A US corporation thinks it's more legitimate than the Parliament of Australia.
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
3 points (71.4% liked)
Australia
4675 readers
108 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
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:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
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:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
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
The counter-argument would be "why does the current Parliament of Australia think it's more legitimate than the Constitution?"
Prof. Anne Twomey seems to think the case has a much better chance of succeeding on constitutional grounds than I would have guessed, prior to hearing her analysis.
She points out that the law actually does not prevent children from accessing harmful content on social media. Sites like Reddit and TikTok can be used in a read-only mode without an account, and account creation(/ use of existing accounts) is the only thing restricted by the law—not use of the site itself, sans account. And harmful & addicting content is still available on platforms that are explicitly exempt, like games and chat apps. Worse than that, not having an account means that some content restrictions and parental controls that come with an account are no longer accessible; children may end up exposed to harmful content more often. And "shadow profiles" mean the algorithm will still train on individual users.
She says that the law is "not reasonable appropriate and adapted to achieve the legitimate end" that it is intended to achieve.
Combine that with the constitutionally-protected right to freedom of political expression, and it's not looking good for the Government. Restrictions on political expression are allowed, but only if they are "enacted to achieve a legitimate purpose and [they are] reasonably appropriate and adapted to advance that legitimate purpose in a manner compatible with the constitutional system of responsible and representative government." A law focused on protecting children from harm might be allowed to restrict their political communication, but only if the law is tailored specifically to minimise the impact on political communication, while having a reasonably effective impact towards that goal of protecting children from harm.
By not being able to make an account, the main thing this law achieves is restricting children's ability to share their opinions online. It isn't actually likely to have a significant impact on safety.