The big news story at the moment in Oz is the government's plan to impose an age limit for youth re social media. And the Opposition agrees as well with the proposed legislation, to "save the children." It is something out of the Simpson's TV show wherewhen there is a public meeting, one woman always shouts, "think of the children." Yes, Albo is flying high doing just that: "We know social media is causing social harm, and it is taking kids away from real friends and real experiences." "The safety and mental and physical health of our young people is paramount." "We're supporting parents and keeping kids safe by taking this action, because enough is enough." Who could possibly object to that?I do, as doothers.
There are objections along the lines that a complete ban on social media will impact upon children through limiting their on-line information tools, and perhaps push them to use more devious sites perhaps on the dark web.
However, the more concerning issue is th under the pretence of "saving the children," there will be a rolling out of the digital ID system, based upon the digital ID Act, which was pushed through parliament earlier in the year. As they cannot determine without such a system who is say under 16 years, or not, it will mean that everyone of us will be required to submit to the digital ID regime, just to say use Messenger or Facebook. As argued in detail by George Christensen in the extract below, this will be a major step in the control of the internet, all under the guise of false moral piety. And once more, the Opposition leader Dutton goes for it, hook, line and sinker.
This will not be in place for two years, which gives time to organise opposition to this. Another day; another battle.
"The Australian Government is set to impose social media age limits, amid increasing concern over the effect of social media on youth mental health, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced today.
Legislation is to be introduced later this year, and is expected to gain bipartisan support after the leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, called to ban social media for under 16s earlier this year.
"We know social media is causing social harm, and it is taking kids away from real friends and real experiences," said Albanese in a statement today, which also happens to be World Suicide Prevention Day.
"The safety and mental and physical health of our young people is paramount."
"We're supporting parents and keeping kids safe by taking this action, because enough is enough."
The federal commitment to legislate social media age limits follows similar announcements from the Victorian and South Australian governments, both of which want to ban social media for kids under the age of 14.
The new legislation will build on a report by former High Court Chief Justice, Robert French, released on Sunday. The report, commissioned by the South Australian (SA) Government, includes draft legislation banning children under 14 from social media outright, and requiring companies to gain parental consent for 14 and 15-year-olds to use their platforms.
Recent polling shows strong public support for an age-based social media ban, with 61% of respondents agreeing that the government should restrict the use of social media platforms for Australians younger than 17. Unsurprisingly, support was lower among younger Australians. Only 54% of respondents aged 18 to 24 agreed with the ban.
The potential harms of social media for kids has come to prominence in the past decade, particularly with the ubiquity of the smartphone.
Author and psychologist Jonathan Haidt has said social media is "more addictive than heroin," causing the "great rewiring" of childhood. He is one of many researchers who suggests that increased uptake of social media and smartphones has created an "international epidemic" of depression, anxiety and suicide among young people.
Research by Australia's online safety regulator, eSafety, found that 75% of 16 to 18-year-olds had seen online pornography - of those, nearly one-third saw it before the age of 13, and nearly half saw it between the ages of 13 and 15.
In other research, eSafety found that almost two-thirds of 14-17-year-olds have viewed potentially harmful content in the past year, such as content relating to drug taking, suicide or self-harm, or gory or violent material.
There are also concerns about children being preyed upon online. Sonya Ryan OAM, the founder and chief executive of the Carly Ryan Foundation, has experienced this personally. Her daughter Carly, was killed in 2007 at the age of 15 by a predator she met online.
Ryan has voiced her support for new laws to protect kids, stating, "In my opinion the only way forward is to create appropriate legislation to protect our children from these harms and regulate big tech companies to include mandatory age verification across all platforms."
Others are worried that banning children's access to social media will cause unintended harms.
"Social media is one of the only public spaces where children can communicate directly with their friends – often maintaining connections with distant friends and loved ones that would otherwise be impossible," said information and technology expert Dr Dana McKay of RMIT University.
Instead of banning kids from social media, the focus should be on making social media safer, said Dr McKay.
"Many of the problems can already be addressed by minimising advertising and detecting and addressing harmful interactions through behavioural analytics, for example," she said.
Details on how the new age assurance laws and technology will work are hazy until legislation is tabled later this year, but the concept has already been in development for some time.
The Federal Government has invested $6.5 million in a trial of age assurance technology which will be used to enforce the social media age limit, with the technology aspect of the trial currently out to tender.
At the same time, Australia's online safety regulator, eSafety has given digital industry associations until the end of this year to propose improved industry codes that will be enforceable by eSafety to limit children's access to inappropriate content online, including pornography and self-harm content.
Both of these initiatives are tied in with Age Verification Roadmap, which in turn is tied in with Australia's recently legislated Digital ID framework, to which the government has allotted $288.1 million over the next four years.
"The Albanese Government just announced they're going to ban children from social media.
But there's a catch—they won't do it for two years.
So why the delay?
If I were to speculate I'd say it's because they need time to roll out their shiny new national Digital ID system, passed under the Digital ID Act earlier this year.
Make no mistake, this isn't about protecting kids.
It's about controlling all of us.
- The Albanese Government announced a ban on children using social media, but delayed it for two years, likely to set up Digital ID first.
- Digital ID is needed for the ban to work, linking identity to social media accounts and ending online anonymity.
- This move isn't about protecting children; it's about government control over everyone's online activity.
- Both Labor and the Liberals support Digital ID for age verification, showing this is a bipartisan agenda.
- Big Tech companies back age verification but admit it will require collecting sensitive personal data like facial scans or government IDs.
- Once Digital ID is tied to social media, anonymity will disappear, and every post will be linked to your real identity.
- The push for Digital ID is about creating a surveillance state where the government and corporations monitor everything we do online.
- The real goal is control and profit, not child safety, driven by corporate media and government interests.
This isn't just about Labor though.
Peter Dutton and the Liberals have had this ban on children using social media in their sights for a while.
And we know a former Liberal Minister proposed using Digital ID for age verification with social media… and more. (We'll get to that later.)
They're all playing the same game.
(Funnily enough the same fake news legacy media outlets that ran articles critical of Dutton when he announced the policy months ago are now fawning over Albanese for his announcement).
Whether they'll openly admit it or not, the government needs age verification tied to a Digital ID for its plan to work.
Without it, the law is meaningless.
Big Tech have said so themselves.
The so-called Digital Trust & Safety Partnership (DTSP) group—made up of Google, Apple, Meta, TikTok, Microsoft (plus LinkedIn), Amazon (via Twitch), Reddit, Pinterest, Zoom, and Match Group, Bitly, and Discord—have backed what they call "age assurance" (which is a fancy term for verification" but have said that this would likely require "collection of new personal data such as facial imagery or government-issued ID."
So if this ban is going to have any teeth, you'll need a Digital ID to even log on to social media.
And that's exactly what they want.
Once Digital ID is linked to social media, you're no longer just a name on a screen.
You're fully identified, traceable, and under their watch.
No more anonymity. No more privacy.
Every word you post, every opinion you share, is tied to your real name and identity.
And that's the plan—to make Digital ID mandatory if you want to have a voice in today's online world.
When you realise this then you know this whole initiative isn't really about keeping kids safe. It's about control.
Digital ID is the gateway to a surveillance state, one where governments and corporations have their hands on your most personal information.
We're not just talking about your name and birthday—they're after your biometric data too.
Facial scans. Fingerprints. These are the tools they'll use to track everything you do.
Tom Parker from Reclaim The Net put it plainly:
Many online age verification methods require users to hand over copies of their identity documents or undergo facial recognition — two types of data that have been subject to major data breaches in the past.
Think about that.
A facial scan or your government ID just to comment on social media?
That's not safety—that's surveillance.
And once you hand it over, there's no going back.
Earlier, I mentioned a former Liberal Minister proposed using Digital ID for age verification with social media.
That former Minister, Stuart Robert, also suggested using Digital ID to strip away anonymity on social media.
It doesn't matter which faction of the uniparty is in power.
They want to make sure no one can hide and that no one can criticise, without them knowing exactly who you are.
That's the future they're planning for us—a future where anonymity and privacy are relics of the past.
This entire agenda—pushed now by both Labor and the Liberals alike—hasn't gained traction organically.
It's been driven by corporate media giants like News Corp, but not so much out of genuine concern for the well-being of children.
Their real motive is financial.
News Corp and other fake news legacy media outlets are locked in a battle with Meta, demanding money for their news stories that are shared on Facebook and Instagram, which are platforms from which Meta makes money.
A hot tip to corporate media: If you don't want your news stories appearing on social media, then don't publish them on the internet.
So, as part of the war against Meta, News Corp has been pushing an agenda to ban children from social media and push for age verification, complete with a campaign slogan ("Let Them Be Kids") and their own petition on the left-wing change.org website.
Top of Form
Subscribe
Bottom of Form
It's all very Simpsons-esque, like the pastor's wife, Helen Lovejoy, faux-emotionally declaring, "Won't somebody please think of the children?!" during a town hall meeting.
Think of the children, they say, but the real motivation is control and profit, not child safety.
The public has been manipulated.
Activist reporting from these media giants has convinced many Australians to support this agenda.
A YouGov/Q+A poll showed that 84% of Australians support licensing social media platforms, and 61% of people back restricting access to social media for anyone under 17.
Another poll showed 69% of respondents wanted the age limit for social media raised to 16.
Both of these polls were commissioned by media outlets that stand to cash in if Meta pays those outlets for their news stories shared across Facebook and Instagram
Regardless, popularity doesn't make something right.
Democracy isn't just two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
True democracy survives when we protect the liberty of the minority—especially the right to free speech and privacy.
In this case, the wolves are the government and corporate media elites, and we, the everyday citizens, are the sheep.
They want to control us, track us, and use Digital ID as their leash.
The push to ban children from social media may seem like a noble cause, but there's more to it than meets the eye.
Over a decade ago, the Rudd Labor Government had the opportunity to protect children online by implementing internet filtering, a measure they had promised at an election.
But despite the public commitment, they backed away from it.
If they were truly concerned about protecting kids, why didn't they follow through then?
Now we're expected to believe that banning children from social media is all about safeguarding them from harm.
But is that really what's going on? Or is there something else at play?
Yes, there is something else—and it's far more concerning.
As Reclaim The Net pointed out earlier this year, there has been a global upsurge in such age verification laws.
This is because they are part of a worldwide agenda aimed at ending online anonymity and pushing for the adoption of digital ID systems.
Another article in The Verge warned of this global trend coming from as far back as early 2023.
Clearly, what we're seeing is a global push to remove anonymity under the guise of safety.
And this isn't an issue that has cropped up organically in countries such as France, Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia.
The World Economic Forum (WEF) is among the elite groups pushing this agenda, openly criticising online "anonymity" as a problem that fuels polarisation.
The WEF also strongly supports the United Nations' Global Digital Compact.
This proposed compact would establish an international framework for the regulation of the internet, which includes age verification but, tellingly, it also includes the following anti-free speech measures:
- Fighting Disinformation and Hate Speech: If not clearly defined, these broad terms are often misused to censor legitimate speech.
- Establishing Social Media Councils: Proposed co-regulation on platforms may lead to centralised control over content, limiting diversity of opinions.
- More Online Safety Commissioners: Collaboration between jurisdictions may result in overly restrictive international rules that curb free speech.
- More Cybercrime Laws: International agreements to combat cybercrime could be used to suppress dissent or criticism if definitions are too broad.
- Regulating Data Protection and Privacy: Increased regulation of personal data might lead to surveillance, which could discourage free expression online.
In Australia, it appears we are ahead of the game with an eSafety Commissioner, digital ID laws, and now age verification for social media.
They tell us it's about protecting kids, but it's really about expanding the reach of government and corporate surveillance into every corner of our digital lives.
Digital ID and age verification are tools to strip away our anonymity and make sure every online interaction is monitored and controlled.
Let's be clear: social media isn't a safe space for kids.
There's plenty of filth—pornography, predators, and brain-numbing content.
But the answer isn't to strip away everyone's freedoms under the pretence of protection.
Linking Digital IDs to social media accounts is a direct attack on our privacy, anonymity, and free speech.
Once we lose those freedoms, they're gone for good.
The digital world will morph into a fully monitored space where free speech is a thing of the past.
Sadly, this particular social media age verification ploy is nothing but a Trojan horse for the bigger agenda: Digital ID, surveillance, and total control.
https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2024/09/10/australia-plans-ban-on-most-children-using-social-media/
Although Internet rights activists and civil libertarians are generally critical of proposals to ban young people from social media, there is little serious political opposition to the idea in Australia. The opposition Liberal Party, headed by Peter Dutton, is demanding a 16-year age limit. Only the Green Party strongly opposes the idea, saying it prefers better education about the perils of social media to banning young people from using it.
Critics of the minimum age proposal noted that it would prevent children from accessing useful knowledge online and might even force them into darker corners of the Internet as they seek to evade a social media ban.
Queensland University of Technology digital media director Daniel Angus warned the "knee-jerk move" could "create serious harm by excluding young people from meaningful, healthy participation in the digital world, potentially driving them to lower quality online spaces."
"This is a very blunt instrument that's going to potentially exclude children from some very, very helpful supports on social media," said IT expert Lisa Given of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.
University of Melbourne associate professor Toby Murray claimed that social media can offer positive support for troubled and marginalized teens and banning them from social media could cut them off from helpful communities. This would probably be an even more serious issue for people who happen to be 14 to 16 years old at the moment the social media minimum age goes into effect.
Other critics pointed out that "social media platforms" are an elusive concept. It is one thing to propose banning 14-year-olds from using Facebook, TikTok, or Twitter – but what about messaging platforms like WhatsApp, or games that include social media tools like Animal Crossing and Roblox? The latter game is already in hot water with some governments and children's welfare advocates because predators have been found lurking in its social media forums.
The notion of keeping young people away from social media is not new, although Australia could become the first democratic government to implement a nationwide ban. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in March signed a bill that prohibits children under 14 from creating social media accounts and requires children 14 and 15 years of age to obtain parental consent before creating an account.
DeSantis said he wanted to "help parents navigate this very difficult terrain that we have now with raising kids," a sentiment quite similar to Australian Prime Minister Albanese's comments on Tuesday.
DeSantis notably vetoed an earlier bill that would have set the minimum age for social media to 16 and established ID requirements for Florida residents to create social media accounts."