Nath

If Government-issued ID is used, it cannot be stored past the length of time it takes to verify

That just reverses the circle of trust. If I can't trust the users not to lie about their age ("trust me, bro") in a DM, then the users can't trust me not to keep copies/sell their private information ("trust me, bro"). That's a super-flawed verification method.

... I don’t believe I should have to tell a JP that I use aussie.zone.

I wasn't exactly proposing it as a solution, the amount of manual work it would generate to have millions of Australians going to JPs around the country with this for all their social media sites staggers the mind. But if it were to be implemented this way, I'm not really sure how to get around the issue of naming the explicit sites you visit. You don't want it to be a blank "this person is verified on every site", because that'll be abused by everyone (and their kids) on every site. There needs to be some sort of personalisation to the verification.

And before anyone proposes it: I have zero interest in you sending me your personal ID. We are not equipped to store that level of sensitive information, and this is a side-hobby. We don't take the site anywhere near seriously enough to take that sort of responsibility on.

At first I laughed, but in honesty I can’t think of many better verification methods.

My concern with it is the cost and requirement for non-drinkers to acquire alcohol. It’s pretty insensitive to ask a recovering alcoholic or a Muslim for example to go into a pub and buy a beer. Maybe have it as one possible verification method?

You could also get a a piece of paper notarised by a JP.
‘The individual known on Aussie.zone as Gorgritch_Umie_Killa has presented identification to me that demonstrates to my satisfaction that they are over 18’ (signed and stamped).

But neither of these methods are technical solutions.

Adhere to the regulations, whatever the fuck they end up being

I'll send everyone a DM: "Hey, are you over 18? Yep? cool."

I have verified that all our users are over 18. 👍

It is kinda relevant. If you are hired to do a job for five days. And you are paid the agreed amount for those five days, even if you are told you don't need to come to work days 4 & 5, are you actually that hard done by? What damages are you seeking?

I mean - the court answered this question: Justice Rangiah said the "appropriate award of compensation" for non-economic loss was $70,000.
The ABC recognised they did her wrong. My biggest concern with Aunty's response is this "We extend our sincere apologies to Ms Lattouf and wish her well in her future endeavours."

That sounds like a 'we will not be hiring you again' to me. After recognising they shouldn't have taken her off the air. I think they should have her back.

Oh this again. I had forgotten about it. According to the bill's definition of "Social Media", we (aussie.zone) meet it. Which means we need to somehow adhere to whatever the government deems necessary to confirm our userbase's ages. Thing is: I can't see any instance outside the country caring about this law. Why should they?

I genuinely have no idea from a technical standpoint how you'd enforce this.

This is a really interesting case. I’m a little surprised at the result, to be honest. While I agree with it (she was absolutely taken off the air for her political opinions), I also concede that the ABC did in fact pay her to the end of her 5-day contract.

Hopefully the next time a bunch of special interest people put pressure on the ABC, they’ll have more of a spine about it. Honestly, what possible power did 100-150 or so people have over the ABC that the’d fold so easily? It boggles the brain. Oh no! 0.0008% of Australians really don’t like an employee! Let’s get rid of her!

It's taken all day, but I've managed to listen to this in the background at work in between stuff.
I finally got to the end, and realise there's a part 2! Oh man. I'm not entirely positive I can take another hour of talking about these loonies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIrcWtuLkdA

So far, the tl;dw is "These people are wrong. None of their bullshit actually works, and some have lost homes or ended up in prison over their idiot ideas".

Which brings us full-circle to this article of two guys being imprisoned over their mistaken belief of being outside the law.

My employer is a corporate identity that is giving me instructions all the time. I often even follow them.

Perhaps I'm not the living being?

Port Headland doesn't have anywhere near enough water to support a major population. They're already looking at borefields and desalination as options to meet current projected population growth there. That's overlooking the fact that it would need major infrastructure upgrades.

Cool, how long ago was this?

A couple of years ago at a University Open Day.

Isolation.

We are very far from anywhere. The nearest major city is over 2,000km and that only gives you Adelaide. Next nearest are another 1,000+ km further still.

It's such a contrast from Sydney, where 2,000km gives you Brisbane, Melbourne, Canberra (ok that one isn't very major), Hobart, Adelaide - even Auckland.