The ban, among the toughest in the world, has broad public support but has been criticized by experts who say it could have unintended negative consequences.

Summary

Australia has passed a groundbreaking ban on social media use for children under 16, the strictest of its kind globally.

Platforms like X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and Reddit have one year to implement the age limit, with fines up to AU$50M for non-compliance.

Supporters cite mental health concerns, while critics argue the ban risks isolation for marginalized youth, lacks proper research, and excludes harmful platforms like 4chan.

Privacy concerns surround proposed age-verification methods. Opponents, including parents, scholars, and tech companies, argue the legislation is rushed and poorly designed, potentially exacerbating existing issues.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      81·
      18 hours ago

      I’m, generally, skeptical of the efficacy of any such ban. But if a ban is going to be in place, 4chan et co seem like they should be pretty high fucking priorities to close off to kids. It’s like declaring a ban on beer for health reasons, but clarifying that unregulated backwoods moonshine a step away from wood alcohol is still 100% kosher.

      • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
        13·
        16 hours ago

        So you admit this is a good start? 4chan isn’t particularly popular anymore, btw. I’m guessing that’s why it flew under the radar.

        • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          11·
          9 hours ago

          But that’s exactly the problem, right?

          Social media platforms, forums and other online social spaces wax and wane on popularity. New ones are turning up all the time. This won’t prevent kids from socializing online, it’ll just force them to do it in the least safe places. Even if you try to regulate every online social space, it’ll just turn into a game of whack a mole.

          • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
            11·
            9 hours ago

            So we should legalize stabbings because otherwise people will turn to “even worse” forms of violence? Surely there must be a simpler and less moronic approach to legislation.