this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2025
237 points (99.6% liked)

World News

51187 readers
2599 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Australia has enacted a world-first ban on social media for users aged under 16, causing millions of children and teenagers to lose access to their accounts.

Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Kick, Twitch and TikTok are expected to have taken steps from Wednesday to remove accounts held by users under 16 years of age in Australia, and prevent those teens from registering new accounts.

Platforms that do not comply risk fines of up to $49.5m.

There have been some teething problems with the ban’s implementation. Guardian Australia has received several reports of those under 16 passing the facial age assurance tests, but the government has flagged it is not expecting the ban will be perfect from day one.

All listed platforms apart from X had confirmed by Tuesday they would comply with the ban. The eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, said it had recently had a conversation with X about how it would comply, but the company had not communicated its policy to users.

Bluesky, an X alternative, announced on Tuesday it would also ban under-16s, despite eSafety assessing the platform as “low risk” due to its small user base of 50,000 in Australia.

Parents of children affected by the ban shared a spectrum of views on the policy. One parent told the Guardian their 15-year-old daughter was “very distressed” because “all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat”. Since she had been identified as under 16, they feared “her friends will keep using Snapchat to talk and organise social events and she will be left out”.

Others said the ban “can’t come quickly enough”. One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media and the ban “provides us with a support framework to keep her off these platforms”.

“The fact that teenagers occasionally find a way to have a drink doesn’t diminish the value of having a clear, ­national standard.”

Polling has consistently shown that two-thirds of voters support raising the minimum age for social media to 16. The opposition, including leader Sussan Ley, have recently voiced alarm about the ban, despite waving the legislation through parliament and the former Liberal leader Peter Dutton championing it.

The ban has garnered worldwide attention, with several nations indicating they will adopt a ban of their own, including Malaysia, Denmark and Norway. The European Union passed a resolution to adopt similar restrictions, while a spokesperson for the British government told Reuters it was “closely monitoring Australia’s approach to age restrictions”.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 77 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (9 children)

Some good silver linings here, but what everyone needs to remember here is that nobody would be supporting this at all if facebook wasn’t intentionally predatory and bad for (all) people’s brains.

If regulators in Australia had a spine they would call for an end to those practices, and now that’s infinitely harder to do

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 15 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Some good silver linings here

Where?

The kids will move to less monitored platforms and even on things like YouTube, parental controls are now gone.

You need to have an account for parental controls to be applied to, kids aren't allowed an account, vis-a-vis, no more parental controls or monitoring for problem content.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] porcoesphino@mander.xyz 11 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (4 children)

I think that's easier said than done. There are a lot of negatives associated with social media and some are easier to put restrictions on (say violent content) but I don't think we really have a good grasp of all the ways use is associated with depression for example. And wouldn't some of this still fall back to age restricted areas, kind of like with movies?

But yeah, it would be nice to see more push back on the tech companies instead of the consumers

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 7 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

Its a very simple fix with a few law changes.

  1. The act of promoting or curating user submitted data makes the company strictly liable for any damages done by the content.

  2. The deliberate spreading of harmful false information makes the hosting company liable for damages.

This would bankrupt Facebook, Twitter, etc within 6 months.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 38 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

Honestly it feels like you should regulate how Facebook can interact with children instead of the children's access to it

[–] Jajcus@sh.itjust.works 13 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

That is why I think FB and others might been quietly lobbying for this solution. This way they can stll be predatory, as long as the kids pretend to be adult. Or just abuse adult users. The alternative, of not being evil, is not compatible with their business model. But it is the business model that should be banned, not socializing online by teenagers.

That was my first reaction after processing the news--lets hold them accountable for hate, exploitation, etc.

If they can't play nice they don't get to do business at all.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Ziggurat@jlai.lu 36 points 12 hours ago (4 children)

Looks like a great news. Moreover, kids may learn how old school Internet works rather than being stuck in an algorithm bubble

[–] rozodru@pie.andmc.ca 20 points 11 hours ago

they start making php forums and using IRC, hey i'm all for that.

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

Typing games about to be fire again

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] CaptainPedantic@lemmy.world 36 points 12 hours ago (5 children)

One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media

Have you tried parenting her?

[–] tdawg@lemmy.world 11 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Meh. It's societal level issue. It should be handled at the societal level

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 4 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Parents who were can't anymore, since there are no longer any parental controls.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] davad@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

True, but there's also a little more nuance.

For a social media ban to be effective without ostracizing individuals, it has to include the entire friend group.

As an analogy, if the kid's friends all text each other, but your kid doesn't have a phone, they miss out socially. They miss out on organized and impromptu hangouts. And they miss out on inside jokes that develop in the group chat. Over time they feel like more and more of an outsider even if the ready of the group actively tries to include them.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Michal@programming.dev 17 points 6 hours ago (4 children)

The ban also affects everyone who isn't willing to undergo the age check.

Kids will find a way around is. They'll move to fediverse, and the cooler kids will still hang around the mainstream platforms thanks to their older friend, sibling or cool uncle.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] theneverfox@pawb.social 17 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

This is going to be a shit show.

I'm not opposed to the idea that kids shouldn't have access to social media, but they obviously do. Their social lives are online, and their insecure little brains are going to scream that they've been kicked out of the tribe when you cut the link

The ban won't work, but will also cause a lot of damage

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] chunes@lemmy.world 16 points 5 hours ago

Props to Australia for creating a generation of kids with above average tech skills.

[–] lunelovegood@ttrpg.network 14 points 9 hours ago (5 children)

One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media

Literally the fault of the parent.

[–] yes_this_time@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

There is precedence though. We age gate: nicotine, alcohol, gambling etc..

we shouldnt expect parents to be monitoring children 24/7. actually, as children get older they should be given freedoms, parents have the right to expect our society has some guardrails.

[–] UnpledgedCatnapTipper@piefed.blahaj.zone 10 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

The guardrails already exist. Put parental controls on your kid's devices. Done, solved. Block social media sites, monitor what they're doing online. Don't go making it mandatory for everyone to give social media companies more information than they already have.

A better comparison would be "let's put a government mandated ID scanner on everyone's liquor cabinet so that their kids can't access it! Oh you don't have kids? Too bad, still need that ID scanner!"

Maybe the focus should be on a free (government funded, ideally FOSS) parental controls software suite that makes blocking social media on all major platforms (iOS, Android, Windows, Mac, and Linux) simple and easy. Promote it to parents, and get them to parent, instead of deanonymizing the internet for everyone.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] EvilBit@lemmy.world 12 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Curious to see what it’s like in 40 years when the world is ruled by Australians.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 6 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Snakes will be reintroduced to Ireland.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 5 points 7 hours ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Dalraz@lemmy.ca 11 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

What could possibly go wrong, is the phrase that comes to mind.

[–] PriorityMotif@lemmy.world 8 points 9 hours ago

Kids will become tech savvy again.

[–] Walk_blesseD@piefed.blahaj.zone 11 points 8 hours ago (11 children)

Fuck this Helen Lovejoy-arse shithole country. I wonder how many abused youth, marginalised teens and kids who made the mistake of being born to parents living in remote areas just lost access to their support networks. I wonder how many people are gonna have their identities stolen because of data breaches containing either documents or biometrics necessary to enforce this.
And for what? So boomer politicians and their constituents aren't challenged by their well-informed children about the genocides they're facilitating at home and abroad? So the pigs in this police state have an even easier time surveiling citizens with all the identifying info websites are gathering??

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip 9 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

OMG! This is an outrage! What will the shareholders do!!!! Make less money?! Never!!

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 10 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

Where are children supposed to meet and socialize? We already took away all their in-person spaces.

[–] ameancow@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

We already took away all their in-person spaces.

Arcades and malls have been dead for a long time. Capitalism took them away.

Everyone is missing incentive to go outside and hang out with real people, but that's only because we have an alternative that fills you up and requires less effort. Our "socializing" is junk food, it only harms you.

Maybe more young people will start doing what kids have been doing since the dawn of time, and making their own communities and their own places to hang out and play and do active things together, face-to-face.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 8 points 5 hours ago (3 children)

Most malls ban unaccompanied minors. And most places where kids used to hang out similarly discourage their presence. The death of third places is a well-documented phenomenon, one that goes back decades before anyone dreamed of social media. And while kids have been forming their own communities since the dawn of time, kids haven't been raised in suburban hellscapes since the dawn of time. If you can't drive. If there's no way to your neighorhood except a giant highway that's impossible to bike on, how in the hell are kids supposed to meet up with each other in person? Digital technologies are really the only way kids have to socialize nowadays. We've taken everything else from them.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] redwattlebird@lemmings.world 8 points 6 hours ago

I wonder if Roblox squeezed through the cracks.

[–] palordrolap@fedia.io 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Who's next to be blocked?

I mean, now that the infrastructure and policies are in place, it's only a matter of time.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 6 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

So Australia is using facial scanning to verify age, allowing everyone else to remain anonymous? That's how it should be done.

Here in Florida MAGA HQ, I'm hearing calls to verify the identity of EVERYONE on the Internet, because that's the ONLY way they can keep the kids off. I even heard one MAGA state legislator say that it's no difference then carding people for buying alcohol. That's how we keep booze out of the hands of kids, so it will work to keep the Internet out of their hands, too.

They want to kill Internet anonymity, just as a report comes out that the DoJ wants to pay bounties to people who report "anti-Trump behavior."

This will go to the Supreme Court before we're finished.

[–] 0x0@infosec.pub 7 points 2 hours ago (4 children)

This comment reads like you believe only people under age 16 will be required to verify and anyone above won't.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago (8 children)

I was watching a piece on this the other day on PBS and they had some sound bites from youths they interviewed. It really hit me just how much dumber kids get as I get older. They aren't actually dumber, but my understanding about how ignorant they are just keeps getting clearer. I remember think similarly in my youth, so it's not unique to this generation, so no shade, but kids are dumb.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] cv_octavio@piefed.ca 5 points 1 hour ago

I mean, I am 100% pro-freedom of access and speech and all, but tbf anything that super murders social media is a net positive to the world at this point, until it's less harmful and addictive.

[–] Siegfried@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

I just expect that they dont end up making social media super cool

[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago (6 children)

On one hand I do think social media has ruined society, and kids should definately not be on it till their brain has matured a bit, on the other hand I worry how corrupt officials could use this in their favor

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›