Social media age restrictions start 10 December.

How will it work?
Will adults have to prove their age by giving more information about themselves on line?

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/640x480q70/923/i1U6Qa.jpg

Is IngSoc or rather AuSoc is here already?

I wonder how many under 16 teens will hold a grudge against a government that took away their social media?  :-/

tallowood wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2025 at 10:50am:

Social media age restrictions start 10 December. How will it work? Will adults have to prove their age by giving more information about themselves on line?

That's what I'm wondering.

I have a YouTube account - will I have to prove my age?

I don't think so.

Apparently they look at the sorts of videos you watch, and how old the account is, to determine if you're an adult or not.

I just got an email response from the Labor MP I wrote to about this. It only took 6 weeks.

Apparently websites are allowed to 'infer' your age if you are obviously over 18. The example he gave is:


Quote:

If you are someone who uses Facebook and you've had a Facebook account since 2015 and you pretty much just use it for Marketplace these days to look for caravans, Facebook knows that you are over 16 and you shouldn't be required to do anything to demonstrate your identity because Facebook has enough data about you from what you've given Facebook yourself to know your age. So that's called inference based on the information that you're giving them.

He failed to address any of the concerns I raised.

Captain Nemo wrote on Dec 4^th, 2025 at 9:54am:

I wonder how many under 16 teens will hold a grudge against a government that took away their social media?  :-/

Nah.

By the time they're able to vote they would have moved on to new platforms and forgotten all about it.

Two years to a 16-year-old is an eternity.

freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2025 at 10:04am:

I just got an email response from the Labor MP I wrote to about this. It only took 6 weeks. Apparently websites are allowed to 'infer' your age if you are obviously over 18. The example he gave is: Quote: If you are someone who uses Facebook and you've had a Facebook account since 2015 and you pretty much just use it for Marketplace these days to look for caravans, Facebook knows that you are over 16 and you shouldn't be required to do anything to demonstrate your identity because Facebook has enough data about you from what you've given Facebook yourself to know your age. So that's called inference based on the information that you're giving them. He failed to address most of the concerns I raised.

Yep, that's my understanding.

When YouTube looks at my viewing history they'll see lots of dad rock videos and news reports - obviously over 16.

If it was full of Taylor Swift music videos, toy unboxing and cartoons they might start asking for ID.

This actually raises more concerns for me. Allowing websites to infer your age will actually give an unfair advantage to the big data-greedy tech companies like facebook, google etc. You might be able to continue using them seemlessly, but any competitor that starts up will have to ask you for ID.

He reassured me that it is not a data-grab by the government. But I did not even mention that in my email. I did raise several legitimate concerns that he completely ignored. As far as I am concerned, facebook and google are more powerful than the Australian government, and more of a threat. If they decided to, the could easily influence the outcome of future elections, which is probably why it came about that these laws ended up working in their favour.

He also offered me a 1300 page report on how easy it will be to implement.

Bunch of clowns.

How Australia's world-leading social media ban will be enforced according to 9news.


Quote:

Responsibility for enforcing the ban, which comes into effect on December 10, has been placed on social media companies. If children aged under 16 do find their way onto one of the banned sites, they and their parents won't face any penalties. Instead, the federal government's eSafety agency can take action against tech companies that aren't taking "reasonable steps" to keep underage users off their platforms. eSafety hasn't specified exactly what social media companies need to do to avoid falling foul of the new laws.

Quote:

from December 10, providers need to deactivate or remove the accounts of users aged under 16, and stop those children from being able to immediately create new profiles to get around the ban. This includes using geolocation data to check whether a user is an Australian resident, and verify that account holders are 16 or older. While social media platforms can confirm ages by checking someone's government-issued ID, they're required to offer at least one alternative so users aren't forced to hand over their driver's licence or passport. Companies have already begun rolling out age assurance technology, which can estimate and infer someone's age. The exact methods vary, but range from getting users to take a video selfie to analysing account behaviour and other metadata.

Quote:

There's also a range of requirements for companies around the data they collect, making sure they don't discriminate against diverse groups, and that users have an avenue to appeal decisions made against them.

Quote:

If a social media company breaks the age restriction laws, including by failing to take reasonable steps to keep underage children off its platforms, it will face a fine of up to $49.5 million. eSafety can also take the offending company to court to seek injunctions or undertakings from it in response to any breach.

What if SMC in question is overseas?

And why is it taking 6 weeks to get a cookie-cutter response on their biggest, most controversial policy, and less than a week before it comes into effect? Are they asleep at the wheel?

tallowood wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2025 at 10:50am:

Social media age restrictions start 10 December. How will it work? Will adults have to prove their age by giving more information about themselves on line? Is IngSoc or rather AuSoc is here already?

They might.

Look deeper -
that info will either be sold to the highest bidder
or it will be stolen by hackers so they can steal money from people's bank accounts.

tallowood wrote on Dec 4^th, 2025 at 10:15am:

How Australia's world-leading social media ban will be enforced according to 9news. Quote: Responsibility for enforcing the ban, which comes into effect on December 10, has been placed on social media companies. If children aged under 16 do find their way onto one of the banned sites, they and their parents won't face any penalties. Instead, the federal government's eSafety agency can take action against tech companies that aren't taking "reasonable steps" to keep underage users off their platforms. eSafety hasn't specified exactly what social media companies need to do to avoid falling foul of the new laws. [quote]from December 10, providers need to deactivate or remove the accounts of users aged under 16, and stop those children from being able to immediately create new profiles to get around the ban. This includes using geolocation data to check whether a user is an Australian resident, and verify that account holders are 16 or older. While social media platforms can confirm ages by checking someone's government-issued ID, they're required to offer at least one alternative so users aren't forced to hand over their driver's licence or passport. Companies have already begun rolling out age assurance technology, which can estimate and infer someone's age. The exact methods vary, but range from getting users to take a video selfie to analysing account behaviour and other metadata.

Quote:

There's also a range of requirements for companies around the data they collect, making sure they don't discriminate against diverse groups, and that users have an avenue to appeal decisions made against them.

Quote:

If a social media company breaks the age restriction laws, including by failing to take reasonable steps to keep underage children off its platforms, it will face a fine of up to $49.5 million. eSafety can also take the offending company to court to seek injunctions or undertakings from it in response to any breach.

What if SMC in question is overseas?[/quote]
If it is overseas then appropriate people will travel abroad at the taxpayer’s expense to talk to them.
Achieve nothing, return, then plan the next trip.

Quote:

Social media restrictions

As a father of a 16yr old and a 13 yr old, good on em.

freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2025 at 12:50pm:

And why is it taking 6 weeks to get a cookie-cutter response on their biggest, most controversial policy, and less than a week before it comes into effect? Are they asleep at the wheel?

It’s just another Aniko Wello game.

With the third world standard of our telecommunications systems ( it’s hardly a shock that  SEQ has  just suffered a major triple o outage and network failure, again, Optus)

So I suggest if Anika Wello can’t manage to provide lifesaving basic services such as triple 0 what hope is there for this new policy?

If you do need ambulance services or fire and rescue or police the American 999 service is reliable you just need to put the USA  call code in front of it before you ring and they will then be able to get in touch with Australian emergency services and direct them to you.

Australia and our new third world living standards.

But we continue to pay first world prices?

Chris Bowen left X after getting constantly fact checked and moved to BlueSky

The leftist cesspit full of pedos BlueSky isn't restricted by the Esafety Karens new rules.

Why is the leftist BlueSky exempt?

John Smith wrote on Dec 4^th, 2025 at 1:55pm:

Quote: Social media restrictions As a father of a 16yr old and a 13 yr old, good on em.

Only a slack father would outsource parenting responsibility to the Government.

freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2025 at 12:50pm:

And why is it taking 6 weeks to get a cookie-cutter response on their biggest, most controversial policy, and less than a week before it comes into effect? Are they asleep at the wheel?

They are not asleep at the wheel.

In Marxist ['Command Economy'] states you are not permitted to question the dictates that 'have been decided for us'.

You are only permitted to obey......the directives of the state.


Lack/loss of [individual] choice.

Fear a government which will, by default, simply, remove our choice
to decide our own [lawful] means, to achieve happiness and fulfillment, in life.

Marxism.     Authoritarianism.




Quote:

A command economy is an economic system where the government controls all aspects of production, distribution, and pricing of goods and services, often with little to no private ownership. This system is typically associated with communist states, where central planning dictates economic activity.

  wallstreetprep.com Investopedia

Communications Minister Anika Wells speaks about the social media ban at Press Club


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DCZAZy9jO4

The excuse given that it is ok for Adults because these companies already have all your info to me is just as concerning as anything else.

I hope it works but doubt it.

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 4^th, 2025 at 10:46pm:

John Smith wrote on Dec 4th, 2025 at 1:55pm: Quote: Social media restrictions As a father of a 16yr old and a 13 yr old, good on em. Only a slack father would outsource parenting responsibility to the Government.

Only a moron would take my comment to mean anyone is outsourcing parenting responsibility
:D

The problem is that no one is on the hook when it goes wrong -

after massive hacks at Optus and Medibank no one has been compensated -
no one has been put in jail yet the Govt encourages us to give our secret
information to dodgy overseas websites.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/aug/08/australia-cybersecurity-laws-hacks-optus-medibank-privacy-data-breach

Australians increasingly concerned about online privacy after high-profile cybersecurity breaches
This article is more than 2 years old
After massive hacks at Optus and Medibank, survey from information commissioner finds three-quarters of people feel data breaches are among biggest risk to privacy

John Smith wrote on Dec 5^th, 2025 at 6:36am:

Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 4th, 2025 at 10:46pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 4th, 2025 at 1:55pm: Quote: Social media restrictions As a father of a 16yr old and a 13 yr old, good on em. Only a slack father would outsource parenting responsibility to the Government. Only a moron would take my comment to mean anyone is outsourcing parenting responsibility :D

So you think parents should manage their own children's internet access, not the government?

Social Media doesn't have my life story.
I wasn't able to join Facebook using a Yahoo email account so I never joined.
They wanted too much personal information
and the fine print meant that if all that data was ever hacked
they would not be liable for any losses -
all care but no responsibility.   ::)

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2025 at 7:22am:

John Smith wrote on Dec 5th, 2025 at 6:36am: Baronvonrort wrote on Dec 4th, 2025 at 10:46pm: John Smith wrote on Dec 4th, 2025 at 1:55pm: Quote: Social media restrictions As a father of a 16yr old and a 13 yr old, good on em. Only a slack father would outsource parenting responsibility to the Government. Only a moron would take my comment to mean anyone is outsourcing parenting responsibility :D So you think parents should manage their own children's internet access, not the government?

Of course. I also think that there is a limit to how parents can do that. Kids always find a way. My kids had ZERO internet access for the two years prior to this year, and still they were up to date on all the latest internet hits, youtube videos etc.
Any help parents can get to limit exposure to the crap online is a good thing.

Quote:

I also think that there is a limit to how parents can do that.

But there isn't for the government?

freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2025 at 7:43am:

Quote: I also think that there is a limit to how parents can do that. But there isn't for the government?

Of course. No one said it was foolproof. Every bit helps.

Bobby. wrote on Dec 5^th, 2025 at 7:25am:

Social Media doesn't have my life story. I wasn't able to join Facebook using a Yahoo email account so I never joined. They wanted too much personal information and the fine print meant that if all that data was ever hacked they would not be liable for any losses - all care but no responsibility.   ::)

Even search engines will likely monitor the web pages you have visited recently. If you research a product they will target this product at you. They will identify your region they will likely have your address and phone numbers etc.

Kids will try running scripts to hit a group of more adult sites during and at the end of their sessions. maybe before going to a social media site. Say they were to set a group of aged care or aged pension related pages. Followed by wheel chair queries. Then on to face book.

This measure will block far more old people than young people. A lot of them already get the grandkids to set up their account for them. Young people tend to be oblivious to privacy concerns. Older people either won't get it to work, or will refuse to provide the information.

Take away the kids phones and send them to church to pray:


https://m3.gab.com/media_attachments/bf/e9/1d/bfe91d7daf14e1b6e1bf242d0c6ba7a8.jpg

There is a High Court challenge on legality of this ban 25th Feb 2026 will be a directions hearing with Chief Justice the outcome of that will confirm a date for full hearing.

If AnAls censorship law is found to be unconstitutional then the ban will be immediately lifted.

The South Australian and New South Wales governments have intervened on the side of censorship and the Commonwealth which increases taxpayers legal costs.

The two minors who are the named plaintiffs with High Court challenge against Australia's under 16 social media ban are 15 year old Noah Jones and Macy Neyland.  ;)