Australian Senate, last sitting of the year. No idea when the Social Media Ban debate is kicking off.
If anyone’s keen, feel free to give a live run-down of anything interesting in this thread.
(sorry about all the edits, just trying to get a decent thumbnail: 
)
I have warned about this. Access to online services will soon be locked behind your mygov id.
These plans have been in motion for a long time.
Games are explicitly excluded from this law.
Which is kinda fucking ridiculous, as pointed out in debate, because in-game chat is often some of the most toxic you’ll encounter.
Call of duty lobbies mentioned in senate. What a time to be alive lmao
Yes, and rightly so. Because this bill is so immensely stupid and the process by which it has been enacted so deeply undemocratic, that even a moron like Canavan (or was it Antic?) can see that the way they’ve carved out exemptions is haphazard and poorly thought through.
We should ban u16s from public transport. Too many have had fatal accidents due to dangerous behaviour around railways and bus stops. Compulsory learning from home, now!
If you think that’s a solid argument or one based in logic, good news. You’d probably make for an ideal liberal senator.
Satire, I thought it was obvious.
Welp went over my head, my bad, imma blame it on Poe’s law or somethingsatirical but critical of the bill my point stands.Yes, @oahi@aussie.zone was being critical of the Bill. Because it’s about as well thought-out as their satirical banning of children on public transport.
I see a lot of people parroting surface level points provided by those in opposition to the bill but little addressing it. Especially the “social credit” nonsense. As mentioned in the debate digital ID wouldn’t be the only means for these social media companies to verify users. Though I agree that how it’s been rushed through is inappropriate.
All good
deleted by creator
“Comrade! Papers! NOW!”
I remember when we used to be horrified at some of the terrible regimes and their draconian requirements and powers.
And yet, here we are happily strolling into the same situation.
I don’t see how the communist remark is relevant. Social media has proliferated largely unchecked. They are potentially damaging platforms, especially for younger people. That’s ignoring the rampant misinformation. I mean have a look at X and the “your body my choice” nonsense. I’m surprised people are genuinely advocating for the multimillion dollar corporations being in charge rather than our government.
Is lemmy exempt I wonder?
They prolly don’t know it exists. If they do, be prepared to switch instance as I doubt lodion will want to deal with Id checking
I, and at least one other person here sent submissions in specifically mentioning the fediverse.
Mine wasn’t a very technical submission, i tried to focus on the value and potential destruction of that value if safeguards aren’t allowed for nascent social media.
So at least there is a record of it. My worry is all the Muskivites submissions will drown out ones like mine.
It’s not even clear yet what form the ID checking will take. They’ve rushed this through way too fast and without proper consultation. But there does seem to be some sort of a plan that the ID checking would be done by a government service in some manner, rather than users needing to send ID directly to the platform.
Govt service is still bad, still links everyones social media accounts to their ID. The bill will do jackshit anyways, as under 16s will simply move to social media hosted outside of Australia.
So of the top ofnyour head, a VPN will allow you to skirt this law?
I don’t use social media beyond lemmy but be fucked if I want to give my I.D to anyone in relation to my online activities
Last I saw the suggestions were drivers license or equivalent, face scan, or digital id. They’ve probably walked that back though or will do so because hell nah
Govt service, or privatised age-assurance face-scanning service wrought with error?
Like I said, it’s not clear yet what form it will take.
I’ll take that as a no
The info is still really vague but seemed to so far apply to big platforms like reddit and facebook and X - however my info might be outdated by now.
Then again it could be that the fines for non compliance and verification charges might also apply to smaller platforms with less available funding than the big companies, and push them under.
The info I’ve been reading seems to be inconsistent and sometimes even conflict. And yeah, could be outdated by now
The relevant Minister will be able to give exemptions as needed, but unfortunately there is no threshold for any sort of minimum size requirement or for non-profit community groups. So we would probably, to be completely lawful, need to get chummy with some politicians who can reach out to the Minister and seek an exemption.
(But realistically, we’re probably small enough that nobody would notice.)
it’s seriously annoying as fuck how there’s no exemption for any of these internet regulations based on size, all it it seriously achieves is strengthening corpos and depowering individuals with souls
34 yes 19 no
Faaark, I’m agreeing with Malcolm Roberts!
Too many kids die over this shit. The corpos have had, what, 15 years (?) to sort this shit out.
So now we see the heavy handed government regulation coming along. That’s what happens.
i guess that’s true but the system totally shouldn’t function that way at all, group punishment is removed.
we pay these dumbasses to run our government for us, shouldn’t we be holding them accountable when they do dumb shit like this, rather than just accepting it as how the real world is?
Have mega corporations like Facebook/meta and Twitter/x been held accountable? Because they’ve resulted in kids killing themselves or developing psychological disorders.
What I’m not seeing is the backlash against those.
Fuck our useless government. Incompetent like most. But I’m so sick of the corpos getting a little bit of outrage and then not only do people move on in short order, but they keep using their platform and generating profit for them.
Come to Darwin where because there are people who get drunk and do stupid shit and get banned from buying alcohol, we are all punished and must present I.D every time we purchase takeaway alcohol.
Governments love group punishment because it’s easiest to implement.
Is it a requirement to merely “present” I.D. or are the details of the I.D. also recorded at the POS?
@Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
The place it in a machine and it is scanned and compared to a data base.
This came into effect 10 years or so ago.
Now they’re looking to record amounts you buy too because some places allow one bottle or carton per person per day
@Aussiemandeus
Thanks!That’s madness. If I had to live in the NT again, I’d make sure I went into a different bottle shop every day, take about $200 worth of whatever up to the counter, and then walk out, leaving the drinks behind and taking my cash with me.
But you could be sure my home brew would never run out.
See and that’s the crux of the entire problem.
The banned drinkers register didn’t stop any of the shit they said It would.
I could go down the street now and find people drinking grog under the tree out the front of a corner shop now
Debate’s kicked off.
