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”.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] DylanMc6@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 day ago

australia should become a socialist country. seriously!

[–] Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 136 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (32 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

load more comments (32 replies)
[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 days ago (2 children)

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”.

FFS, we all got along just fine and dandy with group-chats via text message. We weren't fucking cavemen.

The fact that this is her fear (and the fact that it's a legitimate fear) proves just how much controls like this are needed. It's literally digital crack that they think there's simply no other way to communicate anymore (both her and her friends)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] cv_octavio@piefed.ca 27 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Michal@programming.dev 42 points 2 days ago (26 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 (26 replies)
[–] KindnessIsPunk@lemmy.ca 68 points 3 days ago (4 children)

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] RonniePickering@lemmy.world 16 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Ban it all, its a plague on civilization!

load more comments (2 replies)

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”.

I think the ban should only apply to public-facing platforms, where everybody can see your content.

Platforms where you only talk to your friends should maybe be left out of it.

[–] k0e3@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago

My heart aches for them. Truly.

[–] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 20 points 2 days ago (11 children)

have a look at who proposed this change and you'll see why it's being done. it's clear as day that this isn't a win for anyone on the internet in Australia

[–] Ibuthyr@lemmy.wtf 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, they should have banned social media completely instead.

[–] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

social media does have its benefits though, like the democratisation of the press.

I'm of the opinion that simply banning advertisements outright destroys the incentive structure that exists to keep social media bad

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] chunes@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CaptainPedantic@lemmy.world 53 points 3 days ago (10 children)

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

Have you tried parenting her?

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›