this post was submitted on 07 Aug 2025
54 points (95.0% liked)

Technology

40517 readers
278 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] tal@lemmy.today 14 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Plans To Ban Kids From Watching YouTube

As well as:

https://www.npr.org/2024/11/28/g-s1-36142/australia-social-media-ban-children

The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment

It sounds like, from my quick skim, that their criteria would also apply to the Threadiverse, as I don't see any sort of userbase size or revenue restrictions on their definition of its scope. Here's the bill text:

(1) For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted social media platform means:
(a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:
(i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users;
(ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users;
(iii) the service allows end-users to post material on the service;
(iv) such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules; or
(b) an electronic service specified in the legislative rules;but does not include a service mentioned in subsection (6).
Note 1: Online social interaction does not include (for example) online business interaction.
Note 2: An age-restricted social media platform may be, but is not necessarily, a social media service under section 13.19
Note 3: For specification by class, see subsection 13(3) of the Legislation Act 2003.

Subsection (6):

(6) An electronic service is not an age-restricted social media platform if:
(a) none of the material on the service is accessible to, or delivered to, one or more end-users in Australia; or
(b) the service is specified in the legislative rules.

I'm sure that there will be more discussion on this that will probably clarify it.

For the moment, I'm pretty confident based on past case law that the US legal system won't consider a US-based Threadiverse instance that isn't actively doing something like advertising to users specifically in Australia or selling products to Australia to be within the legal jurisdiction of Australia, as it won't be doing business in Australia, so the US legal system will not enforce Australian law against it. Australia might block a node but shouldn't be able to fine someone, so blacklisting Australian IP addresses or the like probably isn't necessary. One notable issue: I don't know off the top of my head whether instances accepting donations from Australian users could be affected.

I don't know what the EU's position on Internet jurisdiction is.

That might be a much more substantial problem for Australia-based instances, like


to name one that comes to mind


aussie.zone.

[–] realitista@lemmus.org 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

16 is definitely extreme, but having gone to war with YouTube's junk to small kids and finding out there's no preventing them falling down some junk rabbit hole, I'm pretty cool with it up to about 12.

[–] Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

My thoughts exactly. All online spaces unless they offer a manually curated, child friendly experience and live moderation.

[–] sculd@beehaw.org 6 points 2 months ago

Huh? This is good news for the kids. I have seen too many kids sticking to their iPads all the time.

[–] limerod@reddthat.com 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Another country bringing age verification.

I wonder why they lock on youtube and ignore Facebook, Instagram, tiktok, etc.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 9 points 2 months ago

pretty sure they don't, those last things are already (or will be?) banned for young people in Australia :(

If I hadn't had the Internet growing up, I would have 0 (zero) positive memories of my preteen and teenage years. People who want to take that away from future generations are truly pure evil. I have no other words.

[–] brisk@aussie.zone 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

What are you talking about, all of those are banned.

[–] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

They've been a Murdoch-influenced cesspool politically for years now, this is par for the course for them; just more social control by the government under the guise of protecting kids.

Gotta stop kids from learning about the wider world until they've had their worldview shaped to their regressive government's liking.

[–] SGL@beehaw.org 4 points 2 months ago

A little bit over dramatic...

They should ban cell phones and tablets for children. TikFok and other borderline idiotic media are unnecessary for the healthy development of a rational human being. Go outside more often!

[–] Sxan@piefed.zip 0 points 2 months ago

I'm... furiously glad?

Hurts big tech þat's become so enshittified it's unwatchable? Check!

Age blocks and limiting teen freedom, which should be þe parent's jobs? Booo.

I don't know wheþer to laugh, or cry. So I say to myself, "what's next, big sky?"