this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2025
549 points (99.1% liked)

World News

51252 readers
3763 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”.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

They enforce laws that would punish the platforms if they dont abide by them. In what way are they not punishing the platform?

There will be other platforms and kids that deserve to be able to communicate will figure it out.

All i have to say about the ban is "fucking finally". Cant wait for it to be enforced in Europe.

[–] wondrous_strange@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

50mil for a company like meta is chump change, and it is not proportional to being a teen in today's world locked out of all main communication hubs.

Youth are not the ones who need to 'figure it out'. Massive companies, market leaders and decisions makers should, but they are all trash.

Its a sensationalist solution that will surely backfire, it only address symptoms while ignoring the underlying many many problems.

Very short sighted

[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It is for the people to understand not to use such garbage, yes. If they cant figure it out, there is always text and phones.

If it's chump change, then why are they adhering to the new rules? There is something that you seem to have missed. You don't seem to understand the manipulation that the social media companies are capable of, which is why rules are needed.

[–] wondrous_strange@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It is for the people to understand not to use such garbage, yes. If they cant figure it out, there is always text and phones.

You contradict yourself. So the ban is not needed? You were saying it's up to the youths to find alternatives.

What I was saying that these platforms are toxic, they have a destructive affect on all, and we all deserve something better.

A government ban never worked on anything and jts the stupidest and laziest of all options.

[–] teslasaur@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago

If they cant figure out how to use other communication alternatives, they don't deserve to use them. I can see how i fudged my words.