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

World News

51337 readers
1860 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 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BackgrndNoize@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

On one hand I do think social media has ruined society, and kids should definately not be on it till their brain has matured a bit, on the other hand I worry how corrupt officials could use this in their favor

[–] athairmor@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (5 children)

How could corrupt officials use this? I’m struggling to imagine how.

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

It could be used as a wedge to further attack freedom of speech or they could require ID verification for anyone and then use that info to track you and target you if they think you are against them. The nazis used the census data to find and target Jewish people because back then religion used to be recorded in it, Trump and the republicans now require people on visa to have their social media accounts public so they can target anyone who they deem "anti American" and deport them. Any law should be made with checks and balances in place keeping in mind how the worst of humanity could abuse it

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] k0e3@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 week ago

My heart aches for them. Truly.

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.

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.

[–] Montreal_Metro@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

Good. Time to consume quality media.

[–] socsa@piefed.social 4 points 1 week ago

ITT: figuring out who is under the age of 16

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

Make it a world wide ban to the age of 80

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ikidd@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

The algorithm loses some victims for a few years, maybe

[–] Siegfried@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I just expect that they dont end up making social media super cool

[–] sonofearth@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (10 children)

Although I agree that children should not be using social media at all, banning is not the solution. It should be for the parents to let their children use social media or not and if they should be using smartphones at all. If I were a parent I would give my kid a dumb phone just to call and sms (and maybe play snake). If they were to go on a trip, I would give a smartphone without any Appstore — just a dumb phone with parental restrictions, secure messenger like Signal (even Whatsapp if needed) to allow keep in touch with us and friends and any coordinators on that trip. If they were to use social media, it would only be on a Linux PC/Laptop.

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