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

World News

51233 readers
3281 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
[–] conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 16 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Discord isn’t covered by the ban surprisingly enough despite being one of the platform more ripe for exploitation. I get that you’d want kids to be able to DM each other and voice chat but Discord is closer to a forum than it is to say, Signal.

Wouldn’t be surprised if it ended up on the ban list later on.

[–] Henson@feddit.dk 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

On the other hand in Discord there is not an algorithm to feed you contet, so you have much more control of what you see/read, it does not leads you to the extremes

[–] conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 6 points 1 day ago

Oh absolutely! The ban makes far more sense as an algorithm ban rather than a social media ban and to the extent that you’re curtailing various mental issues that come with comparing yourself to others and being fed a narrative that is a good thing, versus banning interaction among friends. That doesn’t at all excuse the ban of course. It’s bad and to an extent doesn’t even target the core of the issue: you are still being fed this information whether you have an account or not. You don’t need an account to watch Tiktok, YouTube or Reddit. The issues of the algorithm are still very much there, it’s just that <16s can’t post/comment anymore.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Fleur_@aussie.zone 3 points 1 day ago

Dw guys we've tested it and it's a certified bad idea. You're welcome

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

That is a lot of drug addicts to cut off at once.

[–] wondrous_strange@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago (8 children)

Instead of punishing these cancerous cess pool manipulative platforms, they punish the kids.

The youth deserves to be able to communicate and use the web the same as the rest of the population.

Regulations should be such that these platforms are neutral, non manipulative safe spaces where people can come together share content and discussions.

The overall stupidity of decision makers is incomprehensible to me. Literal shit sacks politicians that should all be thrown into a hole.

Beat of luck youth, my heart is with you. Hope Lemmy will be the answer(or some other decentralized platform)

[–] kossa@feddit.org 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I agree that the ban is not good regulation. However, that some kind of regulation of those platforms get started is hopefully a milestone which gets the stone rolling. I consider those good news because of that.

I am cynically enough that I doubt that regulators around the world will learn and adapt, like I would wish for, but one can hope.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] aceshigh@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

But how will the sites make money? Will someone please think of the lost profit!!!??

[–] Jamablaya@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's Australia, been heading in a fascist direction for the longest time, and people think it's fine because it's institutionalized direction, not a orange clown lead occurrence

[–] wondrous_strange@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Seems like the same story all around the world. Scary shit

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

No offence, children, but this is great news.

[–] comalnik@lemmy.world 40 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (13 children)

"One parent said their daughter was completely addicted to social media" Well then fucking take away her phone. Get her a dumb phone. Install parental controls. Go to a therapist if yo have to. But nooooo the government has got to do everything for us incompetent fucks

[–] YeahIgotskills2@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Absolutely. My kids are 11 and 9 and some of their friends have phones. I might provide a dumb phone when they're a bit older, but if they want a smartphone they'll.have to wait until they get a job and buy one.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 16 points 2 days ago

I had this issue with a 15 year old. Phone gone, just an analog flippy, put in parental controls to prevent loading brain rot apps.

He's happier for it.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] ThisNibbaCORNY@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Good. Now the U.S please.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

I wonder if after a few years we can stop pretending like social media caused every bad problem in society and instead we can focus on the wealth inequality and climate change apathy that is causing people to no longer want to support our broken society?

[–] douglasg14b@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

We're not pretending, this is an asinine view.

Two things can be true at once. It's surprising how difficult a concept this is to grasp.

Social media accelerated this, it provides the vehicle in which to make culture wars the only thing at the front of people's minds. It accelerated division and hate, as these improve platform attention.

Let's not even talk about the death of critical thinking which just allows this to happen to greater effect.

Rising wealth inequality because a side effect of us not fighting a class war which is a side effect of us being completely focused on culture wars which is a side effect of social media.

There's an entire chain here and social media underpins most of it's acceleration

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ThisNibbaCORNY@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Ask any teacher and they'll tell you that A) kids are getting dumber and more behind academically every year and B) It's because of phones/social media. When you have 8th graders reading at a 3rd grade level, like over half of the class, that's a problem. It starts when irresponsible parents shove an iPad in front of their kid at 2 years old and since most parents can't be bothered to do the right thing (like most people) laws like this are necessary.

[–] Jhex@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

hmm I thikk a lot of the apathy you speak of comes from social media influencing youth

[–] teuniac_@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Populism increases where people get better access to the internet. This is surprisingly well established because it's easy to measure.

Of course wealth inequality and climate change are the bigger issues, but social media gets people to believe it's actually minority groups behind the effects of these issues.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CircaV@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago

Children lost access to social media? And nothing of value was lost.

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Just going to teach those kids its okay to break the law.

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago

A lesson that is not incorrect. Depends on the law.

[–] arc99@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Make it a world wide ban to the age of 80

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 2 days ago (4 children)

all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat

I love how this sentence is just casually sprinkled there. So platforms are getting $50m fines if they do not implement "age verification", but no problem if they fail to identify minors as such? Tells you everything about how they really care about protecting children.

load more comments (4 replies)

I don’t get it. This “ban” is going to last days or hours before the kids just find an app that does’t check their age.

It also will allow the big platforms to drop any pretence that their users need to be protected and take the gloves off with their algorithms to increase engagement to replace the kids.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

So I guess the kids are gonna go to the dark web. What could go wrong.

I will look forward to Darth Musk throwing a tantrum against Australia when they eventually fine X for not complying, but that's about the only good thing to come from this ban.

Oh yes sure, it's great they stop the kids from being brainwashed by the algorithms. They really should ban everyone, especially the elderly.

[–] kossa@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago

Yep, I hope they fine the shit out of Musk and looking forward to his take that Australia must be dissolved and, idk, given back to its natives.

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”.

Okay, that's really bad. On the one hand, this is like "they don't even card me at the bar", which is opening up a whole can of worms. Either they're passing for older, or they're faking it. As for the kids left behind, it's also "you look too much like a kid to hang" or they simply get left out for not breaking the rules. All this kind of shit used to happen before, only now it's technologically accelerated.

And here I was naively thinking this was going to make everyone stampede back to SMS instead.

Maybe (OK, this won't happen, but I like to imagine it would), someone will figure out how to use one of the hundreds of chat programs that are out there, github or wherever, and get that going. Still able to be social with their group, without having all the bullshit social decline that comes from using the big chat platforms.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 32 points 2 days ago

As long as social media's goals are commercial and have the effect of "digital cocaine", keeping kids and adolescents out of it should be the default, worldwide.

load more comments
view more: next ›