The implicit privacy intrusions, claims of harm and other very dubious moral and legal arguments favoring this law reek through and through.
The most obvious among the problems is the obviously indicated move towards making ID verification a default part of whether people access content or not. Even if it's only used "for children" at first, it's normalization will spread, leading to widespread overt de-anonymization.
Yes, some of you here might argue (not unreasonably) that most of what most of us do online is in any case thoroughly de-anonymized by all sorts of tracking commercially motivated mechanisms that governments can latch on to, but at least the process is not a legal requirement, and you're not breaking laws by willfully circumventing it.
Malicious bills like this will normalize identifying yourself legally as a regulatory requirement and will more easily criminalize tools and efforts for keeping one's privacy. What an excellent disguised entry point for doing just! Now being implemented by western governments claiming to respect personal freedom while slavering ever more at the contrary examples already set by overtly authoritarian states.
Grotesque, dangerous and another authority grab under the tediously stupid old guise of protecting the children from old boogeymen like pornography and newer but equally bloated, loaded boogeymen like "misinformation" and mental health.
Also, I call absolute bullshit on this claim:
Opposition lawmaker Dan Tehan told Parliament the government had agreed to accept amendments in the Senate that would bolster privacy protections. Platforms would not be allowed to compel users to provide government-issued identity documents including passports or driver’s licenses, nor could they demand digital identification through a government system.
What kind of moron is elected in the parlement of Australia?
On one side social media can have huge fines if they don't prevent "teenagers" to use social networks, but on the other side the platforms will be banned to require documents to check identity of users...
The gripe many have against this legislation is that it is being rushed for no good reason.
It hasn't been clear how they intend to enforce this. Will it just be an "By using this service, I confirm I am 16 or older" clause like the current system? Will we be required to submit ID to social media companies (it's claimed not)? Will the government be making verification through the updated 'MyGov' portal or the newly renamed 'myID' 'digital passport'?
Nobody is sure, and nobody is sure who is sure. There is tons of conflicting information out there.
NewsCorp have been pushing for it as well, which, as a rule, isn't a good thing, and the rest of our media seem just as confused as the populace.
I can hold complex, antagonistic ideas in my head at the same time. So I am reconciled to thinking both they were right to try (noting all the reasons why they might be wrong) and that it won't work (noting that it may work in an 80/20 sense)
Facebook requires users to be at least 13 (or 14) years old while signing up. So, Australia is just extending that ceiling by a couple years. No big deal!
I think it's necessary. Bots and trolls are already ruining online conversations.
I envision a state run identity provider which provides a limited number of non-resolvable identires to you. E.g. you log in with your personal identification card, then the website knows you as <some guid>. Your identity can only be resolved on court, e.g. if you commit online fraud.
> Bots and trolls are already ruining online conversations.
Requiring everyone to give up their rights to online privacy is an incredibly drastic solution to this problem, and it's not clear that it would even work very well.
The dumbest decision that stupid government can make. And it’s not a partisan issue, as when this causes the current party to fail, the “malignant tuber” will ratchet it further.
Cooked either way.
Australia has always been run by technologically iterate petty tyrants. They have wanted to deanonymize Internet users, and now they will try to force the internet to give them their wish. Resist.
Ultimately, Australia will be further isolated. Internet properties will decide to block Australian IPs rather than complying with eKaren and co. Elon cancels starlink in Australia.
Sounds useful from a mental health perspective .. am I right in thinking detractors are concerned about the loss of privacy needed to enforce the bill, or is it something else?
The implicit privacy intrusions, claims of harm and other very dubious moral and legal arguments favoring this law reek through and through.
The most obvious among the problems is the obviously indicated move towards making ID verification a default part of whether people access content or not. Even if it's only used "for children" at first, it's normalization will spread, leading to widespread overt de-anonymization.
Yes, some of you here might argue (not unreasonably) that most of what most of us do online is in any case thoroughly de-anonymized by all sorts of tracking commercially motivated mechanisms that governments can latch on to, but at least the process is not a legal requirement, and you're not breaking laws by willfully circumventing it.
Malicious bills like this will normalize identifying yourself legally as a regulatory requirement and will more easily criminalize tools and efforts for keeping one's privacy. What an excellent disguised entry point for doing just! Now being implemented by western governments claiming to respect personal freedom while slavering ever more at the contrary examples already set by overtly authoritarian states.
Grotesque, dangerous and another authority grab under the tediously stupid old guise of protecting the children from old boogeymen like pornography and newer but equally bloated, loaded boogeymen like "misinformation" and mental health.
Also, I call absolute bullshit on this claim:
Opposition lawmaker Dan Tehan told Parliament the government had agreed to accept amendments in the Senate that would bolster privacy protections. Platforms would not be allowed to compel users to provide government-issued identity documents including passports or driver’s licenses, nor could they demand digital identification through a government system.
What kind of moron is elected in the parlement of Australia?
On one side social media can have huge fines if they don't prevent "teenagers" to use social networks, but on the other side the platforms will be banned to require documents to check identity of users...
The gripe many have against this legislation is that it is being rushed for no good reason.
It hasn't been clear how they intend to enforce this. Will it just be an "By using this service, I confirm I am 16 or older" clause like the current system? Will we be required to submit ID to social media companies (it's claimed not)? Will the government be making verification through the updated 'MyGov' portal or the newly renamed 'myID' 'digital passport'?
Nobody is sure, and nobody is sure who is sure. There is tons of conflicting information out there.
NewsCorp have been pushing for it as well, which, as a rule, isn't a good thing, and the rest of our media seem just as confused as the populace.
I can hold complex, antagonistic ideas in my head at the same time. So I am reconciled to thinking both they were right to try (noting all the reasons why they might be wrong) and that it won't work (noting that it may work in an 80/20 sense)
Facebook requires users to be at least 13 (or 14) years old while signing up. So, Australia is just extending that ceiling by a couple years. No big deal!
It'll just mean every Australian will have to provide ID and lose the ability to remain anonymous online - no biggie!
I think it's necessary. Bots and trolls are already ruining online conversations.
I envision a state run identity provider which provides a limited number of non-resolvable identires to you. E.g. you log in with your personal identification card, then the website knows you as <some guid>. Your identity can only be resolved on court, e.g. if you commit online fraud.
> Bots and trolls are already ruining online conversations.
Requiring everyone to give up their rights to online privacy is an incredibly drastic solution to this problem, and it's not clear that it would even work very well.
Nobody is giving up any right. There is no right to be anonymous in a social network for billions of people
The dumbest decision that stupid government can make. And it’s not a partisan issue, as when this causes the current party to fail, the “malignant tuber” will ratchet it further. Cooked either way.
Australia has always been run by technologically iterate petty tyrants. They have wanted to deanonymize Internet users, and now they will try to force the internet to give them their wish. Resist.
Ultimately, Australia will be further isolated. Internet properties will decide to block Australian IPs rather than complying with eKaren and co. Elon cancels starlink in Australia.
Related Australia proposes ban on social media for those under 16 (525 points, 20 days ago, 567 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42071310
Sounds useful from a mental health perspective .. am I right in thinking detractors are concerned about the loss of privacy needed to enforce the bill, or is it something else?
Half measure because Australia is afraid to outright ban Tiktok?