Eyekaytee

tbf they got a pretty weak lineup iirc

there's no banning or blocking of social media sites

No, it's account based, in a lot of cases changing your DNS won't change the server you end up with at Youtubes or whoever

Age-restricted platforms are expected to take reasonable steps to:

• find existing accounts held by under-16s, and deactivate or remove those accounts

• prevent under-16s from opening new accounts

• prevent workarounds that may allow under-16s to bypass the restrictions

• have processes to correct errors if someone is mistakenly missed by or included in the restrictions, so no one’s account is removed unfairly.

Does every Australian now have to prove their age to use social media?

For example, if someone has had an account since Facebook started in Australia in 2006, Meta could reasonably assume they are older than 16 so no further check is needed.

https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions/faqs

Platforms then use a variety of signal's to detect if someone is under 16:

DNS has nothing to do with it

How are they going to enforce any of that on a company with no office in Australia? Answer: They can’t.

Then how am I still able to access youtube, facebook and all the others without needing to give them my ID?

You think youtube and facebook don't have offices in Australia?

That’s a lot of text just to say “I’m an idiot who loves bending over for the government”.

I'm simply telling you what the government is telling social media companies that allow Australian users to create accounts on their websites

You can change your DNS all you want mate, I'm just saying it won't make a difference

Then how am I still able to access youtube, facebook and all the others without needing to give them my ID?

DNS translates domains like youtube.com into IP's like 1.1.1.1, this has no bearing when you make a social media account in Australia:

It’s not a ban, it’s a delay to having accounts.

This means there will be no penalties for under-16s who access an age-restricted social media platform, or for their parents or carers. However, age-restricted social media platforms may face penalties if they don’t take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from having accounts.

https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions

As of 10 December 2025, Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube are required to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from having accounts on their platforms.

If you have an australian account registered with those websites and they suspect you are under 16 you will have to verify your id

As explained here the platforms will need to check:

https://aussie.zone/post/27246692/20254931

How can under-16s be stopped from finding a way around the age restrictions?

Platforms may assess age-related signals which can help work out if someone is under 16. These signals can include:

how long an account has been active

whether the account holder interacts with content targeted at children under 16

analysis of the language level and style used by the account holder and the people they interact with

visual checks, such as facial age analysis of the account holder’s photos and videos

audio analysis, such as age estimation of the voice of the account holder

activity patterns consistent with school schedules

connections with other users who appear to be under 16

membership in youth-focused groups, forums or communities.

Platforms may also use location-based signals which can help work out if an account holder usually lives in Australia and could be using a VPN to pretend they don’t. These signals can include:

IP address(es)

GPS or other location services

device language and time settings

a device identifier

an Australian phone number

app store or operating system or account settings

photos, tags, connections, engagement or activity.

Evidence of these age and location signals is expected to trigger the age assurance process, or review of an account if it has already been checked.

https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions/faqs

On top of this there are plenty of services that block VPN's, most famously Netflix.

So yeah, changing one aspect of your account while leaving all the others won't get around the ban

Edit: Nice alt accounts, loser.

This is my primary account and always has been? What's with the loser? Why so cranky?

that is not how the social media ban works…

I have to respond to "with at a 50% wealthtax over 20 million euros" because that is the easy answer

Europe already has a lot of experience with taxing the ultra wealthy

In 1990, about a dozen European countries had a wealth tax, but by 2019, all but three had eliminated the tax because of the difficulties and costs associated with both design and enforcement.[6][7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax#In_practice

Normally progressives like to point to Europe for policy success. Not this time. The experiment with the wealth tax in Europe was a failure in many countries. France's wealth tax contributed to the exodus of an estimated 42,000 millionaires between 2000 and 2012, among other problems. Only last year, French president Emmanuel Macron killed it.

In 1990, twelve countries in Europe had a wealth tax. Today, there are only three: Norway, Spain, and Switzerland. According to reports by the OECD and others, there were some clear themes with the policy: it was expensive to administer, it was hard on people with lots of assets but little cash, it distorted saving and investment decisions, it pushed the rich and their money out of the taxing countries—and, perhaps worst of all, it didn't raise much revenue.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/02/26/698057356/if-a-wealth-tax-is-such-a-good-idea-why-did-europe-kill-theirs

Paris (AFP) – Bernard Arnault, the billionaire boss of the world's biggest luxury conglomerate LVMH, has picked a fight with the French government by suggesting that companies could flee France for the United States to escape a planned tax hike.

https://www.rfi.fr/en/international-news/20250130-french-luxury-billionaire-sparks-tax-debate-with-threat-to-leave

And it's hard because there will always be another country that wants rich people

Billions of poor people are giving their money every single day to companies owned by rich people, this explains why rich people are getting richer

Does anyone have any ideas how we can stop poor people from giving their money to the rich? Every time they use Google they are given an electric shock ? Every time someone goes to buy something on Amazon they get personally spanked by a local Jeff Bezos lookalike?

simply that these platforms usually get boosted by Reddit doing a scandal

Then the question is, why is it when users come from reddit they don't hang around? they don't tell their friends, hey this is a place that's awesome!

Every bit of decentralised user friction is friction that centralised platforms don't have

I'm very happy piefed is tackling some of these bits of friction but more is needed.

just look at the stats ??

False dichotomy. Lemmy is already usable

By whose standard?

If Lemmy is usable why is it dying?