top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 12 points 1 year ago

Hoping to see a surge for aussie.zone

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Bit of an ask to give only a month's notice on having to verify every Australian user's age, technique left up to you (but if it's not good enough, massive fines!)

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Probably the easiest/cheapest way is to just use an existing identity provider and require all users to sign up through there. Wonder how that will affect the userbase...

    I for one welcome our future aussie comrades. Maybe aussie.zone can do a donation drive for more hardware or smth?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    God forbid you tell parents to start parenting and, I don't know... watch what their kids do online?

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You're not wrong, but it's buying in to the 'think of the children' misdirection while privacy rights are snatched away from the entire population. Fight this on privacy (on the internet) grounds, find better ways to require effective moderation (for example) instead, if it's bad for kids it's likely bad for adults, but not for the profit of the corpos that will just step around or wear the fines while hoovering more personal data. Think in terms of car companies creating jaywalking and then getting the scouts to promote the idea.

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

    I agree with you. We are losing our privacy "because of the children"

    My point is that there are websites that shouldn't be visited by a 10yo. And that's enterely on their parents. You shouldn't let your child browse the internet completely unsupervised if you don't even bother on setting some filters for their own safety.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    And I agree with you, there's some unspeakable shit out there, much of it, IMO, not fit for child nor adult, but making everyone pony up ID or facial recognition data or whatever will remove none of that, nor make it less accessible to children. Given basic child psychology it will, in fact, make it more attractive, more's the pity, and time and again children have shown themselves highly effective at circumventing it.This is also AusGov, home of some of the worst IT implementations in the world, whose current plan is, as disclosed so far a month out, she'll be right mate, we got the same mob as the UK used and they reckon it's fine. Better moderation requirements on large social media sites, better blocklists with easy secure implementation explained well to parents, any other number of other things would be more effective and non invasive. But no, it's cheaper (possibly negative expense if there are kickbacks) to let facebook ask for ID or worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You’re obviously a great parent. I’d love to know what tips you have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Certainly, allowing your kids to browse all the internet, including cesspools such as reddit, facebook and twitter unwatched is a great way of parenting!

    If only we had things such as parental controls on these devices and filters to block harmful sites... But alas, none of that exist, so we have to rely on a nanny state.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    How long until they notice lemmy?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Considering the role Reddit played in spreading Trumpism I dont think this is a bad idea.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    29 comments in c/reddit@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 45 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I'm split on this because on one hand all these platforms are have a well-known link to poor mental health in teenagers however I think this might be another instance where we are legislating something that should be handled by the parents.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Double edged sword. I don't let my kids on any social media at all and people compare me to Hitler. Then I have to explain how they're the reason I don't let them on social media. All that anonymous hate becomes learning material for real world actions and behaviours. Every small child I know that watches unspeakable is arguably a giant asshole.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago

    I don't want it because I want to expose my kid to things early and gradually. My kid as had a tablet since 1. No one would know that if I didn't tell them. She doesn't use her tablet as a pacifier because of strong parental controls, boundary enforcement and general parenting. She doesn't have unlimited access to YouTube because I learned that 30 mins is about all she can handle for short form videos. But we are working on tolerance and personal boundary settings with it. She started at about 10mins a day.

    She's in elementary and we are slowly dipping into social media. Right now she's locked into platforms where she can only interact with a white list of people.

    I don't want the government to scream at me that my way is wrong because shit disengaged parents exist. It's like at the stuff about screen time. It turns out the one study i read was correct. I don't harm or hurt as long as it doesn't replace human interaction.

    Letting it be a free for all at 16 isn't going to do anything but make it worse because then kids at that age will get no guidance and it'll just be binging now with less societal care since nothing with be made to onboard children at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    On one hand it’s definitely needed, on the other it’s surveillance.

    I don’t think it’s up to the parents because if they were informed enough to make that decision then the kids wouldn’t be on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Let’s just ban kids. Problem solved. Little fuckers can’t handle anything.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Are you willing to provide government identification to prove you're not a child?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    That's my major concern as an Australian.

    I don't think there's any real attempt to protect kids, it's more about identifying all users on the internet

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

    It definitely is, otherwise they could just mandate phone makers institute and effective blocking system in all phones, and then legally enforce that the program be activated on phones bought for minors. They would never have to know any private information, as the phone companies and parents could be held responsible for implementing the system. Plus forcing the companies to develop it themselves prevents fear of having some kind of government controlled blocker that could be abused

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

    kids could still use social media on computers and tablets, and there's no way to stop phones being hand-me-downed or ensure adults don't just buy phones for their kids as 'adult' phones.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    By that logic theres no way to stop parents from buying their kid alcohol either, however we still have laws against it… kid gets caught drinking underage, then parent gets in trouble. Its not a novel idea of enforcement

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

    I'm just saying that embedding software restrictions on phones known to be bought for under 16s isn't going to be especially effective at stopping them from popping up on social media. It would have some impact, but not substantial.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    Lucky I have Lemmy.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    This whole scheme is a farce. It's the government trying to look like they're doing something rather than actually doing things like funneling more money into our public schools.

    And let's be honest, the problem is that the world is on fire and the kids are scared. The internet exposes us to that from a very young age these days, but banning it is only going to force our teenagers into blissful ignorance.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    All this news cycles for 18 websites listed so far (And only 9 actually affected)

    Scratch is probably the number 1 site at my school, and there is still no news on if that will be affected or not.

    https://www.esafety.gov.au/

    (Oh. Kick is restricted, but Rumble is available? I looked at the site earlier this week, and the first post was how Trump is saving the day)

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -8 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Why can't the US have this? I mean my kid is 13 and I don't let him use social media, but like .would be nice if it was just automatic somehow.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    so you want to provide your ID to various companies to do with whatever they deem fit? to leak said ID? sell it?

    ok, have at it I guess.

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

    If you're in the US you already do this for basic things online

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

    What basic things are you referring to?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    I just needed to enter my ID information to setup my dogs grooming services.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Do you mean like card details?

    I don't think that's comparable to giving your passport or face to every single community website. Moreover, a dog grooming website is presumably not expecting bulk sign-ups and is likely handled by humans.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Or people could parent their children.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    You can only do so much. You don't know what's going on at their friend's houses. Like when I was a kid we would watch sex in the city at sleepovers. My parents didn't have HBO or even cable but I still knew all about Carrie Bradshaw's escapades.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

    Why become a parent if you don't care about your children's well-being? They're growing up in a different world to what you did and you cannot apply "We didn't have social media"-thinking on them.

    Teach them about the evil algorithms and let them learn from experience.

    /father to kids aged 13, 10 and 6 with nothing forbidden.

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

    This doesn't make any sense. As an adult I can see the unfiltered internet in comments on social media. There is not age requirement on things and if there is a child can easily just make themselves that she via what year they were born. I don't need my kid going in tiktok watching half naked people dance around in one video and then see a bunch of children argue about politics in the next. Dude should be outside playing lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments