There’d have to be a way of checking people’s identity, and thus their age, whenever they create an account, and it would have to be legally mandated for any online sites where people can post user-generated content. Of course, this would eliminate online anonymity, so as long as we see ourselves as less oppressive than Communist China, there would have to be mitigations to say that we’re not really eliminating online anonymity. Perhaps some sort of third-party age verification agent, which would check identity and just let the sites know if a user is verified to be over the age threshold. This would have to be strictly regulated to ensure data doesn’t leak.
Of course, given that this is Australia, the police would have access to the mapping of people’s identities to online accounts, though under strict safeguards to ensure that this access is only used in the direst emergencies. Of course, this being ‘straya, the safeguards would be like a locked gate on a path with only a KEEP OFF THE GRASS sign preventing the cops from walking around it. Within 18 months, a cop will have used this to put the frighteners on his ex-wife’s new man or something similar. Within 3 years, all pretence will have been abandoned and everyone from the ATO to local councils will have access to the real-world IDs of people’s online accounts.
Within 18 months, a cop will have used this to put the frighteners on his ex-wife’s new man or something similar. Within 3 years, all pretence will have been abandoned and everyone from the ATO to local councils will have access to the real-world IDs of people’s online accounts.
This is like word-for-word how every single digital police tool has gone so far in this country.
Before a thing comes in there’s a huge uproar about the damages it could cause, it comes in causes damages, public goes ‘oh well’ and we keep the thing.
At no point do we ever look back and say 'Hmm no let’s undo that thing we only implemented a few months ago, it’s clearly harmful to the public. We’re in a losing war, where soon even worse will be normalised.
There’d have to be a way of checking people’s identity, and thus their age, whenever they create an account, and it would have to be legally mandated for any online sites where people can post user-generated content.
Older siblings, friends, and organized students would just create multiple accounts and hand them over to younger kids. Also, a lot of adults would just create accounts for their kids.
It would be a keep off the grass sign no matter who implements it.
You forgot the part where the digital mapping data is hacked and goes up for sale on the darkweb.
Stupid duplicate posts
Today’s justification for digital identity and state tracking of your browser history: “Think of the children!”.
It’s a legitimate societal issue. The mental health and social damage it’s doing to children should not be an accepted as a social media functionality. I don’t know what the answer is, but surely there is a way to achieve both privacy for adult users and age identification for children.
They seem like fully conflicting ideals. Sometimes technology is not the answer. Sometimes non technical controls are.
Besides, by the time the control for instagram is in, nobody will be using it under 30. My partner just told me “instagram really is our parents platform” while showing my mum’s friend started following her. My mum and her friend are both 70.
Applying it further gives all kinds of bad vibes where platforms need to check your ID like a Brisbane night club, except these aren’t Australian businesses. Tiktok forced to comply, if they did, validating that you’re 18 via a digital license that the governnent authenticates Tiktok requested your details and now knows you went via link ‘clickforabortioncontrol.track.tiktok.com’ since they’ll need to reply back to that url ‘yeah they are 14+ bro’ before you get in.
What a distopia.
BTW I’ve got a link for you for how ID got complicated that I configure: https://stack-auth.com/blog/oauth-from-first-principles this explains how to securely without leaking or impersonation, authenticate a user from a central federated identity management (like an online ID would need).
There are smart people, sure. But I’ll tell you it won’t be the first try, or the second that’s correct.
Security is so complex that the smartest people often fail. Odds are stacked, privacy needs security. Failure in security results in privacy being lost.
Anyway I’m in agreement that it’s a horrible world out there with real harm. But mandating less privacy is unlikely to result in a better place, in fact it’s almost guaranteed to be worse and create more harm.
Besides, by the time the control for instagram is in, nobody will be using it under 30.
Right, but the point isn’t just to establish a ban for Instagram. The establishment of laws such as these creates a basis on which further policy can be enacted in the future. It’s sort of like the eSafety Commissioner ordering Twitter to take down content worldwide - a big reason it did that was to test its own powers in a court of law. If a ban is successfully implemented on Instagram/Meta and survives any legal challenges, then it sets a legal precedent upon which further legislation can be enacted against whatever the next big social media platform is.
People only focus on the tech solution of this. We don’t make ciggys or booze impossible for kids to injest.
Socialy its not responsible to let your kids drink or smoke. Even behind ose doors.
I think a large part of the tech change is society itself. It needs to become taboo to let kids use the devices and services. Along with understanding the risks (addiction to tech, isolation, depression, being influenced etc). Funily enough the risks aren’t only for children it’s for all of us.
We don’t make ciggys or booze impossible for kids to injest.
?
There are laws against both.
Yes. And SA is proposing a law against kids using online services.
Yet the conversion is about how the tech companies will handle it. Not about what society in general will do.
Yes. And SA is proposing a law against kids using online services.
Yet the conversion is about how the tech companies will handle it.
It’s the same thing. Social media companies are selling a product to these children which they pay for with their data and attention, just as other companies sell liquor or tobacco to customers for a direct monetary fee. In all of these examples, the government places the onus on the company to not sell the product to a minor (or someone under a certain age).
Do you think there would have been societal shifts on the sale of tobacco and alcohol without government regulation? A government cannot successfully effect widespread societal change on an issue without first clearly identifying that there is a problem through the introduction of new laws.
Great in theory all it will take in practice is handing over government id to any social media site. We are willingly dancing down an authoritarian path and nobody seems to give a shit.
it won’t.
Tech companies will lose 98% of their profits. Who do they think most tiktok and youtube audience are? do they think 40 yr olds work two shifts then go watch mr breast and listen to ishowspeed screaming exactly like their 9 yr old kid?
Probably a lot like the $80m porn filter that was cracked by a 13 year old within 20 minutes of being released - poorly.
Should be under 40
How would it work?
It wouldn’t.
