Australia Bans Under 16's from Social Media

[Landon Caeli]

"Social media users under the age of 16 are set to be barred from using social media, under legislation expected to be introduced to parliament this month.

The proposed legislation won't include exemptions for young people who already have social media accounts or those with parental consent."

Children under 16 to be banned from social media under government's proposed changes

Labor has backed setting the social media minimum age cut-off at 16 years old, with legislation set to be introduced this month.

www.abc.net.au

AFAIK, Australia *only* produces restrictive laws as an ongoing and unsettling trend. In this case, it goes too far by intruding on parental rights. I'm curious how others see this.

 

[HARK!]

I was told not to talk to strangers when I was a child. My parents wanted to know where I was going, who I would be with, and when I would be back; and If I was going to be gone for more than an hour I would have to come home to check in that I was OK. If I was going to a friends house; I would have to call to check in. With the predators on social media, this looks like a good law to me. It requires parental permission. I think that it's a valuable tool to help parents filter who is influencing their children.

 

[St. Helens]

This is a good thing. Kids do not belong on social media platforms. Their minds are still developing. It is the parents job to raise them.

I help to run several military themed groups on social media. We already have a prohibition against allowing minors into the groups.

 

[RileyG]

I was told not to talk to strangers when I was a child. My parents wanted to know where I was going, who I would be with, and when I would be back; and If I was going to be gone for more than an hour I would have to come home to check in that I was OK. If I was going to a friends house; I would have to call to check in. With the predators on social media, this looks like a good law to me. It requires parental permission. I think that it's a valuable tool to help parents filter who is influencing their children.

I agree 100%. The internet is NOT a safe place, unfortunately.

 

[Yttrium]

Sounds hard to enforce, but I like the idea.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I was told not to talk to strangers when I was a child. My parents wanted to know where I was going, who I would be with, and when I would be back; and If I was going to be gone for more than an hour I would have to come home to check in that I was OK. If I was going to a friends house; I would have to call to check in. With the predators on social media, this looks like a good law to me. It requires parental permission. I think that it's a valuable tool to help parents filter who is influencing their children.

What is Social Media? What about youtubers and fortnight players?

 

[Landon Caeli]

This is a good thing. Kids do not belong on social media platforms. Their minds are still developing. It is the parents job to raise them.

I help to run several military themed groups on social media. We already have a prohibition against allowing minors into the groups.

Of course some platforms are adult oriented. I wonder if a law like this would restrict kids under 16 from viewing youtube.

 

[Landon Caeli]

It requires parental permission. I think that it's a valuable tool to help parents filter who is influencing their children.

"Prime Minister Anthony Albanese also confirmed on Thursday that the proposed legislation would not include grandfathering arrangements — meaning young people already on social media would not be exempt — nor would it allow for exemptions due to parental consent"

...IOW, it seems like parental permission is not a part of it. It's exclusively the government deciding.

 

[HARK!]

What is Social Media? What about youtubers and fortnight players?

I don't know about fornight players but Youtube already has age restrictions on certain content. Compare G, PG, R ratings.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I'm curious what the punishment for the parents will be, with the passing of such laws.

 

[jacks]

I don't see how this law could possibly be enforced. (Though I'm not a techy.) Making laws that are unenforceable, I think undermines respect for the law in general.

 

[Landon Caeli]

I don't see how this law could possibly be enforced. (Though I'm not a techy.) Making laws that are unenforceable, I think undermines respect for the law in general.

Personally, if this law were attempted in the United States, I would be against it because I want sole control of my children's lifestyle.

 

[HARK!]

I'm curious what the punishment for the parents will be, with the passing of such laws.

Parents should be able to raise their children as they see fit, unless they are egregiously harming their children.

If a parent wants to watch a PG rated movie with his child, and use that movie to teach his child his perspective; we don't need the government to step in.

 

[jacks]

Personally, if this law were attempted in the United States, I would be against it because I want sole control of my children's lifestyle.

I also wonder if the damage of social media is greater than other sites. For example, many porn sites merely ask "Are you over 18?" You simply check "yes" and you're in.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Of course some platforms are adult oriented. I wonder if a law like this would restrict kids under 16 from viewing youtube.

Social media is usually reserved to being descriptive of platforms like X and Facebook, Truth Social etc.

YouTube is likely not considered social media as it's more music and news, some movies.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Personally, if this law were attempted in the United States, I would be against it because I want sole control of my children's lifestyle.

I think maybe having a rating of MA-17 on social media sites and then letting parents make the decision is good.

The rating tells parents that this isn't necessarily good for your childs health - but leaves the childs exposure to the parent.

I wouldn't go so far as make it illegal, just because that is a bridge too far and steps onto parental authority.

 

[HARK!]

I don't see how this law could possibly be enforced. (Though I'm not a techy.) Making laws that are unenforceable, I think undermines respect for the law in general.

It could be enforced by requiring ID; but I'm opposed to that. Some of our greatest minds have written under pen names; and I have freedom of speech in my country. I don't have to show my ID to voice my opinions on the streets.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm curious what the punishment for the parents will be, with the passing of such laws.

From here: What we know so far about how the government's social media ban for under-16s will work

'Under the proposed changes, it will be the responsibility of social media companies to take reasonable steps to block people under 16. Parents and children who break the rules won't be punished, on the other hand.'

 

[Bradskii]

I think maybe having a rating of MA-17 on social media sites and then letting parents make the decision is good.

I think that's an excellent solution.

I wouldn't go so far as make it illegal, just because that is a bridge too far and steps onto parental authority.

I agree.

 

[zippy2006]

Good law.

Personally, if this law were attempted in the United States, I would be against it because I want sole control of my children's lifestyle.

You don't have it. Your kids can't do things that are illegal for minors, even if you say they can. Now it is illegal for kids to be on social media in Australia.