this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2025
530 points (99.1% liked)

World News

51322 readers
1475 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Australia has enacted a world-first ban on social media for users aged under 16, causing millions of children and teenagers to lose access to their accounts.

Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Kick, Twitch and TikTok are expected to have taken steps from Wednesday to remove accounts held by users under 16 years of age in Australia, and prevent those teens from registering new accounts.

Platforms that do not comply risk fines of up to $49.5m.

There have been some teething problems with the ban’s implementation. Guardian Australia has received several reports of those under 16 passing the facial age assurance tests, but the government has flagged it is not expecting the ban will be perfect from day one.

All listed platforms apart from X had confirmed by Tuesday they would comply with the ban. The eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, said it had recently had a conversation with X about how it would comply, but the company had not communicated its policy to users.

Bluesky, an X alternative, announced on Tuesday it would also ban under-16s, despite eSafety assessing the platform as “low risk” due to its small user base of 50,000 in Australia.

Parents of children affected by the ban shared a spectrum of views on the policy. One parent told the Guardian their 15-year-old daughter was “very distressed” because “all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat”. Since she had been identified as under 16, they feared “her friends will keep using Snapchat to talk and organise social events and she will be left out”.

Others said the ban “can’t come quickly enough”. One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media and the ban “provides us with a support framework to keep her off these platforms”.

“The fact that teenagers occasionally find a way to have a drink doesn’t diminish the value of having a clear, ­national standard.”

Polling has consistently shown that two-thirds of voters support raising the minimum age for social media to 16. The opposition, including leader Sussan Ley, have recently voiced alarm about the ban, despite waving the legislation through parliament and the former Liberal leader Peter Dutton championing it.

The ban has garnered worldwide attention, with several nations indicating they will adopt a ban of their own, including Malaysia, Denmark and Norway. The European Union passed a resolution to adopt similar restrictions, while a spokesperson for the British government told Reuters it was “closely monitoring Australia’s approach to age restrictions”.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 131 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (17 children)

Some good silver linings here, but what everyone needs to remember here is that nobody would be supporting this at all if facebook wasn’t intentionally predatory and bad for (all) people’s brains.

If regulators in Australia had a spine they would call for an end to those practices, and now that’s infinitely harder to do

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 38 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Some good silver linings here

Where?

The kids will move to less monitored platforms and even on things like YouTube, parental controls are now gone.

You need to have an account for parental controls to be applied to, kids aren't allowed an account, vis-a-vis, no more parental controls or monitoring for problem content.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] porcoesphino@mander.xyz 16 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (5 children)

I think that's easier said than done. There are a lot of negatives associated with social media and some are easier to put restrictions on (say violent content) but I don't think we really have a good grasp of all the ways use is associated with depression for example. And wouldn't some of this still fall back to age restricted areas, kind of like with movies?

But yeah, it would be nice to see more push back on the tech companies instead of the consumers

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Its a very simple fix with a few law changes.

  1. The act of promoting or curating user submitted data makes the company strictly liable for any damages done by the content.

  2. The deliberate spreading of harmful false information makes the hosting company liable for damages.

This would bankrupt Facebook, Twitter, etc within 6 months.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 67 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Honestly it feels like you should regulate how Facebook can interact with children instead of the children's access to it

[–] Jajcus@sh.itjust.works 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

That is why I think FB and others might been quietly lobbying for this solution. This way they can stll be predatory, as long as the kids pretend to be adult. Or just abuse adult users. The alternative, of not being evil, is not compatible with their business model. But it is the business model that should be banned, not socializing online by teenagers.

load more comments (1 replies)

That was my first reaction after processing the news--lets hold them accountable for hate, exploitation, etc.

If they can't play nice they don't get to do business at all.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CaptainPedantic@lemmy.world 53 points 1 week ago (8 children)

One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media

Have you tried parenting her?

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 30 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Meh. It's societal level issue. It should be handled at the societal level

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] davad@lemmy.world 17 points 1 week ago

True, but there's also a little more nuance.

For a social media ban to be effective without ostracizing individuals, it has to include the entire friend group.

As an analogy, if the kid's friends all text each other, but your kid doesn't have a phone, they miss out socially. They miss out on organized and impromptu hangouts. And they miss out on inside jokes that develop in the group chat. Over time they feel like more and more of an outsider even if the ready of the group actively tries to include them.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Ziggurat@jlai.lu 43 points 1 week ago (5 children)

Looks like a great news. Moreover, kids may learn how old school Internet works rather than being stuck in an algorithm bubble

[–] rozodru@pie.andmc.ca 24 points 1 week ago

they start making php forums and using IRC, hey i'm all for that.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Michal@programming.dev 43 points 1 week ago (25 children)

The ban also affects everyone who isn't willing to undergo the age check.

Kids will find a way around is. They'll move to fediverse, and the cooler kids will still hang around the mainstream platforms thanks to their older friend, sibling or cool uncle.

[–] harmbugler@piefed.social 20 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The ban also affects everyone handing over their ID to websites. Now your personal info can get more easily stolen and you can also be tracked better.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] comalnik@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (13 children)

"One parent said their daughter was completely addicted to social media" Well then fucking take away her phone. Get her a dumb phone. Install parental controls. Go to a therapist if yo have to. But nooooo the government has got to do everything for us incompetent fucks

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 week ago

I had this issue with a 15 year old. Phone gone, just an analog flippy, put in parental controls to prevent loading brain rot apps.

He's happier for it.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 1 week ago (4 children)

all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat

I love how this sentence is just casually sprinkled there. So platforms are getting $50m fines if they do not implement "age verification", but no problem if they fail to identify minors as such? Tells you everything about how they really care about protecting children.

[–] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 week ago

That's not how the law is structured.

Sites are required to implement reasonable measures.

If kids are being evaluated as 18, with no additional checks, that's not reasonable and they're risking the penalties.

We're going to find out whether the regulator has much appetite to issue those penalties, but we will see I guess.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 31 points 1 week ago

As long as social media's goals are commercial and have the effect of "digital cocaine", keeping kids and adolescents out of it should be the default, worldwide.

[–] chunes@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Props to Australia for creating a generation of kids with above average tech skills.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] cv_octavio@piefed.ca 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I mean, I am 100% pro-freedom of access and speech and all, but tbf anything that super murders social media is a net positive to the world at this point, until it's less harmful and addictive.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Walk_blesseD@piefed.blahaj.zone 26 points 1 week ago (12 children)

Fuck this Helen Lovejoy-arse shithole country. I wonder how many abused youth, marginalised teens and kids who made the mistake of being born to parents living in remote areas just lost access to their support networks. I wonder how many people are gonna have their identities stolen because of data breaches containing either documents or biometrics necessary to enforce this.
And for what? So boomer politicians and their constituents aren't challenged by their well-informed children about the genocides they're facilitating at home and abroad? So the pigs in this police state have an even easier time surveiling citizens with all the identifying info websites are gathering??

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] wondrous_strange@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago (10 children)

Instead of punishing these cancerous cess pool manipulative platforms, they punish the kids.

The youth deserves to be able to communicate and use the web the same as the rest of the population.

Regulations should be such that these platforms are neutral, non manipulative safe spaces where people can come together share content and discussions.

The overall stupidity of decision makers is incomprehensible to me. Literal shit sacks politicians that should all be thrown into a hole.

Beat of luck youth, my heart is with you. Hope Lemmy will be the answer(or some other decentralized platform)

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 week ago (13 children)

have a look at who proposed this change and you'll see why it's being done. it's clear as day that this isn't a win for anyone on the internet in Australia

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 20 points 1 week ago (4 children)

This is going to be a shit show.

I'm not opposed to the idea that kids shouldn't have access to social media, but they obviously do. Their social lives are online, and their insecure little brains are going to scream that they've been kicked out of the tribe when you cut the link

The ban won't work, but will also cause a lot of damage

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 17 points 1 week ago (15 children)

Who's next to be blocked?

I mean, now that the infrastructure and policies are in place, it's only a matter of time.

load more comments (15 replies)
[–] lunelovegood@ttrpg.network 16 points 1 week ago (30 children)

One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media

Literally the fault of the parent.

load more comments (30 replies)
[–] conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 16 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Discord isn’t covered by the ban surprisingly enough despite being one of the platform more ripe for exploitation. I get that you’d want kids to be able to DM each other and voice chat but Discord is closer to a forum than it is to say, Signal.

Wouldn’t be surprised if it ended up on the ban list later on.

[–] Henson@feddit.dk 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

On the other hand in Discord there is not an algorithm to feed you contet, so you have much more control of what you see/read, it does not leads you to the extremes

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] RonniePickering@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Ban it all, its a plague on civilization!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (6 children)

Curious to see what it’s like in 40 years when the world is ruled by Australians.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Just going to teach those kids its okay to break the law.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›