The age ban is a poorly thought out policy by a tech illiterate bunch of fossils that does nothing but erode everyones privacy. Which is why there are also attempts being made to use phones to authenticate users so they can be more thoroughly tracked wherever they go as the secure chips cannot be modified. It is also why privacy operating systems like linux and graphene OS are being targeted by google and co because they remove the ability for google to have super user status on your phone and thus not be able to be shut off when you don’t want it running. GrapheneOS allows you to control what access google has to your phone and they don’t likey.
@busted_Anoose @Gorgritch_umie_killa I’m curious what you think about anonage.io as a way to combat the tracking… Those fossils can’t beat zero knowledge hand shakes 🤣
i recently came across Google’s ‘family-link’ and iphone’s ‘Screen time’. seems this would be more effective? these aim to lock your child’s phone so that they cant install any new app without permission. feature also include only allowing the web-browsers on your child’s phone (and phone-wide, i believe) to access websites that you approve of (using a ‘white-listing’ process).
References: -https://www.bitdefender.com/en-gb/blog/hotforsecurity/family-link-bypass-android-2025 -https://www.techlockdown.com/articles/how-to-put-parental-controls-on-iphone
It’s truly worth it to protect young minds from the Internet these days, it’s full of crazy (bad) things :-(.
I don’t like phones for kids but travelling with my tween I wanted the security of her having one if we got seperated. First thing I did was lock down her apps and contacts. I am really pissed off that Albo, Wells and co took away her parent montored and curated Youtube account. Google is partly to blame by insisting on shit like shorts and algorithmic targeting which put them in the same category as other predatory services. But the govt chose the wrong approach because they listened to the wrong people and in the end I think they cared more about age verification than kid’s health.
Imagine being us, running a Lemmy instance. The government has directed us to take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16’s on the site (aussie.zone qualifies as social media according to the law).
They tell us we have to take steps to stop kids getting around the blocks. But provide zero guidance on how we are supposed to do that. You can write these words, but that does not make them reality. The truth of the matter is that no matter how many steps (reasonable or not) you take to try and prevent kids from getting on your site, the fact is you won’t succeed with an automated/technology-based system.
They may as well tell us that only people with beards are allowed on the site. Or people who weigh under 100kg. Or any other useless metric that a simple video filter can beat.
Nath, It might be worthwhile doing a post for the Life Support community (cross-posted to the Australia community) on these issues with your and others’ advice on steps parents can take to navigate the challenges. There’s quite a lot of experience and references here that could be shared more broadly.
the other issue (with Albo’s path) is that the under16s are smart enough to get around the age-verifications anyway… like this one: https://cybersecuritynews.com/fake-moustache-bypasses-age-verification-system/.
yes, you’re spot on
A bigger impact found by the research was that parents are now increasingly in the dark about their teens’ social media use, with those who were unaware their teens had used social media going from 23 per cent to 33 per cent.
If I remember correctly I had soft reservations about the effectiveness of this ban, I definitely felt a better path was a better social media… like the fediverse… where ‘healthy by design’ isn’t something that must be begged and pleaded for, but could just be built and delivered for families. But I also don’t remember considering a ‘black market’ of sorts forming from a ban, but it makes sense.
One particularly prescient submission warned that age restriction efforts on platforms were already ineffective in practice and that bans by themselves would not teach young people to use the internet more safely.
That was a submission from the eSafety Commissioner, the regulator who’s now been tasked with enforcing this law.
This is a case where use should be taught, not bans enforced. It’s like driving. In the world young people are joining they’re going to need to function in society with these tools and forums. Better teach them good and effective use.
education doesnt make for a good surveillance tool
Surely there’s only so many skid-marked undies my ASIO assigned officers can deal with before the traumatic stress forces early retirement. So I suppose educating them to be my surveillance officers is one way around that little wrinkle!
I’m doing my part to educate the nation! WHAT ABOUT YOU!!!
Edit: please read satirically.
