• BMTea@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    13 hours ago

    I support this move. Some here are delusionally arguing that this impacts privacy - the sort of data social media firms collect on teenagers is egregiously extensive regardless. This is good support for their mental health and development.

    • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 hours ago

      This ban does nothing.

      Anything that does not force ID verification is useless.

      Anything that does verify ID would mean that adults also have to upload their IDs to the website.

      What will happen is either this becomes another toothless joke. Or the government say “okay this isn’t working, lets implement ID checks”, and when that law passes Lemmy Instance Admins would be required to verify ID of any user from an Australia IP.

      Y’all want that to happen?

      So what hapoens if other countries start catching on and also pass such law?

      Eventually the all internet accounts would be tied to IDs. Anonymity is dead.

      • PieMePlenty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 hours ago

        Government provided open id service which guarantees age. Website gets trusted authority signed token witch contains just the age. We can do this safely. We have the technology. They could even do it only once on registration.

        Digital id’s exist already in the EU, and many countries run a sign on service already. We aren’t far from this.

        • ERROR: Earth.exe has crashed@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 hours ago

          Depending on what the token contains.

          There are two implementations I could think of:

          “This user has been verified to be at least [Age]. Sincerely, [Government Authority]” Assuming this is an identical token thats the same for everyone? Sure. I’m not opposed to this.

          “This user has been verified to be at least [Age]. Unique Token ID: 23456” Hell No. When the government eventually wants to deanonymize someone, they could ask the website: “What was the token ID that was used to verify the user?” then if the website provides it, now the government can just check the database to see who the token belongs to. And this could also lead to the government mandating the unique token id to be stored.

          • BMTea@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Why not just look up how it actually works in the real world instead of hypotheticals

      • lemba@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        This ban is a wake up call to Tech Industry to implement and enforce rules against hate speech, grooming, fake news, etc. They surely cannot verify the age of a human without any official ID made in the real world. This leads to other problems but that’s not the concern of the government! Social Media wants it’s users, not the government.

        • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 hours ago

          This ban is a wake up call to Tech Industry

          what? Why would tech industry care? If anything it’ll have the reverse effect and dimiss tech role in brain rott because “see, kids are not on it! It’s all good here”