this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2025
118 points (99.2% liked)

Australia

4685 readers
97 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

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:

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:

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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MyMindIsLikeAnOcean@piefed.world 14 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (20 children)

Welp…I work with kids and I previously supported the ban….but I’ve done a 180.

Yeah…you’re going to save a couple kids…but you’re also going to prevent many more kids from accessing community or services, and that going to be bet bad.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 18 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

Yeah don't get me wrong, I 100% support the stated intent of the ban. It's just a terrible method to go about it. Facebook is known to have commissioned internal studies about the psychological effects of changes to their algorithm, and then when those studies show the change causes harm, but also produce a little more profit, they go with the profit every time. Why don't we make that illegal?

If we have to do age-gating, why not require it to be done in a privacy-preserving way, such as parental controls, zero-knowledge proofs, or blind signatures? Parental controls would, in fact, be by far the easiest for everyone involved, and the only information that would actually need to flow is from the parent to their kids' devices, and then the devices reporting "yes, this is a child" or "no, this is not a child".

The answer is: because the government didn't care. It didn't want to actually fix the problem. It didn't want to listen to experts' opinions or consider the broader public's concerns. It wanted to win some quick easy PR. That's why submissions into the legislation were open for just one day, and why Parliament didn't even take the time to consider the small number of submissions that were able to be made in that limited window. A government that is acting seriously in response to a chronic threat (I can make some exception for quick responses into sudden, unexpected, acute crises) does not behave in this way. Ever. Good legislation takes time, and this sort of hurried response only indicates that it knew it was doing the wrong thing, and wanted to minimise the amount of time it was exposed to criticism.

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It wanted to win some quick easy PR.

This is what baffles me. I may be out of touch, but I haven't seen a single response in support of the thing. Seems more like a big PR fail to me.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Not seen any of the polling, the comments under politicians' Facebook posts about it, or heard interviews on the ABC? It most definitely is a very popular policy. Unfortunately, that's mostly because of a lack of understanding of the nuance. They just see "social media = bad for kids, therefore this bill that says it's going to stop that must be good".

[–] Almacca@aussie.zone 2 points 2 days ago

I guess I am out of touch then.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)