The Australian government is considering allowing users to opt in or opt out of social media algorithms, and is looking at a recent UK ban on depictions of strangulation and suffocation in pornography.
The social services minister, Tanya Plibersek, said social media was “playing a huge role” in the increase in sexual violence among teenagers and choking, and confirmed the options were being considered as the government develops its second action plan to end family and domestic violence against women and children.
It follows the death of a 16-year-old girl in Sydney after a suspected sexual strangulation act. Guardian Australia reported on Thursday that a source informed about the case said the teenager was believed to have become unconscious as a result of asphyxiation during sexual intercourse, often referred to as “choking”. No arrests have been made…
Labor will also soon begin consultation on a digital duty of care bill that will put the onus on tech companies, including AI companies, to make online spaces safer for all users.
Plibersek said the digital duty of care legislation, as well as a second round of privacy reforms, could also help tackle camera-equipped smartglasses, which she said she had serious concerns about.



I generally agree with you on principle. But I’ll play devil’s advocate here:
CSAM is prohibited because those consuming CSAM create a demand for those producing it, who in turn abuse children to produce it, thereby creating victims. People add all kinds of moral reasons on top of that to justify interfering with what people get off on, as always. But ultimately, the reason why CSAM is banned is to protect children.
Similarly, I can conceive that strangulation porn is something children want to try, and the ban aims at protecting them from themselves.
Teenagers exploring sexual practices and choking themselves is nothing new: a number of them die every year of asphyxiation, and it’s something schools and parents have been fighting for as long as I can remember - and I’m not a young man anymore. This strangulation porn ban thing is something that can conceivably be a response to that phenomenon as well.
However, I will say this: if that’s indeed what that is, it’ll probably cause a chilling effect on free speech more than it’ll help children, as usual.
How about mandatory disclaimer then: this is not real, not normal, don’t do this, for entertainment only
You think horny teenagers are going to pause to read a legal disclaimer?