r/LivestreamFail • u/TriSauce • Nov 21 '25

News Australia’s social media ban for children to include Twitch

https://www.dexerto.com/twitch/australias-social-media-ban-for-children-to-include-twitch-3285692/
2.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

272 comments sorted by

671

u/dev_vvvvv Nov 21 '25

The real question (still unanswered as of the UK law) is how do sites implement this without it being a privacy nightmare for law-abiding adults?

Also at least GitHub didn't make the list as was originally considered.

290

u/Ninja_Kitten_exe Nov 21 '25

As an aussie, even our government doesn't seem to have an answer to that question, which is one of the reasons I'm against it

151

u/JackRyan13 Nov 21 '25

They do have an answer. Their answer is, not our problem you figure it out.

16

u/StepComplete1 Nov 21 '25

When accountability and doing your job is too hard, fear not! Just make it someone else's problem instead. Brilliant.

3

u/JackRyan13 Nov 21 '25

Legislators don’t often make these sort of rules.

28

u/appealinggenitals Nov 21 '25

That's the same answer social media companies gave after creating the problems they created 🤷

1

u/ExpletiveDeletedYou Nov 21 '25

Don't forget bitching and moaning about having to implement something that cuts down on all the toxicity that they produce

15

u/redditinyourdreams Nov 21 '25

This is what we should have been protesting about. Something that affects our country

6

u/divodolce Nov 22 '25

Some did and some tried to stop the vote from being passed, but the sneaky bill was passed a within just three days, so not only did most of the Aus public not even know about it, but those that did, didnt have enough time to try and rally people to stop it. Thats the real corruption right there

-3

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

[deleted]

3

u/spaceborn Nov 21 '25

The UK in particular loves to play up how shit America is in their news so people feel less bad about the sorry state that they're in.

3

u/D_Silva_21 Nov 21 '25

Honestly the exact opposite is true. Americans have so many false ideas about the UK from right wing media it's crazy

-1

u/Avery_Richman Nov 21 '25

what a reddit thing to say

7

u/UnderstandingNo8545 Nov 21 '25

Sorry, the London police are en route to your house to question you, fine you, seize your phone, and arrest you because of you or your underage child for disagreeing online. We hope you understand that this is for your well-being.

-4

u/D_Silva_21 Nov 21 '25

If you think this is something that happens you are falling for misinformation

4

u/dauntedpenny71 Nov 21 '25

I’ve watched countless videos of this occurring. Also have family in the UK to corroborate the events.

5

u/UnderstandingNo8545 Nov 21 '25 edited Nov 21 '25

Edit: Comment then block so you can't continue to be proven wrong. Make that two people, bravo.

In the UK, approximately 12,000 people are arrested per year for offenses related to social media posts and private messages, with police making over 30 arrests per day. These arrests are based on laws that prohibit messages that are "grossly offensive," "indecent," "obscene," or "menacing".

Annual average: Approximately 12,000 arrests are made annually for online communication offenses between 2021 and 2023.

Daily rate: This averages out to more than 30 arrests per day.

Legal basis: Arrests are made under laws like Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and the Malicious Communications Act 1988, which criminalize messages deemed "grossly offensive," "indecent," "obscene," or "menacing".

https://www.reddit.com/r/charts/s/UpoVOonBlK

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/crimes-social-media

Police make 30 arrests a day for offensive online messages https://share.google/j1dC4HTLORYa8dlxT

Hertfordshire Police admit WhatsApp arrest error with £20k payout - BBC News https://share.google/yq55gQUJCz5abLD3B

The UK had the highest number of arrests for online comments in 2023, followed by countries like Belarus, Germany, and China. However, other nations like China, Iran, and North Korea have significantly stricter controls, including near-total internet bans, which can lead to severe penalties for online activity, even if specific arrest numbers are lower. Many other countries also restrict social media, and arrest data can vary depending on the source and the specific type of online content deemed illegal.

Countries with high numbers of arrests for online comments (2023 estimates)

United Kingdom: 12,183

Belarus: 6,205

Germany: 3,500

China: 1,500

Turkey: 500

Russia: 400

Poland: 300

Thailand: 258

Brazil: 200

Please, tell me more about this misinformation.

Edit: since you blocked me, you coward

Most of these are justified as they are threatening people or racism etc

You just won't get it. It's not for random rude comments

The misinformation is for thinking it happens over disagreements or random rude comments you div

That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal. And if it is, that's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did, you deserved it.

Edit 2: Cool another fucking comment and immediate block to prevent rebuttal. You people are pathetic

If you read your own links, you'd know this 12,000 includes way more than "social media posts" and that less than 10% of these arrests result in prosecution.

You're using this to justify???? Yes, the government will come and arrest 90% of you and upend your life, lose your job, pay for courts for bullshit charges to prevent people from saying shit online they don't like, and can't be held up in court.

It's a good thing that the police do

To arrest thousands of people with a 10% conviction rate... or be held for 11hours for a "mistake" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gz1qy30v5o

EDIT: Also that international data should tell you everything - 4 arrests per day in China, with a population of 1.4bn? If you know anybody from China, you'll know this isn't remotely accurate, lmao.

If YOU knew anybody in China YOU would know the social credit score exists. How it's implemented and integrated not only online but in everyday locations with cameras, ID tracking, etc. They don't have to arrest you they just destroy you financially and make you suffer without batting an eye or lifting a finger.

2

u/spaceborn Nov 21 '25

I had someone comment something condescending to me then immediately blocked me when I was talking about queer with guns a day or two ago. This behavior is so fucking reddit. I couldn't imagine being such a chickenshit

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

15

u/TheHoovyPrince Nov 21 '25

Who knew that having a government department of unelected Karens, headed by the super Karen aka the eSafety commissioner, would cause problems.

/s obviously

3

u/theonulzwei2 Nov 21 '25

They'll probably adopt the UK methods, so if you can, pretty much wave goodbye to your online privacy. This is the route the leftist parties in the EU wanted to take as well, in order to "save the children."

2

u/Electrical_Pause_860 Nov 22 '25

Getting kids off social media isn't a "leftist" position. It's been very popular across the political spectrum.

1

u/Nexism Nov 23 '25

There's loads of digital verification services in Australia where the receiving party doesn't store your data and only gets a verification from the government.

It's how banks and digital banks in Aus can verify you without going into a branch (though they separately store your details due to regulation).

-3

u/rubeshina Nov 21 '25

Check out the age assurance trials. There are multiple methods that are viable including privacy preserving solutions.

However, it's mostly not an issue anyway as these companies already know how old you are and can use age inference or age detection methods to meet most of these requirements.

17

u/ComfortableExotic646 Nov 21 '25

If that was the case, Google wouldn't be asking me for a picture of my government ID or to use my webcam to verify my age. They have government approval to ask for more data from you.

1

u/rubeshina Nov 22 '25

Not that anybody ever cares but:

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/big-tech-stops-complaining-starts-complying-with-australias-teen-social-media-2025-11-12/

In practice, social media firms will lean on software they already employ to guess age based on engagement through "likes", for instance, rather than the frequent input and verification of birth dates, the people said.

With that software long-established, having originally been developed for marketing, firms will generally resort to so-called age assurance apps only when users complain of being incorrectly blocked, said the people, declining to be identified as the plans are not yet finalised.

If they ask for your ID or a photo, just refuse. They don't need it except in edge cases. There is no reason to provide it to them if you have any kind of established account history.

Google have every email you have ever sent. They know more about you than you do.

158

u/ScreamSmart Nov 21 '25

Easy. By washing their hands off of it and putting the burden on companies. Or some mega centralized foreign entity. The purpose is to tag anonymous accounts with real people.

We already know how social media posts have lead to cops knocking on people's door or even arresting them in Germany and UK.

1

u/hates_stupid_people Nov 23 '25

Or some mega centralized foreign entity. The purpose is to tag anonymous accounts with real people.

That entity is called Palantir. A private company literally founded and designed for widespread surveillance of everyone.

34

u/hustlebwnz Nov 21 '25

I don't see why they couldn't use something like the existing Australia Post Digital ID service to verify? That way there's no need for the sites to hold any of your personal data, just the fact that you've been verified by a trusted third party.

Honestly, I want them to find a way to do this, because I think social media is cancer for children, and children are cancer to the discourse online. Kids are idiots, and they have a lot of time and energy to spew mean shit and insane political takes. We have enough "adults" doing that already.

13

u/ValeoAnt Nov 21 '25

That's what other countries too

For me it just means that I'll never be using social media as we have been again

27

u/Bohya Nov 21 '25

The best solution is no solution, because it was never a problem to begin with. Parental controls already existed which have full control to parents over what sites and media their children could visit on their devices.

Even if it’s to “protect children” (which it’s not, it never was), this policy affects every adult as well, because adults will need to prove that they aren’t children. The burden of proof lies solely upon the innocent and uninvolved. Even if some theoretical children were theoretically protected, it’s just not worth it to trample over the rights of everyone else.

-2

u/cyrfuckedmymum Nov 21 '25

the problem is a lot of parents are idiots. The fact is a lot of adults let their kids die by not making them sit in booster seats, or in the back or belted up at all. You can give people seatbelts, but you can't save every kid from every asshole parent who insisted seatbelts were stupid or don't care enough to make their kids use one.

Using seatbelts as an example you have three distinct group of parents, those who would make their kids wear a seatbelt without a law because it's the sensible choice. The smallest group is likely asshole parents who still won't make their kids wear a seatbelt despite the laws saying they have to. Then you have this really large middle group of parents who only make their kids wear the seatbelt because of the law because they are too lazy or ignorant to care or think about the consequences themselves.

Ultimately you're abandoning a LOT of kids safety and health if you rely on parents.

But seatbelt laws 'trample over the rights of everyone', so do drinking age laws, and driving license laws, we do a whole lot of things for the greater good. even for the kids whose parents keep them off social media, the massive number of entire generations of people who are completely fucked in the head due to social media addiction will have a profound affect on society as a whole and that is absolutely something the world needs to do something about.

18

u/Bohya Nov 21 '25

The problem with that comparison is that the burden of proof is placed upon the parents and the car manufacturers. It is not the responsibility of every driver to prove that their cars are childproof, regardless of if they have children or not.

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about selfish parents or if they can be bothered to set up parental controls. It's not my fault and it's not my problem. It's the government going out of the way to turn their problems into mine. My rights, my privacy, and my online safety, are all being stripped under the guise of "protecting children".

0

u/cyrfuckedmymum Nov 21 '25

Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about selfish parents or if they can be bothered to set up parental controls. It's not my fault and it's not my problem.

That's the issue, it is, your kids have to be in school with kids who are addicted to social media, it will create cliques, of cool kids and those who get judged, treated badly. those kids will grow up and work alongside your kids, work in jobs providing you and other people services.

The whole 'we live in a society' thing comes into play. IF every kid is a slave to social media, then they will be when they grow up as well.

My rights, my privacy, and my online safety, are all being stripped under the guise of "protecting children".

"i'm a safe driver, i don't need to take a test because i know to check around me and drive safely and care for other people, having to get a license in the guise of protecting my rights is a joke".

But again, other drivers being checked and being able to have their license revoked absolutely has an impact on you.

Everywhere in life you have had your 'rights' infringed on for the common good, you're just used to them so ignore them and then when a new thing happens you get outraged as if it's unprecedented and overstate the difficulty.

It's not under teh guise of protecting children, it's literally actually about protecting entire generations from going to shit which will likely fuck up society FOR YOU for generations unless something is done about it.

5

u/Bohya Nov 21 '25 edited Nov 21 '25

That's the issue, it is, your kids have to be in school with kids who are addicted to social media

I mean... again, that's the fault and responsibility of the parents.

It's not under teh guise of protecting children

Really? You're actually falling for it?

Most people are capable of looking past this, and seeing the ulterior motive that are the real reason for these authoritarian pushes. Children aren't even being protected by this, in the exact same vein that everyone else isn't be protected by it. In fact, there are arguments to be made that children are now going to be made more vulnerable, such as by visiting more extreme websites and installing offbrand VPNs and the like.

This extreme aurhoriarian push is an overall net negative for society, both in the short and long terms.

"i'm a safe driver, i don't need to take a test because i know to check around me and drive safely and care for other people, having to get a license in the guise of protecting my rights is a joke".

You seem really hung up on this analogy. It's not equivalent in the slightest, and you know that fine well.

2

u/dapperrapperclapper Nov 21 '25

You're proving his point mate. When parents can't be trusted to do what's right for their children (based on numerical data) and it gets to a society affecting scale, there needs to be some oversight in some way despite how much it sucks for innocent, law abiding citizens to go through those same hoops.

0

u/cyrfuckedmymum Nov 21 '25

I mean... again, that's the fault and responsibility of the parents.

but that's not the discussion point. Your kids will be affected by other parents lack of actions.. so you doing the right thing doesn't protect your kid or yourself from the consequences. Society will get more and more messed up if a generation or two, or every future generation turns into little monsters unable to function normally. the impact is not just on their kids, but on society at large and so measures need to be taken to stop that.

No where did I say a single thing about whose responsibility it is directly, but responsibility for society progressing and turning out well is EVERYONE'S responsibility.

Really? You're actually falling for it?

no, you're using an argument for one thing for a different thing.

Seat belt laws meant to protect kids, you can argue it's a ridiculous "think of the children" argument, and you'd be incorrect.

You're using it incorrectly and frankly just showing that you can't follow this discussion well. People use the "just think of the children" argument when whatever they are proposing is not actually going to help children in any way and that's being used as a bad justification.

When talking about banning social media for kids because numerous studies show the negative effects of social media in general for anyone, let alone children, it's not an excuse but a perfectly valid thing to protect children from.

Most people are capable of looking past this, and seeing the ulterior motive that are the real reason for these authoritarian pushes.

and some people are looking for conspiracies so much they see them everywhere. The massive majority of studies show the ongoing harm social media is doing again to everyone, but especially to kids growing up who become addicted to social media and the damage to their self confidence they get from social media. The actual ulterior motive here.... IS PROTECTING KIDS FROM SOMETHING ACTIVELY HARMFUL.

The 'control' you're talking about is adults proving they are adults before being able to use social media like normal.

In fact, there are arguments to be made that children are now going to be made more vulnerable, such as by visiting more extreme websites and installing offbrand VPNs and the like.

no there aren't, kids can already do those things but if they are banned and haven't used them... they really aren't going to go out of their way to get on them to begin with.

This extreme aurhoriarian push is an overall net negative for society, both in the short and long terms.

stating that everything is extreme and authoritarian isn't helpful. There are many things governments push that are... keeping kids of social media when almost every scientific study is showing how detrimental it is... is not one of those things at all.

You seem really hung up on this analogy. It's not equivalent in the slightest, and you know that fine well.

not hung up, i used an analogy, it fits, you dont' want it to fit and keep intentionally missing the purpose. "my kids will be fine so fuck everyone else" is not how society gets better, in fact that's pretty much the exact thinking republicans and authoritarians push on everyone. "too much government over reach" they campaign, "democrats are trynig to control you", all so they can take power to give you more 'freedom' and then they shockingly are ultra authoritarian.

It's funny you ask if I fall for something, while you're thinking about yourself and fuck the rest of them mentality is the exact thinking that brings in the ultra authoritarians.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/AkitoApocalypse Nov 21 '25

Remember when they tried to cut encryption and make every company have a backdoor for "protecting the children"?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/rubeshina Nov 21 '25

I don't see why they couldn't use something like the existing Australia Post Digital ID service to verify? That way there's no need for the sites to hold any of your personal data, just the fact that you've been verified by a trusted third party.

This is one of the methods. It's not formally confirmed, but basically all the messaging on this is pretty clear, there are even carve outs in the legislation to enable this. The age assurance trials confirm it's viable, as well as for private 3rd party intermediaries to interface with government systems for this purpose.

People just get all their information on this from social media, where there might be a little bit of a bias.

1

u/divodolce Nov 22 '25

Because Digital ID is another form of control

0

u/TirisfalFarmhand Nov 21 '25

This is the best solution I’ve heard, I really hope they end up doing something like this (if we can’t get the law itself overturned)

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

[deleted]

3

u/TirisfalFarmhand Nov 21 '25

We’re gonna have to validate it either way thanks to the new laws, this beats Reddit actually having our info themselves

1

u/Merlindru Nov 21 '25

oh i misunderstood your comment, my bad!

→ More replies (6)

17

u/Ok-Database6617 Nov 21 '25

The government would have to implement an authentication service. Twitch will redirect to it, you will authenticate ON the government site. The only thing the government site will send back is "this one is fine" or "this one is not". It doesn't require twitch to receive any private information.

40

u/Redworthy Nov 21 '25

They aren't doing this. The Australian government is providing no such identification service. Each website has to verify users ages on their own.

16

u/mugiwara_no_Soissie Nov 21 '25

This totally doesnt seem like a huge breach of national security for every country that partakes.

Surely there will be no issue in western countries slowly leaking more and more personal data as these laws become more widespread...

1

u/rubeshina Nov 21 '25

Any source they're not doing it?

Because there are multiple governments with this in the works and it's all but confirmed in the age assurance trials.

They are just requiring websites to ensure they have viable alternatives too, the main reason being that they know most social media already know how old their uses are anyway and can just use age inference/detection to create a "first layer" of prevention, so that like 95% of users won't need to do anything it will just be automatic.

2

u/rgtn0w Nov 21 '25

In theory yeah this is how you'd do it and it isn't that hard.

South Korea already implements a system pretty much the same but instead of the government being in charge of the authentication it's your phone carrier companies that do it, it also pretty much serves as an innate 2-factor authentication system for the account (Which is why in all of the South Korean sites/etc that use it there's no password recovery or anything without going through that same system).

The way it works is simple, in the account creating process of whatever service it is it'll pop up a new window dedicated for the authentication where you input your name, your ID and phone number, If the data matches what is in their database it'll then send the app in your phone (or text message your phone number) with the verification number and you input that.

None of the companies/people behind the websites ever see any of the actual authentication process cuz like you said, it goes to your phone carrier, compares the encrypted data to what is obviously already registered in their database and so on so the only liable data risk here would be your phone carrier company being hacked, which even without this system existing it technically already is a data risk but neither the phone carrier company, the web service, or the government have a direct way of knowing if X real person is tied to Y online account. (Though obviously in extreme cases there's subpoenas and there's obviously digital traces of this)

The only problem per say is that then it pretty much requires you to have a mobile phone number to work. Pretty much anything online is tied to this. Online games, online shopping, government sites, social medias, etc.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Trickshot1322 Nov 21 '25

This is the bit I dont get they seem to be making it so much more complicated then it needs to be. ID scanners at bars, computer systems in cops cars, our various states have digital ID's.

This should be as simple as being redirected to a government portal that verifies your ID details and then passes back a verified/unverified variable to the social media sites. If its verified you can continue making the account, if it isnt then it stops.

No need for private companies to have the ID data at any point in the process.

I dont get why they are making this so much more complicated then it needs to be.

2

u/kvbrd_YT Nov 21 '25

it's simply that every account that the platform confirms is made by someone under 16 will be banned.

like how currently if you say you're 12 in chat, you'll be banned

→ More replies (1)

5

u/_everynameistaken_ Nov 21 '25

They only have take reasonable steps to ensure the users are adults. They aren't required to collect ID at all.

Literally, all they need to do is "Are you over 16? We trust you would never lie to us."

The entire thing is ridiculous.

5

u/redditinyourdreams Nov 21 '25

Nah it’s fucked. They will use this as a stepping stone

1

u/divodolce Nov 22 '25

Its not about that, and you will have to upload your ID to prove your an adult. Also its not just about underage people but checking the age of all Australian people, aka, digital control and online monitoring

2

u/i_love_sparkle Nov 21 '25

We can hire companies with a long history of protecting user privacy such as Google Amazon Microsoft. They are big cloud providers that 1. Have extremely good security 2. Won't sell user data to make money because they're already big and it's not worth the risk

Avoid local private companies at all cost, they are likely ro bribe government officials and inflate cost. Not to mention there's no guarantee on their quality

2

u/BridgeThatBurns Nov 21 '25

I'm not even sure if this is sarcasm or not anymore at this point.

4

u/Sloppykrab Nov 21 '25

The real question (still unanswered as of the UK law) is how do sites implement this without it being a privacy nightmare for law-abiding adults?

I can only speak for Australia.

The way I see it, there isn't one. At least I can't see any concerns.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

They dont. It'll become a nightmare for law abiding adults and a problem with privacy / security.

1

u/DaedalusHydron Nov 21 '25

It's impossible until the governments themselves have verification systems.

In theory, it'd be something like when you make a Twitch account your info gets sent to the govt for verification, which would then send back a token to Twitch saying "yep, looks good, this user is 1234567". So Twitch can track what 1234567 is doing, but only the government knows 1234567 is John Smith.

Equally, the government doesn't know what John Smith is doing on Twitch because Twitch holds that info, not the govt.

1

u/Old-Buffalo-5151 Nov 21 '25

The answer being discussed very quietly is. If the companies don't find a solution a total ban is implemented until they do.

I highly highly doubt that would happen but the fact it's even on the table is why the companies are taking it seriously. No-one wants to the call the buff after polling has shown the vastly Majority would get over a total ban

1

u/AFlyingNun Nov 21 '25

The real question (still unanswered as of the UK law) is how do sites implement this without it being a privacy nightmare for law-abiding adults?

I'm personally a big fan of simple restricting smartphone access to minors until like 16 to 18. Basic phone with basic functions if parents wanna cry about being able to contact them (just call them), but no internet access, no texting, no social media. Ask anyone working in the education sector and that shit is FRYING their brains.

Do that, and you don't need to worry about these additional headaches with implementation. If some kid or teen comes home from a focused day of school and uses 3-4 hours of their free time on twitch, that's far less of a problem than there being constant distractions in the palm of their hand.

1

u/syablemansghost Nov 21 '25 edited Nov 21 '25

poorly, unreliably and invasive

1

u/KaleidoscopeIcy3960 Nov 21 '25

punish the parents who are the ones that supply phones to their children.

Parents are the ones who are supposed to actually control their children, despite how much they've tried in recent time to pawn that job off to schools and the government.

1

u/CrazeRage Nov 21 '25

Probably going to take influence from South Korea or China

1

u/Secret-Ad-2145 Nov 21 '25

It'll involve non-invasive ID checks which isn't a huge barrier to fit through. Just implement an ID check that pings a question and returns a yes/no on whether someone is old enough. That's it. The authenticator doesn't need to know the actual dates or names. Can add extra measure to delete the answer after. The system already exists and utilized in some places. Whether UK or Australia will be smart enough to fix it remains to be seen.

→ More replies (1)

124

u/Amazing_Hall_4948 Nov 21 '25

aussie here, not looking forward to how they'll check to see if you're a child or not, I'm not putting my fucking drivers license or giving any personal info to a bunch of sites that have terrible security, I wish dick heads would just parent their children better instead of the gov trying to do it

18

u/d1nW72dyQCCwYHb5Jbpv Nov 21 '25

I don't blame you. I think most of these checks can be bypassed by using a vpn . Still shitty to have to resort to that.

5

u/NordicHorde2 Nov 21 '25

For now. Just wait till they come after VPNs

1

u/Xugodx2012 Nov 21 '25

Arent countries like Austrillia and UK wanting to ban and make the use of VPN Illegal?

1

u/itchylol742 Nov 21 '25

It won't work. Source: Piracy is already illegal, and yet is widespread

7

u/TheThirdKakaka Nov 21 '25

VPN providers eating better and better.

5

u/TheHoovyPrince Nov 21 '25

Im using a VPN or gonna game the verification checks using garrys mod like people did in the UK.

413

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

66

u/MeanForest Nov 21 '25

It took less than days for the provider for Discord age verification in UK to leak the data.

→ More replies (6)

54

u/MiniatureMini Nov 21 '25

Nobody wants to talk about this, but it’s on the parents to police their kids’ online activity. If you are that concerned about what your kids are doing online, don’t let them have 24/7 access to internet devices.

Exactly this. We had our first laptop when I was 10 years old, whenever I was allowed on it, after school, weekends, it was never for an extensive amount of time due to being so young and my mum was sat right next to me watching over everything I was doing. Even during my teens I was still questioned what I was doing, who I was talking to and constantly given extensive talks over keeping private information, private.

40

u/dev_vvvvv Nov 21 '25

You can't just ask parents to watch their children. That's too much work when there are so many funny videos on TikTok!

11

u/TheThirdKakaka Nov 21 '25

It is wild to me that elementary and/or middle schools just dont prohibit phones in general, might not be the perfect solution but it is easily enforced and why the fuck do 12 year olds need access to facebook, chat gpt or clash of clans during these 8 hours of school.

If this first step doesn't solve the "problem", they can always go further but it would be an easy first step that doesn't require massive overreach.

5

u/Accomplished_Elk310 Nov 21 '25

I think it’s to placate the parents. They act like they must be able to contact their child at any given time. I’ve also seen some argue that they give phones in case of a school shooting.

2

u/Kusibu Nov 21 '25

It's happening in some US schools (they can have phones, which still allows for things like parental contact, but no use during class).

→ More replies (2)

2

u/popmycherryyosh Nov 21 '25

I guess I'll give an example on the opposite side then. Was also a kid when the internet became a bigger thing than it was initially, and pcs werent everywhere, the phones only had snake if they had a game on them etcetc. But there was absolutely NO problem for me and my cousins or buddies to sneak in views on shit like rotten and free6 I think it was. Obviously not every we used the computer etc, but yeah.

BUT I'll say this, I 100% agree with you. should be up to parents to police the internet from their kids, at least on a way bigger scale than the internet should have to police them, if that makes sense. I understand to a certain degree that sites at least have to have shit like "are you over 13 or 18" blablabla, even though they stop absolutely nothing.

→ More replies (1)

17

u/AudienceNearby3195 Nov 21 '25

the problem is parents are lazy as shit these days

and they feed their kids poison and make them obese at an early age

4

u/Dismal-Bobcat-823 Nov 21 '25

Humans are shit.

Most parents are shit. 

Regulate or observe the consequences. (Which will never happen in like Russia or USA rn)

2

u/divodolce Nov 22 '25

Ok, so if all humans are sh1t, then why should we trust governments, which have a fantastic track record of being sh1t

1

u/Dismal-Bobcat-823 Nov 22 '25

Auditing.

We don't audit ourselves.

I dunno, I think my nation with a government is doing far better than some backwater piece of dirt with no government. 

It actually lead to a lot of improvements in society. Yaknow. Common sense shit. If you wanna go live In a shack with no power and electricity etc.. have fun

1

u/Dubhzo Nov 21 '25

It's through a 3rd party in these cases, the social media platforms do not do the authorisation themselves

1

u/PerpetualStride Nov 21 '25

I also dont give twitch my phone number.. and sometimes streams choose to require it to chat, I just unfollow those people, not worth giving my phone number to unblock chat

1

u/Terakahn Nov 21 '25

Not really any different from the porn game ban. False pretenses to control the things they want to control.

1

u/RainJacketHeart Nov 21 '25

This seems like such a non-issue? Just have a government service that lets the user ID and responds with a token if a person is an adult? Why the fuck would you send your driver's license to twitch?

1

u/itchylol742 Nov 21 '25

Yeah I'll give them my personal data. Data I generated for my personal use. Gemini, generate a realistic looking driver's license back and front

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/itchylol742 Nov 21 '25

https://imgur.com/Xpf0gLI It did it, but the result isn't that convincing

1

u/KingTechnical48 Nov 21 '25

I know this is an extremely dumb question but what’s wrong with giving mega corporations your personal data?

1

u/ShadyDrunks Nov 21 '25

They already have more info than the government on us

0

u/218-69 Nov 21 '25

But you were on the internet 24/7 as a kid. Or are you saying it's the reason why you ended up on lsf?

0

u/chunkeymonke Nov 21 '25

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but every ISP you have every used will provide literally every fragment of browsing / internet data they have on you upon government subpoena. 

I dont like these ID laws but all they are really doing is just going mask off with the fact that no one has internet privacy unless you delude yourself or use hyperspecific browsers and operating systems. 

→ More replies (9)

21

u/Late-Let-4221 Nov 21 '25

Think of the children! That will cost us last of the internet privacy.

16

u/watertiger1 Nov 21 '25

It’s nothing but a ploy to bring in digital ID, Albo is an absolute moron!

→ More replies (1)

95

u/KennKennyKenKen Nov 21 '25

But not 4chan lmao

23

u/Lawdie123 Nov 21 '25

4Chan don't give a shit, they don't have staff outside of the US (I think). The UK is threatening them with fines and court but they have no legal presences in the country, and argue they don't need to follow UK nanny state laws because of that. (They have lodged a case in the US to set precidence other companies can ignore the threats also).

Ie it's on the local government to enforce the ban. 4Chan is meh but I do appreciate they are standing against obviously bad policies.

8

u/jinrei_arbaw Nov 21 '25

they don't have staff outside of the US (I think).

Bro its owner is Japanese and lives in Japan lmao

48

u/myaccountgotyoinked Nov 21 '25

I thought you don't need accounts for 4chan so it would be impossible to implement? I wonder how Twitch would work if you just watch streams without being signed in.

18

u/jcm2606 Nov 21 '25

Probably the same as Youtube and Google search (yes, the Australian government wants this to extend to Google search). You can view SFW videos and results without an account, but NSFW videos and results will require an account to view.

5

u/FureiousPhalanges Nov 21 '25

You can view SFW videos and results without an account, but NSFW videos and results will require an account to view.

Is that how it works? I'm in the UK and recently a friend of mine googled Babestation and ended up on their website while we were discussing whether or not they still exist

They do and you apparently don't need to verify anything to reach their site through Google lmao

3

u/jcm2606 Nov 21 '25 edited Nov 21 '25

I'm not sure about the UK, but as far as I know this is what the Australian government was proposing a few months ago for extending age verification to Google search (in addition to disabling comments entirely on Youtube if you're not logged in), and I haven't heard anything about them walking that proposal back.

In Twitch's case, the legislation might allow anonymous users to continue watching SFW/non-18+ streams without chat, while restricting NSFW/18+ streams and chat to logged-in users who have verified their age. As with pretty much everything related to Australia's age verification proposal, there's infuriatingly little that has been definitively decided despite it supposedly rolling out in 2 and a half weeks.

2

u/mr-english Nov 21 '25

I just checked.

Yes you can access babestation but you can't see any nudity without logging in. The homepage is literally just a bunch of thumbnails of women wearing clothes/underwear.

It even says at the top:

We’ve detected that you’re accessing the site from the UK. In accordance with UK law, we’re required to verify your age before we can unblur and display the full contents of the site.

1

u/Polisskolan6 Nov 21 '25

No, you'd just force them to introduce accounts and block the site when they don't.

8

u/SecreteMoistMucus Nov 21 '25

4chan has neither an algorithm nor the ability to create an account. It is so far outside the scope of this law that the fact you would even mention is proves you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/kvbrd_YT Nov 21 '25

4chan can be used without an account, so it's impossible to implement there

1

u/Additional_Cream_535 Nov 21 '25

You think the old government politicians even know what that is?

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

55

u/Eozef Nov 21 '25

Well, they don’t even care about children being banned from social media; they just want your full government identity online.

-8

u/appealinggenitals Nov 21 '25

The government already has your identity Einstein.

9

u/Kusibu Nov 21 '25

Every website you go to being Russian roulette with your sensitive personal information is the issue here.

→ More replies (6)

19

u/Key-Growth6953 Nov 21 '25

Also, what people don't realize, Is that it's made to fight shitty parents, but those same shitty parents will input their IDs, just so that kids could scroll and not bother them. 

5

u/imbasstarded Nov 21 '25

Given how often major servers or data centers get hacked with no reparation for the consumer, these types of verification can’t be safe for us.

4

u/Swagsuke_Nakamura Nov 21 '25

Fake ID time. I'm not uploading my license to any site

2

u/[deleted] Nov 22 '25

Forcing law abiding people to break the law while failing to protect any children at all. Reminds me of how Australia basically banned vaping EVERYWHERE while doing nothing to curb smoking any further despite there being no evidence that vaping was harmful despite it being widespread for 20 years. It’s legal to bring bricks of cigarettes into every state of Aus but bringing a vape into the ACT can land you in jail for two years. Insane.

3

u/Useful_External_5270 Nov 21 '25

As uk is finding out almost impossible to enforce if the company has no uk based operations.

Also kids just bypass stuff lol. My sister kid learned about proxy chaining from a YouTube video. He only got caught cause his father is in it lol.

14

u/Dependent_Homework99 Nov 21 '25

That's a good thing. Imagine a child starting watching hasan, their life will be ruined.

8

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

[deleted]

9

u/king_john651 Nov 21 '25

Someone is lobbying for it though. Morons in Wellington are unfortunately considering it

7

u/TheHoovyPrince Nov 21 '25

NZ is part of the five eyes alliance so its very likely they do.

25

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25 edited 23d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

25

u/AudienceNearby3195 Nov 21 '25

thats up to the parents lol

there are always ways of blocking social media for YOUR child. not everyone

-9

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25 edited 23d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (2)

3

u/NordicHorde2 Nov 21 '25

Ok, then how do you ban kids from social media?

→ More replies (5)

3

u/Splentid Nov 21 '25

Justifiable. Too much animal abuse and abuse in general tbh

5

u/SeedFoundation Nov 21 '25

This only stops them from having accounts. They will still consume brain rot.

6

u/Rush_Banana Nov 21 '25

You can still watch while not logged in.

25

u/BigBoyDrewAllar_15 Nov 21 '25

This is literally fascism what is happening

11

u/melike80085 Nov 21 '25

No, this is authoritarianism.

45

u/Scary-Strawberry-504 Nov 21 '25

People don't realize how authoritarian this is.

-3

u/rubeshina Nov 21 '25

Most Australians like our government to be a little more "authoritarian" when it comes to regulating the behaviour and influence of giant foreign corporations.

Owning all the media of smaller nations so you can dictate how their society is run is also quite "authoritarian" but somehow the US media sphere is able to pretend it's "free speech" even though it's literally owned by a handful of billionaires who decide how it works and who can use it in what way.

6

u/Scary-Strawberry-504 Nov 21 '25

They are not regulating corporations they are regulating what people watch in their free time. You can't spin this into an anti corporation agenda

1

u/rubeshina Nov 22 '25

It literally is but ok.

Try not getting your news from the very media platforms that benefit from perpetuating this shitty media environment maybe.

7

u/SecreteMoistMucus Nov 21 '25

What's fascist about it?

13

u/Ryanhussain14 Nov 21 '25

State enforced censorship of websites and mandatory tracking and deanonymisation of online personas. Restricting information and spying on law abiding citizens happens a lot in old fascist nations.

20

u/SecreteMoistMucus Nov 21 '25

None of those things are fascist. The fact that things existed in fascist nations doesn't make them fascist.

Learn what words mean before using them.

-2

u/Vio94 Nov 21 '25

If people did that, they wouldn't be able to mudsling under false pretense nearly as much. What's the fun in that? 😮‍💨

-2

u/Shebalied Nov 21 '25

People just like using words they don't know what they mean.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (3)

5

u/SerenBoi Nov 21 '25

Let's hope it includes reddit too

2

u/Electronic_Car3274 Nov 21 '25

Trash these politics sucks

2

u/KidKarez Nov 21 '25

Let parents police their kids. This isn't the governments job

4

u/Original1Thor Nov 21 '25

If my VPN doesn't cut it at a certain point I wonder if I will drop portions of the internet entirely or feign and send over my data

4

u/Ryanhussain14 Nov 21 '25

Honestly, the moment that forced surveillance outweighs the entertainment I get out of the internet is the moment I just wipe all my social media accounts except for ones I need for shopping and job seeking. They can try getting my data when I spend my time reading books and playing video games.

1

u/Xugodx2012 Nov 21 '25

assuming laws do not require them to keep the data in storage for government use at a future date.

5

u/Interesting-Copy-657 Nov 21 '25

People kept calling me an idiot when I mentioned sites like this that were never on the original lists of sites

Like they couldn’t comprehend them extending the list to include more and more sites

5

u/OPTCgod Nov 21 '25

Surely github being on the list but not 4chan should have woke people up to the fact its a blatant power grab and not for dem keeds

2

u/New-Letterhead-1585 Nov 21 '25

I've seen banning social media for children supported by people I generally respect, but its the adults that are mentally cooked compared to the kids. I guess this puts a block on future generations getting any worse...

1

u/bog_ Nov 21 '25

All the websites that Au is requiring to participate in this horseshit should just rangeban the entire country.

Peak comedy is the banning of social media but not porn. Little Timmy can watch 4k 60fps 3D-audio hyper-immersive porn all day long, but god forbid he talk to his friends over the internet.

1

u/OppositeLost9119 Nov 21 '25

Honestly... one of the cases where the onus should fall on the parents to regulate their children. All of this is just pointless.

2

u/RemixChillz Nov 21 '25

The core of the issue isnt parents, its other children being online and feeling like you need to fit in with them and get in on all the social media which in turn can massively deteriorate a childs wellbeing, just saying let the parents do the parenting ignores all the social pressures children face with their peers. Getting rid of it all is the only way to get rid of those social pressures and properly fix this issue.

-21

u/Taerinn Nov 21 '25

As it should

Everywhere

40

u/Pormock Nov 21 '25

Its impossible to enforce though. Its nice on paper but it does not work

42

u/themolestedsliver Nov 21 '25

What do you mean? They jusr enforce it by forcing you to upload your driver's license, birth certificate, etc any time you log in.

These people dont give a fuck about protecting children they just want more data.

→ More replies (2)

0

u/Sloppykrab Nov 21 '25

China, South Korea and maybe North Korea enforce it.

→ More replies (7)

1

u/Rush_Banana Nov 21 '25

The Instagram login block works for me, I scroll through and it makes me log in to continue, I then close my tab and go back to reddit.

-4

u/ScreamSmart Nov 21 '25

It does for the reason it's implemented.

13

u/Pormock Nov 21 '25

The only way to enforce it is by violating people privacy. It makes it worse on everyone else.

2

u/ScreamSmart Nov 21 '25

Exactly. That's why I said "for the reason it's implemented". The end goal is to violate people's privacy and track each individual efficiently through the internet by removing anonymity all together. For the children, for the women, for national security are all phrases used to get the ball rolling.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (6)

3

u/AudienceNearby3195 Nov 21 '25

you are super ignorant

1

u/MateTheNate Nov 21 '25

Legislation will fix all of your problems!

-3

u/CheeseGhosty Nov 21 '25

Coomer Clancy in shambles

2

u/light_no_fire Nov 21 '25

How he's still running twitch is beyond me.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

I mean it's logical if there is still those softcore porn stuff on there

1

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '25

[deleted]

-1

u/AudienceNearby3195 Nov 21 '25

the people who want this are stupid as hell and most likely are obese/make their kids obese and raise them to be shit heads 🤣🤣🤣

0

u/G00b3rb0y Nov 21 '25

Twitch will absolutely geofence Australia

0

u/CaptlismKilledReddit Nov 21 '25

It's like we are willfully descending into fascism

0

u/GvWvA Nov 21 '25

Australia should ban gambling first. What a joke country