this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2025
92 points (98.9% liked)

Australia

4622 readers
33 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

geteilt von: https://lemmy.zip/post/53982034

High Court challenge says law imposing ban is ‘grossly excessive’ and infringes on ‘constitutional right of freedom of political communication’

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 12 points 2 days ago (5 children)

Good on em, parents should be regulating internet access and not the govt

[–] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Social media is not the internet.

Social media is a privatized mass-spying and manipulation tool that directly and intentionally destroys the mental health of its users.

[–] Longmactoppedup@aussie.zone 10 points 1 day ago

Are you aware of Labor's 2009 plan to censor the entire Australian internet? It didn't succeed back then thankfully.

There is no way that they will stop at just the big social media platforms.

This is about control and further removal of being anonymous.

It's not even a liberal vs labor thing. They both have a history of bipartisan support for this type of bullshit. See: metadata retention, assistance and access, identify and disrupt laws.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In late December you'll need photo ID to search google so it kinda is about the internet

[–] dockedatthewrongworf@aussie.zone -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Please don't spread misinformation.

Under 16's can still access websites like YouTube and Google but will not be able to interact (i.e liking videos) and comment on content. They will still be able to view videos and publicly shared content.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] dockedatthewrongworf@aussie.zone 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And yet in your own article it can be quoted:

"Search engines will not be required to implement age assurance measures for users who are not logged in to their services, according to the new rules."

So I fail to see how you will be unable to use Google.

[–] indomara@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

You will eventually want to access a page or service and will be asked to upload an id and or scan your face to make sure it matches. I for one do not want to have to submit my private information in order to use the internet.

[–] dueuwuje@aussie.zone 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes but parents aren't doing that so..........

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -1 points 1 day ago

That's their parenting right

[–] MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Should they?

Does that include single parents? Overworked parents? Parents who don’t understand/use the internet? Do you believe that all children follow their parents’ rules when they step out of the door of their houses?

Make an actual argument for young children having social media access.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Govt could extremely easily release a product for parents, with or without NBN involvement, that helps control internet for kids. They don't and instead impact everyone with this bullshit

Those are not acceptable reasons for poor parenting. Don't move the goal posts.

[–] MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You didn’t answer any of my questions.

The very children who are at risk are the ones with the type of families I listed, and other at risk types. If you leave it up to the parents, you’re essentially giving up on kids with “bad” parents.

I’ll ask a different way: if you’re a child and you have parents who don’t understand the issue, or are too busy and/or stressed out to monitor the issue, or if you have friends who provide you with access…do you deserve to be out at risk/fall through the cracks?

If you actually want to solve problems…you work together as a society…you raise children as a village. If you want all the problems associated with social media use and other issues you “leave it to the parents”, which is basically giving up.

[–] Tenderizer@aussie.zone 0 points 1 day ago

They won't.

They shouldn't need to.

They will still need to under the current form of the social media ban.

[–] hanrahan@piefed.social 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

But the paremts aren't doing shit, it's why the Governments stepping in.

[–] WhatGodIsMadeOf@feddit.org 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Right... It's time to admit people and our governments are both fucked.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 0 points 1 day ago

People have always been fucked, we don't need a bloody police state just because some people let their kids use the internet