←back to thread

Australians to face age checks from search engines

(ia.acs.org.au)
139 points stubish | 7 comments | 01 Jul 25 23:59 UTC | HN request time: 0.968s | source | bottom
Show context
jackvalentine ◴[02 Jul 25 01:03 UTC] No.44439355[source]▶
Australians are broadly supportive of these kind of actions - there is a view that foreign internet behemoths have failed to moderate for themselves and will therefore have moderation imposed on them however imperfect.

Can’t say I blame them.

replies(3): >>44439415 #>>44439676 #>>44439817 #
AnthonyMouse ◴[02 Jul 25 02:47 UTC] No.44439817[source]▶
> there is a view that foreign internet behemoths have failed to moderate for themselves and will therefore have moderation imposed on them however imperfect.

This view is manufactured. The premise is that better moderation is available and despite that, literally no one is choosing to do it. The fact is that moderation is hard and in particular excluding all actually bad things without also having a catastrophically high false positive rate is infeasible.

But the people who are the primary victims of the false positives and the people who want the bad stuff fully censored aren't all the same people, and then the second group likes to pretend that there is a magic solution that doesn't throw the first group under the bus, so they can throw the first group under the bus.

replies(5): >>44439891 #>>44439944 #>>44440013 #>>44440547 #>>44441786 #
1. marcus_holmes ◴[02 Jul 25 03:11 UTC] No.44439944[source]▶
This. This legislation has got nothing to do with moderation or "protecting children" - that's just the excuse that the government is using to push the legislation through. There are better ways of achieving that goal if that was the goal.

The actual goal is, as always, complete control over what Australians can see and do on the internet, and complete knowledge of what we see and do on the internet.

replies(3): >>44440173 #>>44440410 #>>44441712 #
2. globalnode ◴[02 Jul 25 04:11 UTC] No.44440173[source]▶
i think governments are confused by the internet. on the one hand business uses it to save money and pay taxes. broligarch's get rich from it. yet it exposes the unwashed masses to all sorts of information that might otherwise face censorship. theres always sex and drugs you can use as a reason to clamp down on things. the tough thing for them will be how do you reign in the plebs while also allowing business and advertising to function unfettered... tough times ahead :p

p.s. i agree with your comment.

3. l0ng1nu5 ◴[02 Jul 25 05:07 UTC] No.44440410[source]▶
Agreed but would also add the ability to prosecute anyone who writes something they don't like/agree with.
replies(1): >>44442122 #
4. florkbork ◴[02 Jul 25 09:36 UTC] No.44441712[source]▶
Pfft. https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....

Read it. It is specifically targeting companies who currently run riot over young individual's digital identity, flog it off to marketers, and treat them as a product.

replies(1): >>44452705 #
5. account42 ◴[02 Jul 25 10:49 UTC] No.44442122[source]▶
They can already do that, see e.g. what the UK is doing in response to tweets. You don't need identity verification to have an ISP tell you the person behind an IP.
replies(1): >>44449008 #
6. AnthonyMouse ◴[02 Jul 25 21:23 UTC] No.44449008{3}[source]▶
IP addresses don't have anything like a 1:1 mapping to human beings and it's pretty trivial and inexpensive to get one from someone other than your ISP (e.g. use a VPN) if you have any concerns about that sort of thing.
7. marcus_holmes ◴[03 Jul 25 08:00 UTC] No.44452705[source]▶
I point you to section 63C 1 in that document:

      (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).

I see nothing in there that talks about young people, identities, flogging anything to marketers, or treating people as product.

I don't dispute that that happens. All I'm saying is that this act is not solving that problem, isn't intended to solve that problem, and is actually part of a larger push to censor the internet for Australians.

This act, as written, requires all interactive websites that are accessible to end-users in Australia to implement age restrictions. And in order to implement age restrictions they must remove anonymity. Which is the point.