So badically, 36% used to not use it because they were too young, but now only 8% don't use it, implying that 28% from that 36% found a way to use it despite age checks?
post
It was always going to be difficult to remove social media from kids that are used with it. We will see the effect in the future because it could lead to fewer kids using social media in the future. It might take 5-10 years though.
I know a great way to get kids to stop doing something!
Tell them it isn't allowed.
๐คก
well, obviously it just wasn't banned hard enough. Give them even more access to identifying information and they can fix this.
Meanwhile IMO forced verification of users had a much better success rate ๐
i wish they had spent some time looking at the effectiveness of both combined instead of just this one little blurb:
lying about age on verification prompts (57%),
that's roughly the same percentage of americans who can see a genocide live streamed to the palm of their hands every day and still won't accept that it's a genocide.
Anecdotal, I realise - but my niece and all her classmates were on Instagram last year. When that was cut off from them, it wasn't replaced (the cohort didn't move to some other social media). So in her case, the ban has been a success. She'll be 16 in Feb anyway.
My son on the other hand hasn't been affected. He is on YouTube and Discord and hasn't noticed the ban at all. He hasn't seen any age verification stuff. So in his case, the ban has been a total fizzle.
It was never about the kids, they just needed an excuse to lock down the internet and most Aussies fucking bought it. My countrymen are fucking dumb as shit, Aussies are only useful for digging holes out in the desert it would seem. Shame, we could be so much more.
Oops.
Better keep collecting IDs just in case. Too late to change the law anyway.
Accessible parental controls ARE the way forward. NOT digital ID and biometrics verification.
Supporting the latter shows a clear stance against privacy.

all 5 comments