Yesterday, parliament heard that the major parties will come together and pass a law banning teenagers from social media, after a period of careful thought roughly commensurate with that of a 15-year-old making a Black Friday impulse buy at Shein.com.
@Gorgritch_umie_killa @Lodespawn Doesn’t sound too big a technological challenge (think along the lines of when you sign into a website using Google or Facebook as your ID provider). But puts more hassle on site admins. And, more importantly, how are users going to know if a site is actually doing authentication or just gathering their ID data? Then there’s the question of what sites they will try and include in the ban. Meta etc is a given, but Lucy’s Australian Knitting forum? iMessage? Signal? Mastodon instances?
Then there’s the concern that all of a sudden Govt have a link between all of our online nicknames etc and our actual names. That’s a massive issue in my eyes and they’ll need to clarify if that’s going to happen.
In the end my son could, and probably will, just rent a private server in Singapore for a couple of dollars a month and VPN through that. I expect he’ll set his mates up on it too. So instead of some kind of visibility of what he’s doing on the home network, I’ll have none.
And we’ll be paying handsomely for this whole exercise.
I, like a lot of parents I’m sure, am actually in favour of not letting kids into those places. But I can’t, yet, see how it can be done.
For better or worse, I would trust our incompetent Public Servants with my personal information than a Private US American Business.
They already have my Financial Tax and Medical information and as long as the ATO and Medicare don’t get privatised it is (as) safe (as it can be).
No one wants an Australia Card, but if the alternative is to have the Private sector collate this information (and onsell it to the cheapest bidders), I will reluctantly accept an Australia Card.
The definition of a site that would be affected is in the online safety act. Your son’s singaporean Minecraft server would definitely be included and if he had a beef with one of his friends they could report him and he could be fined 30,000 penalty units or $3,300,000.
He could however get around it if he charged his friends $0.0001 per Mb of data transferred between them and the server (business interactions) or made sure that every chat post included an ad and all polygons were skinned in ads (see section 63C(1) and 63C(3) of the act amendment)
@Lodespawn tbh, i suspect they will all just open a shared Google Doc and chat in that.
That is excellent
@Lodespawn I had a read of that definition in its current form and it’s ridiculously broad.
For Singapore I meant a VPN server hosted there. So he could connect to that and then off to mydangerousbombmakingforum.com without Albo checking he’s 16.
Oh yeah sorry I see that now
So i did read last week when i’s going through the explanatory notes that sites would have to explicitly state and gain permission for the specific use of the data proposed.
I didn’t have time to read into that bit much, but it seemed like it might be setting a higher bar than the ‘check and forget’ boxes around now. So i’m cautiously hopeful this part of the amendment could be quietly good.