this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2025
505 points (99.0% liked)

World News

51315 readers
1893 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
[–] comalnik@lemmy.world 32 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 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

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 11 points 6 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.

[–] YeahIgotskills2@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 17 points 6 days ago (2 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 6 days 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 6 days 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.

[–] C1pher@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Its not about the “kids” or safety, but to know who keeps shitting on the govt online and spreading… “undesirable thoughts”.

[–] Naturalhealer@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

You just nailed it. I will also add this will lead to digital ID for everyone unless people resist. Slippery slope for those unaware of the NWO.

[–] wondrous_strange@lemmy.world 16 points 6 days 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 6 days 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)
[–] Jamablaya@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days 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 6 days ago

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

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago

No offence, children, but this is great news.

[–] CircaV@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 days ago

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

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] samus12345@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 days ago

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

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 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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 6 days 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.

[–] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 7 points 6 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)

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.

[–] Fleur_@aussie.zone 3 points 6 days ago

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

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.

[–] k0e3@lemmy.ca 5 points 6 days ago

My heart aches for them. Truly.

[–] Doomsider@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

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

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.

[–] arc99@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Make it a world wide ban to the age of 80

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›