all 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 18 points 4 months ago (1 child)

Well maybe they should have passed the law to put the responsibility in the laps of the tech companies. Rather than prohibition. Because as we know: Prohibition works all the time! /s

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    That's…what it does? The law penalises social media platforms that fail to take appropriate measures to prevent children using their platform. Neither parents nor the children themselves face any legal repercussions under the current law.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    Stop penalising teens for wanting to socialise.

    Stop demanding we identify ourselves to unaccountable private actors, merely to socialise.

    Instead: Penalise the platform corporations that make an environment friendly to predators, abusers, scammers, and extractionists.

    Keep penalising those corporations, until they learn to stop. Or go out of business because their business model is incompatible with our wellbeing.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Our leaders are morons. The day I cant get around age verification with a VPN, I will quit social media.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago

    Not doing enough? Wasn't Zuch caught tweaking the algorithm to encourage engagement by children? He's not only doing nothing about it, he's actively encouraging it.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago*

    Again, meta aren't even moderating anymore.

    They aren't doing enough. I've seen lots of obvious criminal incitement amongst other things that has been reported, and it's not against their standards

    It's not that teens shouldn't socialize, it's that meta have been so criminally fucking negligent that the biggest dipshits on the planet are normalizing absolutely crappy behavior

    I would go one step further and start fining them heavily for all criminal activity that doesn't get taken down too

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    So PornHub is more ethical than Facebook.

    That checks out.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago*

    Pornhub is blocked. I just checked lol.

    All the videos up aren't porn, and there is censored porn videos to click that asks for verification

    And yeah, honestly, pornhub is more ethical than Facebook, because they take down content that is illegal. Facebook don't

  • source
  • parent
  • 11 comments in c/world view that post
    [–] 3 points 4 months ago

    Still within the range of being just "cost of doing business".

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 33 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (8 children)

    Not really. These bans aren't about protecting children, they're about tracking and monitoring adults. You have to prove you're an adult to get on the site.

    Social media is often harmful and a significant problem in the world, but that needs to be addressed by regulating social media itself and outlawing harmful algorithms that serve up content in a manipulative and antagonistic way. Not by compelling social media companies to track people even more.

    Most likely the tech companies will hold out until they work out a way they can get paid for it, all the while claiming they're on the side of user privacy.

    Edit: Also, reading between the lines in this article, it seems the expansion of powers they're talking about is for the eSafety Commissioner to request information from social media companies and third party providers. Presumably this would mean they can access the secure private data users upload to prove their identity. So the government are pretty much explicitly tracking people's activity at this point - but worse, they're doing so via private businesses and thereby allowing them to further exploit the data against people's interests.

    The reforms would also give the eSafety commissioner the power to compel social media companies to provide evidence of what they have done to stop under-16s from opening or using an account. The commissioner would be able to demand information and documents, including from third parties, such as age assurance or app store providers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (6 children)

    they’re about tracking and monitoring adults

    No they're not. I don't have time right now to type up more, but you can check my recent history for more detail. But in short, the law forbids requiring id for verification and forbids anything collected for verification purposes from being used for any other purpose.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)

    the law forbids requiring id for verification

    So they verify by other means, eg facial recognition. The government has your ID already, so they're getting access to this additional personal information via private third parties.

    and forbids anything collected for verification purposes from being used for any other purpose.

    Forbidding something is almost meaningless when you cannot monitor and enforce it. There is virtually no way to prove they aren't selling data under the table.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    Sure, but at that point why have any laws at all? What's the point of Europe's GDPR? What's the point of Australia's Privacy Act 1988? Why do we bother talking about any data regulation?

    It's an absurd complaint to have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    The hyperbole from your comment reeks. What you're saying is absurd.

    GDPR and Australia's Privacy Act are enforced. Companies are restricted from data collection by those laws.

    This law requires companies to increase data collection, and potentially requires them to release that data to the government.

    You seemingly have no perspective on the direction of these things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    GDPR and Australia’s Privacy Act are enforced. Companies are restricted from data collection by those laws.

    Yes...that is...the whole point...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    You're missing the nuance. GDPR laws prevent collection.

    This law requires collection, but only within a certain scope. However it's nearly impossible to tell whether that data was collected for the permitted scope, or if it's also being used in ways it shouldn't.

    GDPR requires less data collection, this law requires more.

  • source
  • parent