6 hours ago, zyphodb said:

 

Easily with digital ID...

Can it be enforced with Digital ID? No—the law explicitly prohibits it. Per the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 and eSafety Commissioner rules:

Platforms cannot compel government ID or accredited Digital ID (e.g., myGovID) for age proof—must offer alternatives like facial scans, behavioral signals, or video selfies to avoid blocking over-16s.

Enforcement relies on AI estimation, self-reported DOB cross-checks, and device data (e.g., Meta's multi-layered approach; Snapchat's signals). No parental consent loophole; kids/parents face no penalties—only platforms do.

3 minutes ago, mikeymike100 said:

Can it be enforced with Digital ID? No—the law explicitly prohibits it. Per the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 and eSafety Commissioner rules:

Platforms cannot compel government ID or accredited Digital ID (e.g., myGovID) for age proof—must offer alternatives like facial scans, behavioral signals, or video selfies to avoid blocking over-16s.

Enforcement relies on AI estimation, self-reported DOB cross-checks, and device data (e.g., Meta's multi-layered approach; Snapchat's signals). No parental consent loophole; kids/parents face no penalties—only platforms do.

There goes the porn viewing for adults!!

Even better to shut down the net entirely as it does more harm than good and stops Hamas and muslim propaganda infiltrating the airheads everywhere, a big tool of theirs.  

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

They are already talking about outlawing VPN's.

A question for the computer experts here. Short of outlawing VPN’s, in the manner of the Great Firewall of China, how exactly can the Aust Government stop kids from using a VPN to route their traffic through a freer country? Even I’ve managed to set up a VPN, and I’m utterly clueless about computers, so I imagine it would be child’s play for the average child.

 

I used to use YouTube just to get me through a hard level on a game, but I’ve recently discovered the vast amount of genuinely educational material there. It’s appalling to attempt to deny this resource to kids.

1 minute ago, CygnusX1 said:

question for the computer experts here. Short of outlawing VPN’s, in the manner of the Great Firewall of China, how exactly can the Aust Government stop kids from using a VPN

To use a VPN you have to be connected to the internet....they will

know your ID from the connection to the internet in the first place.

 

Anyway thats not the problem  the problem is that social media companies will require authenticated login regardless of a vpn or not

they and the governments will know whos who.

3 hours ago, Purdey said:

This could really take off. 

Ban under 16s from watching TV.

Ban them from reading books. 

Ban them from having a brain. 

Ban them from listening to gangster rap.

The list goes on and on...

 

It's a great idea.

 

They could of course have a list of "government approved" books. You know, ones where the heroic PM rides through fields on horseback, heroically saving puppies from evil members of the opposition.

 

Soviet style propaganda? Absolutely not, just protecting the children from inappropriate content.

8 minutes ago, johng said:

To use a VPN you have to be connected to the internet....they will

know your ID from the connection to the internet in the first place.

So under 16s would be banned from using a VPN?

8 minutes ago, johng said:

Anyway thats not the problem  the problem is that social media companies will require authenticated login regardless of a vpn or not

they and the governments will know whos who.

But if your connection to YouTube is coming from say Thailand via a VPN, how would YouTube know that you’re really in Australia? Does everyone anywhere in the world need to be actually logged in to Google account to use YouTube?

27 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

It's a great idea.

 

They could of course have a list of "government approved" books. You know, ones where the heroic PM rides through fields on horseback, heroically saving puppies from evil members of the opposition.

 

Soviet style propaganda? Absolutely not, just protecting the children from inappropriate content.

Some of that idea are already in America and also the President as marvel hero. 

21 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

Does everyone anywhere in the world need to be actually logged in to Google account to use YouTube?

No you need to be logged into your internet provider this is where the governments will exert most pressure to know who is who

after that it will be the individual  content providers Google,Faceache,Meta, X  who will be pressured to know and report to the governments who is who via digital ID 'age' verification login.

 

Short version  they will require digital ID to use the internet..everything you say will be logged ,scanned and archived for future thought crimes,hate crimes  hurty words crimes 

 

Go watch (again) Demolition Man 1993 movie for a clue of whats coming.

 

"I wish we could uninvent the smartphone. It's been deadly for educating children/young adults who know have the attention span of the average tic toc posting."

 

It is not the invention of the Smart Phone itself. It is the people who have been allowed to monopolize and monetize it over the years. Sites like Google, Facebook. Amazon, Apple, etc. are so big. There is one economist who puts forth the notion that Amazon is the equivalent of a fiefdom as they do not produce anything, but charge rent for their services to sellers and extract a huge commission in the process much the same as an all powerful landlord.

I have read too many times how Apple developed the smart phone with the goal to keep people on line using it for as long as possible. While FB with all of its suggestions for groups to join keep users on site by goading people to argue and join a tribe. 

When competitors or novel ideas appear on the net, once they are deemed successful, the big boys gobble them up, for example Youtube. 

Why are their users' agreements equivalent in length to a short story?

There are allegations that these corporate giants have colluded with governments to ban and censor people because private companies are not in danger of violating rights of speech as the government could be. In exchange Congressional investigations never seem to do more than slap big tech on the wrist with nominal fines

Why was it so scary to see tech giants sitting with Trump at his inaugaration? Is this how they continue to buy their way into the system. How powerful is Elon Musk? I think no one knows for sure.

We need to free up a great innovation like the smart phone. It needs to be given back to the people. Yes a private company developed the smart phone but how much of their research was funded by public money? Have they paid their share of taxes on the profits they have made in the last generation? They get to choose how they are taxed by starting charities.

 

4 minutes ago, jingjai9 said:

"I wish we could uninvent the smartphone. It's been deadly for educating children/young adults who know have the attention span of the average tic toc posting."

 

It is not the invention of the Smart Phone itself. It is the people who have been allowed to monopolize and monetize it over the years. Sites like Google, Facebook. Amazon, Apple, etc. are so big. There is one economist who puts forth the notion that Amazon is the equivalent of a fiefdom as they do not produce anything, but charge rent for their services to sellers and extract a huge commission in the process much the same as an all powerful landlord.

I have read too many times how Apple developed the smart phone with the goal to keep people on line using it for as long as possible. While FB with all of its suggestions for groups to join keep users on site by goading people to argue and join a tribe. 

When competitors or novel ideas appear on the net, once they are deemed successful, the big boys gobble them up, for example Youtube. 

Why are their users' agreements equivalent in length to a short story?

There are allegations that these corporate giants have colluded with governments to ban and censor people because private companies are not in danger of violating rights of speech as the government could be. In exchange Congressional investigations never seem to do more than slap big tech on the wrist with nominal fines

Why was it so scary to see tech giants sitting with Trump at his inaugaration? Is this how they continue to buy their way into the system. How powerful is Elon Musk? I think no one knows for sure.

We need to free up a great innovation like the smart phone. It needs to be given back to the people. Yes a private company developed the smart phone but how much of their research was funded by public money? Have they paid their share of taxes on the profits they have made in the last generation? They get to choose how they are taxed by starting charities.

 

 

On 12/2/2025 at 1:37 PM, BritManToo said:

Spotify usually gets included in these bans.

Could you explain what's dangerous about listening to music?

...'usually gets'. Last time I looked Spotify was not included. 

If the platform doesn't relate negatively with content for U16's then it won't be banned.

What's wrong with trying to protect children?

19 hours ago, carlyai said:

What's wrong with trying to protect children?

 

Nothing.

 

But what they are doing is using that as an excuse to control the adults. 

21 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

Can it be enforced with Digital ID? No—the law explicitly prohibits it. Per the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 and eSafety Commissioner rules:

Platforms cannot compel government ID or accredited Digital ID (e.g., myGovID) for age proof—must offer alternatives like facial scans, behavioral signals, or video selfies to avoid blocking over-16s.

Enforcement relies on AI estimation, self-reported DOB cross-checks, and device data (e.g., Meta's multi-layered approach; Snapchat's signals). No parental consent loophole; kids/parents face no penalties—only platforms do.

 

" Can it be enforced with Digital ID? No "

 

   Not yet, how hard would it be for the powers that shouldn't be to change that law?

On 12/2/2025 at 3:19 PM, John Drake said:

I wish we could uninvent the smartphone. It's been deadly for educating children/young adults who know have the attention span of the average tic toc posting.

World was better pre 2005

On 12/2/2025 at 1:09 PM, mordothailand said:

there is likely a link between phone scrolling and attention disorder ADHD

 

ADHD is not the problem, it is wast of the potential superpower within the specter of many disorders we in the modern society sees as a problem. 

 

If kids had what we had, their potential would had been greater, within mind with the knowledge we have today. 

 

Kids need to move, and especially young boys who have an extra gear, is forced to sit still to learn, when they learn better by being in constant motion. No to forget, most humans will have less complications throughout life if they use their physical body more. I do not say not to use the brain, I just say the methods could be better both mentally and physically that would be emotionally easier for all parts involved. 

 

Do not need to be combat sports, any sport will do 

 

 

 

Services that eSafety considers will be age-restricted social media platforms

• Facebook
• Instagram
• Kick
• Reddit
• Snapchat
• Threads
• TikTok
• Twitch
• X (formerly Twitter)
• YouTube

Services that eSafety considers will not be age-restricted social media platforms

• Discord
• GitHub
• Google Classroom
• LEGO Play
• Messenger
• Pinterest
• Roblox
• Steam and Steam Chat
• WhatsApp
• YouTube Kids

On 12/2/2025 at 2:01 PM, johng said:

Totally 100%  disagree !  the internet should stay free especially from government interference,  parents should protect their own children.

 Indeed, They could start by not supplying their kids with smartphones,  Its hardly necessary for any kid to own one,  

22 hours ago, carlyai said:

What's wrong with trying to protect children?

in theory nothing,  but what exactly are they trying to protect them from?   there is very little controversial content on you tube,  but plenty more elsewhere online that has not been mentioned at all.      

I think they want to prevent kids from reading or seeing any anti left wing stuff 

22 hours ago, carlyai said:

...'usually gets'. Last time I looked Spotify was not included. 

If the platform doesn't relate negatively with content for U16's then it won't be banned.

What's wrong with trying to protect children?

Like  "you tube kids" you mean  which is also on the list specifically for kids and not even  really "social media"   

         Open your eyes, wake up , smell the coffee.    You sound almost childlike in your naivety, best avoid the above mentioned websites for your own safety 

I bet there is some "full on stuff" on "Lego play"  So i'm  just off to buy some tissues for the missis who will remain "on hand" when i start surfing  these banned sites later, I have already booked an appointment with the optician, such is my optimism

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Nothing.

 

But what they are doing is using that as an excuse to control the adults. 

no surprises there , that Aussie Pm is a nasty leftist piece of work

13 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

no surprises there , that Aussie Pm is a nasty leftist piece of work

I like him. 🙂

2 hours ago, carlyai said:

I like him. 🙂

That does not surprise me, but you are better off not admitting to it publicly, Its not a good look

I'm in Thailand but I don't like Thai YT, so I use a free American VPN, now my dumb smart TV thinks I'm in Houston, Texas or Miami, Florida, and I watch American YT with loads of free movies, and the US ads are more interesting than the noisy Thai ads.

 

So Aussie kids will work their way around this incredibly stupid ban of Albo's. Thing is it's none of his fkn business. It's the parent's responsibility. 

20 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

That does not surprise me, but you are better off not admitting to it publicly, Its not a good look

I like the opposition leader as well. She's trying hard with difficult off-springs.

I also like Pauline and the Greens, they all have some credible points.

I vote mainly for the Libs but my vote is given to the people I consider doing the best for Australia at the time and now that is Labour.

Next.

2 hours ago, carlyai said:

I like him. 🙂

I seriously doubt anyone really likes him, but given a choice between him and Dutton in the last election, well Albo won the day. 😁

4 minutes ago, grain said:

I'm in Thailand but I don't like Thai YT, so I use a free American VPN, now my dumb smart TV thinks I'm in Houston, Texas or Miami, Florida, and I watch American YT with loads of free movies, and the US ads are more interesting than the noisy Thai ads.

 

So Aussie kids will work their way around this incredibly stupid ban of Albo's. Thing is it's none of his fkn business. It's the parent's responsibility. 

Why is it incredibly stupid?

You ever taught year 9 and 10 in a government school in Aus?

You ever seen young girls so distressed from bulling they are about to commit suicide?

Get the guy's parent ( mum left long ago) and he's a bikey.

No empathy no feelings no cares.

 

 

China protects its children.

 

On 12/2/2025 at 1:20 PM, carlyai said:

So banning inappropriate content on digital platforms for children under 16 is not OK?

I think it's more about, who is deciding what is inappropriate.  Taking the scamdemic as a prime example, and I don't want anyone limiting the availability of any information.  I'll decide what to believe, as one thing I learned, you can't trust the govt to think and decide for you.

 

They can't even balance a check book, let alone provide information other than corrupt, paid for propaganda, marketing material.

 

I give the younger folks a lot more thinking credit than the govt.  I was self aware and making adult decisions around 12 yrs old, working and handling finances, and think kids are a lot smarter now than in my era, as having so much information at hand via that smartphone or PC.