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

World News

51444 readers
2730 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 138 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (18 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 40 points 2 weeks ago (3 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.

[–] wheezy@lemmy.ml 36 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

As someone that grew up with an "unmonitored" internet. I can say that it was significantly more healthy than the profit driven "keep watching" algorithm that is all of social media today.

Yeah. I saw "two girls one cup" and "lemon party". But, did I slowly have my perspective of reality changed by the 30 second videos I swiped on for hours at a time for days on end?

No, most of my time was spent learning about computers, "stealing" music, and chatting with my real life friends.

I don't think a kid today can experience that internet anymore. It's gone. But acting like "unmonitored" internet access is worse is pearl clutching and ignoring the fundamental problems the profit driven internet has created at the expense of societies mental health.

Kids will absolutely find another place to connect online in Australia. But, honestly, I think whatever that is will be healthier than the absolute brain rot that is profit driven social media.

We got to this point because parents think that kids need a monitored internet. Afraid of online predators. So it was passed off to corporations that learned how to systematically institute mental abuse in order to keep their apps open longer.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] porcoesphino@mander.xyz 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 (16 replies)
[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 70 points 2 weeks 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 36 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 56 points 2 weeks ago (8 children)

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

Have you tried parenting her?

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 30 points 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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)
[–] Michal@programming.dev 44 points 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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)
[–] Ziggurat@jlai.lu 44 points 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] comalnik@lemmy.world 42 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 39 points 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 32 points 2 weeks 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 29 points 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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)
[–] wondrous_strange@lemmy.world 28 points 2 weeks 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)
[–] Walk_blesseD@piefed.blahaj.zone 27 points 2 weeks 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)
[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 20 points 2 weeks 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)
[–] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 weeks 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)
[–] lunelovegood@ttrpg.network 18 points 2 weeks 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 17 points 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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)
[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 17 points 2 weeks 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)
[–] RonniePickering@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Ban it all, its a plague on civilization!

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks 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 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 13 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

I wonder if after a few years we can stop pretending like social media caused every bad problem in society and instead we can focus on the wealth inequality and climate change apathy that is causing people to no longer want to support our broken society?

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

We're not pretending, this is an asinine view.

Two things can be true at once. It's surprising how difficult a concept this is to grasp.

Social media accelerated this, it provides the vehicle in which to make culture wars the only thing at the front of people's minds. It accelerated division and hate, as these improve platform attention.

Let's not even talk about the death of critical thinking which just allows this to happen to greater effect.

Rising wealth inequality because a side effect of us not fighting a class war which is a side effect of us being completely focused on culture wars which is a side effect of social media.

There's an entire chain here and social media underpins most of it's acceleration

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›