It will be a failure if 10 year olds continue to join social media at the rate they have done so in the past.
It’s not likely to get 15 year olds who have been addicted for 5 years off it, anymore than smoking bans have any impact on teens who have been smoking or vaping for years.
Sure if you are 15 you can get a phone yourself, but for younger kids the ban has a positive effect.
The media is predictably unhappy since they lose eyeballs, advertising revenue and money.
Previous approaches like expecting parents to educate children failed miserably.
Most parents lacked at least one or more of motivation, time or knowledge.
https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-07/Early...
Social media needs not strive to ban every under 16 child ... but they surely will now be careful not to deploy those specific algorithms the public had complained about especially in regard to some of the harms it was said to be doing.
Using social media under 16 could be considered like driving without a licence ... and not too many under 16 children in Australia have a licence to drive on the roads - but in rural and remote areas, on those that are relatively safe roads, a number do, with or without their parents knowledge. Many years prior to the ban, social media could be considered to be vehicle rental companies which never saw any issue with hiring out faster and faster racing stock cars and motorbikes to kids ... and later when accidents happened, asked to perhaps be more mindful. Social media companies shrugged and said too hard. Now there is a ban [1] for under 16s, yes many children are going to still do it, but now, though it's technically against the law, some parents will evaluate their child is capable enough. The ban effectively ensures social media will need to be sure to rent out safe vehicles just in case because if there is a bad accident that an under 16 wouldn't be expected to avoid, mandatory consequences now apply. Social media companies are very well aware of this fact. They don't like it and as such running numerous campaigns - more often threatening in a roundabout between the lines manner that the only way for them to enforce a ban is to go down the road many folks fear, being all out full identification required to create / keep an account with them.
[1] Those parents who've wanted to pry their kids fingers from the phone that only visits social media areas, can finally put their foot down hard telling their kids no way until they are older when it's legal, and not have to put up with any bargaining when they lock down the wifi.
this is an article by reuters, they are not affected by the ban.
"Imagine you're a teenager, and your parents and government tell you to not do something... What will happen?"
The answer is of course that they keep doing it anyhow. But hide it.
As an Aussie, and a parent. What I wanted was that the government mandate that in order for your website or app to launch in Australia, that if you want to allow kids between certain ages on the website/app. Then you need to have robust parental controls. Create family accounts where you can link parents and children, share whatever tracking/tracing you have with said parents and make it as good as you can. Mandate specific minimum controls based on what kind of type of app/website it is.
Put the control in the hands of the parents, and not this stupid one size fits all approach.
Not only hide it, but develop a (suddenly healthy) contempt for the rule of law.
What if we had this kind of distinction for mobile devices with Internet access? Adult's smartphone vs kid's smartphone?
It could be some sort of combo of a specific "for kids" SIM card (with, say, DNS blocking at ISP level and/or date of birth of the user) and a "kids hardened" OS that prevent bypasses and the parental monitoring tools you mention. The OS (in a wide sense, that could extend to the browser and other mission-critical programs) could be certified by some national agency; commercial products have to pay for the test, FLOSS projects could tested for free on request.
Of course it's not as attractive to the governments as putting in place a full scale surveillance aparatus that puts KGB to shame.
However, laws are a delicate matter, especially those that have to limit some rights to guarantee others (here privacy and security). Making distinct laws for children protection and against online activities related to crime certainly should allow more fine tuning of each framework.
So far it's working fine, I expect that to change in the future. But it's also both the carrot and the stick at the moment.
As for creating parent accounts themselves. Imagine you've got a kid, you've created an account for you and the kid.. you have stats, data, usage etc. And suddenly the kids on their device all day, but you see nothing. That's how you know.
Will the kid find a way around it. Probably.. I expect them too. But it's still a hell of a lot better than what we have. Because it puts more control and visibility in the hands of the parents than it does the state and people like Peter Thiel.
Will there be idiot parents who just don't care. For sure. But thats already happening. You can't stop that.
You already said you've got your own solution.
What I'm asking for, is a mandated minimum set of controls. Which is far better than the sparse/spotty/nonexistent controls we have now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood_obesity_in_Australia
Instead of mandates, why not lower the tax burden on citizens. That would give move freedom to parents to decide not to work, and actually, parent their kids.
Don't force parents to both be absent from home because the burden of the bureaucracy salaries is too great without sucking blood from the middle class
Houses don't need to cost 0.5M AUD with long mortgages that force 2 parents to work. They cost that because the government is spending like a drunken sailor and destroying the value of money held by everyday australians.
Plenty of single income families had their children on social media.
This is just a conflation of different issues to push an unrealistic narrative.
How it should work I'm unsure in the big scheme of it, but we limit access to various things until age 18 here in Australia, and I think this is one long term battle that I believe the tech sector will lose.
it takes a village, even with fantastic family life, and these companies are trying to tell us they’re exempt from the village yet they still want to be part of it. this is how we got here to the government (us, the people) taking it to the next step.
had these companies done the correct thing and acknowledged their responsibilities as members of the village, other solutions may have been found. they have no one but themselves (and their cultists incessant defense of them) to blame.
in the real world, good kids from good families in good areas fall too. it’s naive to an extreme to believe those alone are enough.
We don't think parental education wholly stops underage drinking or smoking, hence we have laws against it.
However, smartphone usage and also the use of social media can have positive impact and is not inheritly damaging. Which is why I argue that a ban seems like the wrong direction.
I'd be curious to see some literature on this. My understanding is A LOT of metrics/scores etc are tanking because of smartphone usage.
Did you know that heroin (at the time, that was a registered trademark) was originally sold as a "non-addictive morphine substitute" to be used as cough suppressant?
People weren't at all sure how to even regulate substances in the early years of the 20th century, which is why when the US got Prohibition it was via a constitutional amendment rather than a mere law, even though they already knew about drugs laws and the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act predated Prohibition by about 5 years.
Right now, we're not sure how to even regulate social media.
They're stopping you/others from sending DM's/Tags/Meme's(what isn't important).
As for social media, people don’t really want to stop or avoid using it
What about the FDA‘s bans on food ingredients?
They don’t work, companies just become more secretive?
The problem with your example, is that any government body can randomly test the products from a company, and test for compliance. The government can also measure the CFCs in the atmosphere and look for a decrease year over year.
Right now, the Aus government isn't fining the companies, hopefully they will.
As I said in the sibling comment, I’m talking about people’s own will. You can’t say “Ban smoking” and expect that all smokers quit.
I expect better from Reuters than to be the propaganda mouthpiece of social media platforms.
Technology is in most of the cases not bad, and their use can enrich lives.
<tangent>And then we look at AI and think "surely this time it will be different"</tangent>
If you prefer living without a smartphone its completly up to you and I would always stand for your right to not have one, but on the other side I am also standing for the right to have one if someone desires one.
That's a somewhat loaded question, I'll assume you're not (correct me if I'm wrong) and move on to the question of should 12 year olds have smartphones and if so how should they limit access to porn and graphic violence when used by 12 year olds?
Please don't fob this off by requiring that all parents should have CS degrees or IT qualifications, that's not a thing.
In countries like the US the first Season of The Walking Dead was aired with an age rating of TV-14. At the same time the same in Germany this season was rated with an Rating of 18 (Germany uses 0,6,12,18 as ages for rating). So I am somewhat puzzled. Similar when a movie shows a pair of boobs or at least implies some sexual elements the US tend to rate the movie often with their MA-rating. However, in Germany thats different. It seems we have different children in both countries. As the ones in the US are more okay with violence and it does not affect them, where the childs in Germany are more okay with sexual elements.
This was just an example how stupid many rating systems are, their are very dependent on the country and the society you live in. So there is no inherent universalism to what a 12 or a 14 or a 16 year old should see or not.
My point, and I tried to argue this multiple times in this post, is that a goverment should not simply impose more and more bans and restrictions. This seems like the easy way out, but has always drawbacks. One is already described in the article, namely that the parents already start loosing awareness that the internet might be a dangerous place. Since they think: Yeah, there is a ban so its solved!
We should rather give the parents the time such that they can communicate often enough with their child to understand what problems its facing. In what kind of world the child lives and what they are consuming. If both parents are working 40 hours+ each week, they are not able to do this. Someone also mentioned in this thread "why is obesity not first fixed.", it might be a different issue, but the solution is the same. More time for parents mean that they can cook more healthy meals and do not rely on garbage food because they are stressed out.
Fair point. I'd argue that a government should work to the benefit of that governments employers, aka its citizens.
eg: In the instance where parent citizens want more control over phones that flood in from outside, particularly when
> both parents are working 40 hours+ each week, [and] they are not able to do this
for themselves.
I can see the appeal of a UBI income and a minimum wage guaranteed to support parents and families on 20 hours of work per week but that doesn't seem to be as immediate and practical a solution as, for example, a government requiring foreign actors to adhere to certain standards, or requiring foreign hardware suppliers to issue child safe smart phones, or opening a tender for functional parental control software for phones, etc.
Especially that once rights are taken they are much harder to get back.
> Especially that once rights are taken they are much harder to get back.
American?
I'm Australian and more inclined toward keeping a foot on the neck of government and on task with what the citizens appear to want.
The current lot aren't doing a great job on limiting child access so far, but the situation is evolving.
Should it get to the point where I feel I have to take up arms and go and shoot the people we elected I'd see that as a failure on our part.
Nope, German. Would I be American I would probably phantasize of taking up arms to overthrow the dictatorship, without the realization that I probably just would die since the military is much better equipped than me.
We have a hybrid UK / US "Washminister" system with mandatory voting, obligatory BBQ's, proportional voting and relative isolation.
That isolation is now being punctured and we're seeing unpopular parties that tank whenever they're asked questions in public suddenly get a boost from being "social media" only and trading on "algorithmic" boosts courtesy of unpopular billionaire backers.
That one is more of a pressing issue, albeit related, than parental control of media access.
However, now we are talking about something different and this is also something I can support much more. Algorithmic boosts and these slot machine like systems are a problem, which I highly agree. Then a ban of all of these systems would be something you would rather advocate then advocate for selective bans. For example, yeah social media can continue to exist but only a very simple algorithm can be used where a user can subscribe to topics he/she chooses. No recommendation, no trending stuff.
My apologies, I was unaware that Germany had a Washminister system with mandatory proportional voting.
> I would appreciate if you would not treat me as if I don't know anything about democracy.
My assumption was that the implementation of democracy varies by country. It was foolish of me not to know that you know everything about every democratic system on the planet and I apologise again for that.
> for example crime rates are dropping for years but people feel unsafer because of higher media coverage.
Well, some people do feel that here, for sure, although it hardly feels like a majority; is that a universal feeling in Germany, that Germans are stupid and easily led by media?
> For example, yeah social media can continue to exist but only a very simple algorithm can be used
The issue there is belling the cat - who are we, in Germany and Australia, to tell a US billionaire such as Musk or Zuckerberg what it is that they must do?
>Might be a bit different system, but
I specifically said that we have different systems. However, the overall process does not differ so significantly that we would not be able to vote people out of power if we want to, which was your original point where you argued about systems.
>that Germans are stupid and easily led by media?
Not everyone, but enough are such that similar to the americans we start to vote for right-wing politicans which promise much, but will not solve the problems. From what I heard you Australians have the same issue with "One Nation".
>who are we, in Germany and Australia, to tell a US billionaire
For what are we having a goverment if they are not impose laws that are binding for companies? A US Billionaire can do whatever they want in a country as long as its legal. The EU recently ruled that Google has to pay 1 billion since they seem to favor their own apps and thus creating a monopoly. In the end Google will comply as the EU market is large enough.
> Australians have the same issue with "One Nation".
Hell yeah - they had no real public traction other than a proportional representation in government (enough to show up as a body, not enough to carry any real weight in big decisions) until external agents of chaos decided to boost them via social media for the fracture value (divide, conquer).
The EU has economic weight on par with the US, neither Australia nor Germany alone have that.
Mayhap we should pull a political Eurovision* and join the EU to fill that UK shaped void?
I agree that a US Billionaire can do whatever they want in a country as long as its legal, unfortunately that includes drawing things out for a very long time, folding and reforming under another business name, etc.
Making laws stick for those with the resources to dodge is akin to nailing jelly to the wall.
Returning to thread topic, Australia's social media teen and preteen ban, that's got a long way to go before it sticks, if at all - it's a law that asks US billionaires to not treat children as future product to be groomed and exploited.
As a citizen I'm more than open to other approaches.
* Australia | Grand Final | Eurovision 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo5H62mCIsg
Agreed.
One thing I like to ask ... compared to EU and Germany Australia has already a very strict (from our point of view) system for immigration. What is then the point of One Nation? Since you are already so demanding in what a foreign has to bring with them, like education, money, not being to old. What else do they really want?
Australia and Germany itself are not a match to the US or China. This is why we have to unite to larger organisations like the EU. And from my perspective Australia SHOULD fill the UK void. I liked the Australians always more than the British ;).
The next problems about the billionaire's is that they lobby very long and institutions are very slow. For example this Google Lawsuit took over 10 years ... we can not wait this long when we are talking about controlling social media. Yeah I think in general we agree on the overall topic, but have a bit different ideas how to achieve it.
What if I were in the UK and supported the UK's zombie knife bans and general principle of police right to stop and question people carry knives?
You seem to be making assumptions here.
1. a "small" device that a person can use while moving
2. cheap/free internet access (wifi and/or mobile data)
3. high fidelity display with high refresh rate
4. a camera (I would probably group this together with 3)
Disabling 2 or 3 of those would short circuit the delivery mechanism of the "opioid" while still allowing the device to fulfill its more "useful" purposes.
Examples:
- A small internet device without a hi-res display _and_ a camera is still useful for "knowledge at your fingertips", communication, navigation, payments, etc.
- A device with a hi-res display, with a camera, with internet access, but not "small" is either a laptop or a tablet. That breaks the mechanism of one-half of social media addiction, which is the capability to instantly create and upload content right on the spot. (Although I would argue a tablet will still have that problem)
- A camera that doesn't have internet access can still allow a user to record events, but uploading the content will have to be delayed to a later time. A fair trade-off in my opinion.
And this is all possible with current hardware, by extending Parental Controls to disable the camera, and/or internet access, and/or handicapping the beautiful crown jewel displays.
The Prime Minister's announcement of the policy included, unusually, a callout to one of the major news organisations (Newscorp) for their campaign (called Let Them Be Kids) in favour of such a ban[0]:
> I do want to pay tribute to the campaign that's been run by media organisations on this. I do want to single out NewsCorp for the campaign that they've run, Let Them Be Kids. It's an example of a media organisation being engaged in something that's of concern to the community.
[0]: https://pmtranscripts.pmc.gov.au/release/transcript-46363
And here I just called it more intelligent, lol. I should qualify that. I've seen her instagram feed too, and somehow it's even more absurd...