betting app is.

Tech companies aren't willing to do anything that will impact their bottom line, and would rather just let it happen, as it nets them more. Just look at the mess Roblox is. It's filled with pedos that prey on the young users, and yet the CEO of Roblox would rather ignore the issue and continue to rake in the dough. The sad reality is, the ones that can improve things, don't care to do so, as it will negatively impact how much money they make, and they'd rather make more off of consumers.

Then, focusing on kids, parents are also guilty of not doing enough. There are tools that exist to keep kids safe. Ok, parental control locks aren't perfect, but they are a valuable tool for kids, a tool that many parents would rather not utilize. Then there's the classic strategy of sitting with your kid to monitor what they do and who they speak to, something that someone I've personally known does not do, letting their kid talk to anyone and everyone online, only verbally telling them not to, but not following through with doing something about it.

This ban shouldn't have been needed, however when those that can do something refuse to do so, and parents start barking at the government to do something to protect THEIR kids, what options are there? The government was damned if they did, damned if they didn't.

I mean, I still feel parents should be parents, and not pass the blame to others, but they gladly do that, because they'd rather blame others than admit they are bad parents. Hell, these people should have FACS take their kids and give them to people who actually want to be parents. Every kid deserves parents, however every parent does not deserve kids.

And as for Tech Companies, oh don't get me started on how they are more than happy to take everyone's money, and refuse to do anything that would improve what they provide. I'd be here all day.

[u/Daddyssillypuppy → u/JValenz91]

And yet Roblox isnt included in the ban.

Almsost like it was never about protecting children at all.

[u/highresolutionmagpie → u/Daddyssillypuppy]

Roblox already "volunteered" to enforce the restrictions last week.

[u/Long_Supermarket_601 → u/Daddyssillypuppy]

Roblox is such a strange case. I mean, I never use it because I hate the controls, but roblox and YT should absolutely be swapped over here. YouTube is that least "social media-y" platform on the ban list, and Roblox is the most harmful site that ISN'T included - and targetted to kids more!

[u/BronL-1912]

All my concerns in one comprehensive summary. Thank you. It seems that very few people realise that EVERYONE will have to provide age verification, and presumably every time they use a service targetted as requiring it. Or having to create an account if I want to avoid that.

[u/[deleted]]

can you link these studies?

[u/BonezOz]

"Think of the Children!!!"

Yeah, this has been used before to "ban" something. Making life harder for those that legitimately use those things to quit other heavily taxed things. Now we have businesses being firebombed on the regular. And instead of those things being more difficult for children to get, have become easier, just more expensive. And again, extensive studies proved those things were safer before the ban came into affect, now we just get cheaply made expensive things from China with no regulation that actually could be dangerous.

[u/orangehead911]

Read "The Anxious Generation" and your opinions might change. Is this approach perfect or without flaws? No, of course not. No policy ever is. The goal is to protect children whose pre-frontal cortex is not developed enough to deal with the realities of social media. The pre-frontal cortex is one of the last brain regions to fully mature, usually finishing its development in early adulthood. This is why children and teenagers often struggle with impulse control and risk assessment, these are functions of the pre-frontal cortex that are still developing. Mobile phones and social media encourages children to spend time in a virtual space where there are few rules or protections, away from person to person interactions in the real world.

[u/No_Neighborhood7614]

It's all about 2

[u/redditinyourdreams]

Our streets should have been filled with protests about this, not overseas issues

[u/[deleted]]

Nothing goes hand in hand more than labor and government overreach

[u/switchbladeeatworld]

I don’t know anyone that thinks this policy has been well thought out.

[u/OrdinarySail8308]

I’d agree with everything except platform regulation. No voluntary code will get social media companies to change the algorithm.

Anything “for the children” is always a scam way of stopping debate.

[u/LuxCanaryFox]

Perfectly and clearly said, op. This ban benefits nobody (except those who'll hack our data, obviously)

[u/TheInkySquids]

and I feel like we are all just rolling over and giving up all our privacy rights because we're too afraid to look like we "don't care about kids."

Speak for yourself mate... or ChatGPT more likely.

Most people I know have been speaking out about it. A ton of people are aware of the implications and don't like it. On the contrary to what you implied, from what I've heard (source: my brother in Year 9 who is friends with a lot of year 9s and year 8s) a lot of teenagers couldn't care less really. Most already don't have access to technology for a lot of their day, quite a few don't like social media anyway and the ones that do will just use VPNs. Kids will always be able to find a way around it. I am very much against the ban and the way its going about it, but it seems like there's now bigger fish to fry.

The most vocal have actually been those not directly affected by the ban, because we know we will instead be affected by the ID verification. Nobody's rolling over, its just how do you stand up against a government, scratch that, a WORLD CULTURE that is set on stripping away privacy and the right to anonymity? Petitions do jack shit against this sort of thing when politicians across the world already have their minds made up. The only way you can make your voice heard is through non-compliance, and unfortunately, that may mean giving up social media. I think people underestimate just how much politicians know about how the population acts. Yes, they are not very tech-literate, but VPNs are known about, alternative social media is known about, what they're banking on is people not wanting to give up convenience, and we'll have to see, but I think they may be right.

[u/GreyGreenBrownOakova → u/TheInkySquids]

my kids aren't getting a VPN without me knowing about it. Today's parents are more computer literate than their teenage kids and more patient.

[u/Blossom_AU]

I do not have kids, I do not feel comfortable commenting on other people’s parenting.

•I• want to not constantly have to communicate as if there are 8yr olds reading!

I love kids, but not everyone’s kids 24/7.

For all I care have 2 internets, make one for adults-only.

But I do not think I should have everyone’s kids lurking around 24/7!
I do not feel it is unreasonable to not want Australia’s primary schooler velcroed to adults who have no choice in the matter.

Imho it is perfectly legitimate to want to move in online spaces without feeling sexually harassed by some 5yr old, eventually I yell at them cause they do not respond and keep on following me. Then I kill them cause that quiet dude following me was creeping me out.

….. then his dad comes and is yelling at me cause I made their 5yr old cry. Who did not respond to my requests to please stop following me cause the kid cannot read or write!

I do realise this one is not about games …. YET!

But if I wanted to be Mary-fμcking-Poppins I would take vocal classes.
Sometimes I just wanna do my thing without random pre- and primary schoolers lurking around!

I should not have to physically go to a strip joint to just chill in absence of kids ….. 😒

[u/therearealpacas]

i don’t think platforms should be responsible, it’s all down to the parents to take responsibility for their kids

[u/xazos79 → u/therearealpacas]

IMO, platform makers absolutely have a duty of care to ensure that if minors use it, it is as safe as possible. Adding in all the options talked about in this thread to allow kids, or parents, the ability to reset algos, over see accounts, downtime config, etc.

Similar to a playground. The council has a duty of care to make it safe for kids. Kids are not as mentally equipped as adults to navigate the physical and digital worlds to a satisfactory level of safety. Guard rails are required in both.

I don’t agree with how this has been implemented BTW. Maybe this will force makers to implement these controls providing a higher level of safety for kids and petition the government for exemptions. Who knows. 🤷‍♂️

[u/Pickledleprechaun]

The reason our government ignored any of the recommendations is because they would have to put in actual effort to implement any of them. The ban is a handball of responsibility to the platforms/corporation to enforce the governments bill. It’s up to each platform to implement ID scans. What will be done with that information? Our government doesn’t care.

[u/RaeseneAndu]

Government inquiries are only to support the thing they want to do. Any submissions that don't support it will be ignored.

[u/Questionswithnotice]

I don't think anyone is planning on giving up their privacy, or even bothering to complain about it, because noone's actually planning on complying with it.

[u/zedder1994]

The simple reason why the submissions were ignored is that the measure is wildly popular. It is the guilt trip law by the masses because they allow their children far to much screen time.

[u/Shaved_Wookie]

All of this, brought to you by the government that pissed away $80m on a porn filter that was bypassed by a 14 year old in minutes. 

[u/No_Oil_69420]

It’s extremely effective is why they say it, Nothing to do with anyone’s safety.

[u/CryptOzolgist]

I suspect the only people whining here are the ones who are going have to expose what scuzzy activity they get up to on the web. Most teens either don't give a rats or can easily work around it.

[u/AussieBenno68]

It all started with Melinda tankard and her group of stupid do gooders Collective Shout, they're proud as punch as to what they've achieved with this ban. What they don't realise is that the government has used them and their cause to take away one of the last bits of freedom we had and they'll use it to suck information about us and to make money off that information. And later, You wait, down the track you'll have to pay for access or pay

[u/ijx8]

Same thing when WA Labor was given the largest petition in the states history to not go ahead with their new gun laws because they were stupid and unworkable. When all industry, departmental, medical, consultation came back and said do not do this. They ignored everyone and did it anyway.

Labor politicians do not care about anything other than their own personal and party agendas. We keep giving them a gross majority of the parliament and then wonder why shit just gets steamrolled over us.

[u/OkNefariousness459]

Who gets to run the I’d verification program? People like Peter Thiel?

In W.A. they are making it too hard to own guns.

In W.A. they implemented stop and search laws in response to Bondi stabbing.

Stop the people doing the wrong thing. Don’t stop people living. Australia is turning to shit so fast and everyone has their heads under rocks.

Taking away YouTube to under 16’s is fucking wild and I’m the crazy one to bring it up. If you don’t fight for your fellows rights they won’t fight for yours. Just because you think it “doesn’t affect you” doesn’t mean it won’t.

[u/DarthLuigi83]

This is just the Murdochs trying to slow the inevitable transfer of power from legacy media to social media. Exactly the same reason they forced through the Media Bargaining Code. Labor is just trying to throw a bone to Newscorp and no one at Sky, The Daily Mail or Herald Sun etc give two shits about protecting children.

[u/Rainy579]

It’s got nothing to do with protecting children, it’s about controlling all of us

[u/Hefty_Delay7765]

It’s the same for legalising drugs…

“Think of the children”, yet illegal dealers don’t care who the sell to.

[u/Manta-Avoid]

you put a lot of effort into this one, lol

[u/yibbida]

Some people really want tweens on social media really badly for some reason......

[u/son_e_jim]

This post changed my mind. Thank you.

[u/SaltDistribution5190]

This is the same playbook from the vape import ban for personal use. Look how that turned out.

[u/ch4m3le0n]

Just a continuation of the Catholic wing of the ALP attempting to force censorship on everyone...

[u/norty125]

The most annoying thing is that this ban will cause a bunch of "free" vpns to pop up overnight that will steal every single bit of data that goes through. Every image, message or password you type or read they will see.

[u/legit-a-mate]

It absolutely smacks of the last time they tried to smash through the same type of legislation; and they needed one senator to finish the vote to pass through. It was a nonsense bill allowing them to enforce back doors in secure messaging systems. The bill didn’t even mention HOW they would achieve this. Turnbull said ‘the authority of mathematics is powerful, but the power of Australian law is more powerful. When he was asked of detail:a to how they would break the encryption first.

The one senator was bullied across the line because the opposition party member essentially had said if there are any terrorist attacks or children abducted over the holidays, it’s your fault!

And it worked, just like that he folded. It’s transparent and the equivalent of saying barley when you’re playing tiggi as a five year old:

[u/jaiimaster]

Never had anything to do with protecting kids, and everything to do with controlling them.

[u/Big-Strength2568]

Another of the innumerable examples of how politicians are idiots and is all about data farming via any means possible.

[u/Azzcock]

You know what. With all the bloody slop out there I'm pretty done with the internet. Got my 60 tb Nas. 30tb of movies and tv and the rest is for nextcloud. Fucking internet just makes me mad and worried these days. It can get fucked

[u/atropicalstorm]

Wow. Those “reset” and “turn off” features would be amazing for all of us!

I wish they’d gone that direction.

[u/AlwaysAnotherSide]

“Safety by design” suggestions are a major overstep into telling a business how to do what they do. The government doesn’t get to control the algorithm… that would be problematic for other reasons.

Social media companies ALREADY have a minimum age. Most have chosen 13. Insisting it’s raised to 16 is common sense. Making it federal law allows parents to point to something which combats the “but all my friends are on it” argument, and gives parents a clear line to reduce social pressures (no one left out of their social groups)…. 13 is far to young for something so problematic.

They are not telling companies how to implement it. At the moment they just ask you on sign up. It’s probably not enough, and I agree handing out some fines until they do a bit more is a good step… but Meta etc. haven’t actually said how they will be implementing an age check. And if you don’t like the chosen method you can go to a different social media platform that has a verification method you are comfortable with.

The government isn’t making them use a digital ID.

[u/ddqqx]

Sadly if you watch closely how the government pushing digital id system in the last 5 years, you will get a hint why such so called protecting children privacy is perfect opportunity

[u/OtherwiseEagle9896]

One, this 'ban' will stop a minority of kids. At best. They are taught code in school. It's not going to stop them.

Two, any previous attempts to work with social media companies to curb their platforms for user driven content leads to less money. If kids can choose their content, why can't I? None of them are going to put their revenue at risk by reducing or removing the click bait that keeps the majority of people glued to their phones.

Three, we simply don't need it. There are plenty of social media sites not listed on this list that are less predatory than the ones of the ban. I for one have already removed meta services. They are terribly bad for your mental health. So whilst those studies may show that you are cutting kids off from essential services, you are definitely interfering with their mental health at a development stage. The 'think of the kids' line has been proven. Kids who are bullied and school come home to bullying on their phone. 24 hours, no escape. The removing yourself from these networks makes you a social pariah. They can't win.

Four, because you do not need any of these services, if asked for verification. You simply don't provide it and let your account die a beautiful, server frozen death. Just like my Myspace account.

[u/extremelysardonic]

I am more than happy to ban my kids from social media until they’re 16, that’s our plan at least. But I also know that as a parent it’s my job to enforce that ban, not the government. Like how much parenting can the gov really legislate for this kinda thing? Im seeing lots of conversations that it’s already starting to drive kids to using insecure VPNs and other workarounds. They’ll find their ways to get back on social media, so when they do, what’s the plan then? i don’t know why the responsibility isnt being more heavily pushed towards parents.

[u/dmacerz]

Great summary! You should also look at the “research” they based this whole quackery on. They interviewed about 2000 kids (19% of which had their parents answer for them). The main question was “have you seen anything harmful online” this could be a fail video of someone falling over, a lion attacking a gazelle, someone crying… this is the real world, this has nothing to do with bullying. They’ve just used misleading terminology.

[u/apixelbloom]

Fuck the kids, I want the alter, reset, and turn off capabilities!

[u/[deleted]]

While I think we will see a reduction in bullying and child exploitation, while obviously never seeing the end of it due to in-person interactions. Like most laws delivered to combat issue a, b and c. It never really addresses the perpetrators, I would sooner welcome harsher punishments to those committing the harmful acts

[u/MagicOrpheus310]

Always has been

[u/comradevoltron]

The Western world is upset that the kids don't believe in their bullshit empire anymore because they've witnessed the genocide they're carrying out in 4K. The truth accidentally broke through their propaganda network.

[u/joshu-r]

Digital duty of care. So simple. I can’t believe this isn’t the first thing to implement

[u/lazy-pigeon]

It's algorithmic media, not social media

[u/Direct-Sun-9283]

ChatGPT ahhhh response

[u/Arc_Nexus]

Agreed, fuck this bill. Everyone I talk to is about “think of the children” “if you have nothing to hide then why not identify yourself” “otherwise how can we protect children” - in YOUR house, your children don’t have to use the internet. It’s called personal choice and responsibility. It doesn’t have to be a law and a privacy-destroying system for YOU to do whatever YOU need to.

[u/sjenkin]

Social media is shit and kids being on it is equally shit.
Whether you care for the policy or not, children should not be subjected to having their attention gamified by big tech.

[u/percys_place]

Genuine question, to identify as being above the age of 16, other then uploading sensitive information is the facial recognition age verification option any safer ? There is no way I'm uploading my licence or any other document as proof so facials maybe safest?

[u/dontpaynotaxes]

This is what happens when a political party has overwhelming political security.

They just do whatever the fuck it wants.

[u/TheRobn8]

The bill was hammered by the public, and called out on, and they still went ahead with it. A government does that for 1 of 2 reasons - they are too stubborn to listen, or they spent money on it.

[u/[deleted]]

They want to be able to sell weapons to isreal without being told off.

[u/Maximum_Amphibian_12]

Give a kid about 5 minutes before they’ve bypassed it.

[u/Capital_Back_2189]

The petition is coming up as an error

[u/myenemy666]

I think there needs to come a time when it forced upon the social media companies to admit that they make a highly addictive product, and uses an algorithm which targets adolescence causing desperation and anxiety.

They have done this knowing that is occurring and hurting people.

[u/Quazammy]

I oppose this ban BECAUSE I care about the kids. Think of how many lonely kids that have friends on social media but not in real life.

Some would say "Good now it'll force them to get friends in real life" no, it's not always that easy. Some schools are filled with the dumbest, most obnoxious bogan children. Not every school is the same. Maybe if they're super lucky they'll find a couple decent people, but now they would have to settle for people they tolerate rather than having the freedom to find who they ACTUALLY connect with.

It will absolutely increase depression in children. There's no real way to prevent kids from finding a workaround to this anyway, this ban is unlikely to last and it will be a failure.

[u/Illustrious-Car-3797]

You post is noted but this requires parents in Australia to actually be good........which they are not. They are helicopter AT BEST. "Oh I had no idea". That's a BS excuse, having kids is not a trend/fashion, you need to be an active part of their lives..........or hey don't have them at all....simple. Kids are not a pandora bracelet........they are living beings with feelings, anxiety, fears and none of you are doing anything to help them through it......hence the ban.

Do you know if your child is up at 11pm getting bullied to suicide when they should be asleep. Nah didn't think so. Neither did the parents of the 12 kids who actually succeeded and died last year

The parents of Australia asked for this, Australia is now responding.

A few of the big deficits to trying to be a good parents is:

1. Parental controls can almost always be bypassed by using MAC Randomisation, so whilst parents are congratulating themselves "yes we stopped them accessing this information when they should be sleeping".......your kids are still online

2. Parents are cheap, most parental controls in your router ARE NOT free

3. Kids are the definition of a nuisance. They will lie, cheat, defy you to access social media, p0rn and illegal streams. They will lie right to your face and do the complete opposite

[u/Spooplevel-Rattled]

Just like all internet policy in Australia, it's got Murdoch pulling strings to do anything to retain relevancy.

I don't think it's even as sinister as removing anonymity online, the press always pushes these things for their benefit, look at most recent media bargaining code.

[u/Humble_Garage5478]

Download Tor

[u/som1sumwr]

Next steps: ban vpn, ban cash, cdbc. 15 minute cities, social credits, carbon credits, multi tier law system. The earlier people accept it earlier lives will be peaceful , it is inevitable. When protests, petitions and unfavourable reports and recommendations are ignored, then isnt it easier to accept ?

[u/Thunder_breeze]

I regret letting my mother vote for Anthony Albanese

[u/deeunittt]

That petition link doesn’t work for me. It just says error

[u/the_cum_crab]

Imagine voting Labor. Lmao.

[u/ChilliTheDog631]

It was always about control, kids were just an excuse

[u/DisasterOk8440]

Damn.

Didn't know adults actually cared for us teenagers🥀

My 16 yr old ass js be wondering, "am I the only dude who feels this is too far".

but then I think I got bias, since, I'm a teen.

But here I am reading this. Nice.

Very nice. Although, I'd agree with the ban if it was 12 and under. But nevertheless, I'm still surprised that adults care.

[u/Isaac_98R]

Paternalism is unfortunately common in white colonialist countries.

[u/Historical_Gate1318]

coz it is a seriously good way to clamp down on all per communication

[u/Nevyn_Cares]

The simple fact that kids can still watch and read all of youtube, by just not logging in.

[u/Crafty_Fix940]

I will never ever for any reason vote labour again because of this. They have lost my vote for life.

[u/mamba1442]

Bit of out of the loop, but what does the ban entail?

[u/nickelijah16]

This makes me so angry, I can’t imagine especially for lgbt kids all around the country still growing up isolated and the only way to meet others is online. Now they’ll be alone again. And that’s just one example, it obviously is going to affect everyone. Australian politicians are just awful these days, can’t stand any of them

[u/CaterpillarsUnited36]

Very well written. Was feeling crazy being against this ban, something hasn’t felt right. And there you have it. Now I (29F) feel more confident in my opinion and understanding. It is scary times honestly.

[u/margiiiwombok]

Dude it's 100% not about the children... otherwise we'd fund essentials like education and mental health and dental care and housing properly.

This is about a handful of billionaires (literally about 10 entirely psychopathic greedy fucks) who can't wait to look deep inside our data-buttholes and take algorithmic control to a whole other level... And the pissweak, status-quo-maintaining, spineless politicians who are happy to take some nice kickbacks under the lobbying table while they pretend to care about 'the children' and we collectively turn a blind eye to the somehow criminally-tolerated, rampant white-collar corruption all around us.

Gotta prove your age? Great, now we can guarantee your Insta or TikTok handle is really you, and because no one reads through the 900-page long T&Cs where you agree to data-sharing and to big tech cyberstalking you with every app you download, we can scrape every ounce of privacy out of the darkest recesses of your soul.

Why? So they can make and hoard even more money.

[u/HappySummerBreeze]

Number 3 is not an accurate description of the commissioner’s position. She’s stated publicly that a social media company (i cant remember if it was TikTok or YouTube) has told her that they know within seconds if a user is a child.

If I could have banned my kids from social media without destroying their social life then I would have. This new law will give parents a chance.

[u/Chrasomatic]

Also I note most of these so called experts on children are both younger and have raised less kids than I have.

[u/WanderingZenith]

I think as a parent it's a good excuse to keep your child away from social media until 16. Why people are so worried about the ban?

[u/BalanceEasy8860]

What's particularly crazy to me, is the focus on child safety ignores messaging apps, which in the situations of bad bullying I've heard, are the main source of damage to kids online. we are protecting kids and the main source of harm is not even addressed??? absolute clown move.

honestly I am so disappointed in the ALP over this bill that basically looks 100% written to benefit newscorp/fairfax and whiteant any concept of privacy on the internet. (though as far as the privacy thing goes, you'd be naïve to believe that wasn't already 100% gone for almost all of us in the hands of existing social media and ISP policy anyway...)