It's called parenting. If you feel you're not able to parent your own kids, perhaps you're not doing a good job. Mine are great, and have ZERO interest in social media.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How Apple is Helping Apps Comply With Australia's Social Media Ban for Kids
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So it should be up to the parent as to whether this law is to apply to their child or not?
We don't have the second amendment and all that garbage, thankfully.
Guns, tobacco, and alcohol definitely should have age checks when you buy them.
Having ID checks on social media is different though because it threatens an adult's right to anonymity (which is protected by the US constitution, I don't know much about Australian law other than it's Westminster with an elected upper house) and it puts their sensitive data at risk.
Better way to do this would be to codify parental controls and/or device-level age checks.
You've highlighted so many reasons as to why this legislation is needed, which I don't think was your intent, but here it is.
The internet has been a net negative on society. I don’t think any amount of “good” will ever outweigh the hateful, mean spirited, disgusting, and brain-dead videos, photos and posts that are floating on the internet.
The internet is the worst of humanity, that’s why people celebrate when there is a single good thing that happens online.
The internet is the worst of humanity, that’s why people celebrate when there is a single good thing that happens online.
The inherent problem with the internet is that no one could ever take responsibility over it. I have wonderful memories of the dawn of internet in the mid-90s and the optimism surrounding it, yet it was clear even back that, without self control, you could lose hours just scrolling through something as trivial as message boards.
I have to agree with you wholeheartedly. Sadly, like anything which could prove infinitely useful to humanity, it ends up being politicised, weaponised or deamonised.
Just responding to points in kind. Parenting should be left to the parents. What’s next? A law limiting the number of hours on video games or watching tv?
What is this threat? That another human being is drawing a visual check between a photo ID and the details entered through text?
Is this really so stressful and damaging to your anonymity that you’re willing to forgo identity checks?
This statement is myopic. It falls under the umbrella of using a tool for good or bad. The internet has heralded many opportunities and has freed the people from the shackles of being tethered to a desktop.
It’s so important some claim without a smartphone you cease to function, a smartphone depends the internet.
There are many things I’d like to put back in the bottle but many of these things do t enhance society the way the internet has.
You've hit the nail on the head, and added to the argument as to why the legislation is needed; not all parents are as good at protecting their kids from toxicity as you are.
It's usually not the technology, it's how it's used that is the problem. The internet has been positive in some ways, but negative in others. Extremism and the spread of it has always existed though (the KKK for example)
Yes, I am aware of the talking points from both sides of this argument. Many lazy parents though consider this will be a set-and-forget panacea, when it's not.
I still feel "Dumb phones to 16" was the better option.
The free world, the bullies, the criminals, the predators, the baddies.. the list of reasons why we have laws to protect people is because humanity, inevitably, circumvent the very things that are there to help protect us. When people can't do that at free will, someone needs to step in.
I don't like that this has turned into a 'bad parents' vs 'good parents' argument, because the definition of a 'good parent' is fluid based on who you ask. If you ask a toothless redneck what makes a good parent they'd probably say giving a kid a gun and their own ute (pickup truck). It's all relative.
This legislation is about providing a guardrail to the addiction that is social media, a toxic environment that some adults are even able to cope with, so how can we possibly expect a kid to cope with it? Moreover, we should not be expecting a kid to have to cope with it.
We've all heard of kids who have had to grow up quick, and, sadly, those kids are robbed of their childhood. I believe any guardrail which helps parents protect their kids from toxicity, bullies, predators, scams and criminals is a win.
Why? Unless you work for a social media company and want to mine data from kids who had accounts before this legislation was brought in, there is literally no valid reason for keeping the accounts.
Again, the point is missed. Think of bad parents as another hole in the swiss cheese; when all the holes line up, the problem progresses. This legislation is another layer trying to stop the holes from lining up.
Reality check: it’s a process to identity that you’re a real human being and meet the requirement age of that platform.
I’d also add that, if you are indeed one these “unpopular individuals” who is afraid of “retaliation”, then I’d be asking questions about how the ID-checking system knows about that time you burnt dinner.