They did well with this one
this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2025
120 points (96.2% liked)
World News
51315 readers
2167 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
But at least we’re doing something. Just not the things that would start to fix all that
Gold
Not a single government today is beholden to its citizens.
We are all cattle and donkeys so people richer than us can live like gods.
Ironically, if age estimation was done via usage history algorithms, it'd be a much more privacy preserving technique than literally scanning your face or ID into a website that then hands it off to a barely known biometrics company so you can keep using your account...
It's so strange how this legislation apparently is supposed to safeguard the safety of kids on the internet, but hands tremendous risk to adults who verify, or parents who's kids sneakily took their ID to verify their accounts, since it seems that we may be the cyberattack victim capital of the world; see Qantas, Lattitude Financial, Optus, Medibank, and so on until the end of time.
Why is this bad? What is the upside of anyone under 16 using social media?
EDIT: the last 20 years have been an experiment in online anonymity, and the result is a dead internet infested by AI bots and foreign disinformation. At this point, I think civilized nations with free-speech protections should experiment with this sort of thing.
The problem isnt the idea of preventing people under 16 from getting on social media, but how you enforce that.
The only real way is to make every user submit a government ID, which becomes a massive privacy AND security issue with how often every online service gets compromised or leaks user data
the verification process. you could be 42 and never signed up for social media and now you decide you want to post comments on tiktok. Welp now you gotta verify that you're not a teenager. So provide your ID, provide a photo of yourself holding your ID, and hope some company that is obtaining that information either doesn't sell it or doesn't have a security breach. and a bonus to all that is the potential to further track all activities you do online. they can now easily build a profile of you via the social networks you sign up for.
that's the problem.
Tying all your previously anonymous activities to a real life photo, ID, and address.
Good luck trying to criticize an oppressive government again. Or just having an "unapproved" opinion online in general.
Do you realize that lemmy is also social media? I wouldn't be here posting if I had to verify my ID, which is what all these age verification measures do instead of just checking age.
Yes, and while I like being anonymous, I don’t like literally half the internet being made of bots and foreign trolls. Lemmy is such a tiny community that we haven’t attracted their attention, but these bot farms and state-sponsored disinformation campaigns could crush this website in a weekend if they directed their attention here.
Would you upload your government ID just to access the web? Would you be content knowing that a leak at a social media company could lead to your identity being stolen just because your government wants to keep under 16s off of mainstream social media. Would you be happy with your child using 4chan because they are banned from using safer social media websites? I personally know several people who would not be around today if online safe spaces didn't exist to give them an escape from bullying, queerphobia or domestic violence. I can understand why someone might agree with the sentiment "people under 16 shouldn't be on social media", but I cannot understand why someone would be okay with the specifics of this legislation. People are going to have their lives ruined because of this new law and it doesn't even succeed in what it sets out to do (nominally) in the first place. The true reason for this bill is not to "protect children from radicalisation", but to drive viewer/readership of Murdoch media, if it were about protecting children from radicalisation and bullying, why are the worst of these social media sites not included in the ban?
I would argue that the internet has died partly as a result of removing anonymity from the internet, not because of it. The massive centralization of the internet into corporate walled gardens where they can control the narrative is what made your criticisms possible. The early internet was a wild west where you could find anything and everything, for better and worse.
The big issue I have with this is that it isolates queer kids from any sense of community. Trans kids can't avoid permanent damage from the wrong puberty if they don't have access to the knowledge that they could be taking puberty blockers. Without access to that community, I didn't even learn that trans people existed and I could put a word to that existential distress until I was in college.