122
Australia to ban under-16s from YouTube (www.rfi.fr)
submitted 1 year ago by xiao@sh.itjust.works to c/globalnews@lemmy.zip
56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sydney (AFP) – Australia will use landmark social media laws to ban children under 16 from video-streaming site YouTube, a top minister said Wednesday stressing the need to shield them from "predatory algorithms".

Communications Minister Anika Wells said four-in-ten Australian children had reported viewing harmful content on YouTube, one of the most visited websites in the world.

"We want kids to know who they are before platforms assume who they are," Wells said in a statement.

"There's a place for social media, but there's not a place for predatory algorithms targeting children."

Australia announced last year it was drafting laws that will ban children from social media sites such as Facebook, TikTok and Instagram until they turn 16.

The government had previously indicated YouTube would be exempt, given its widespread use in classrooms.

"Young people under the age of 16 will not be able to have accounts on YouTube," Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told reporters on Wednesday.

"They will also not be able to have accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and X among other platforms.

"We want Australian parents and families to know that we have got their back."

Albanese said the age limit may not be implemented perfectly -- much like existing restrictions on alcohol -- but it was still the right thing to do.

A spokesman for YouTube said Wednesday's announcement was a jarring U-turn from the government.

"Our position remains clear: YouTube is a video sharing platform with a library of free, high-quality content, increasingly viewed on TV screens," the company said in a statement.

"It's not social media."

On paper, the ban is one of the strictest in the world.

But the current legislation offers almost no details on how the rules will be enforced -- prompting concern among experts that it will simply be a symbolic piece of unenforceable legislation.

It is due to come into effect on December 10.

Social media giants -- which face fines of up to Aus$49.5 million (US$32 million) for failing to comply -- have described the laws as "vague", "problematic" and "rushed".

TikTok has accused the government of ignoring mental health, online safety and youth experts who had opposed the ban.

Meta -- owner of Facebook and Instagram -- has warned that the ban could place "an onerous burden on parents and teens".

The legislation has been closely monitored by other countries, with many weighing whether to implement similar bans.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 47 points 1 year ago

"There's a place for social media, but there's not a place for predatory algorithms targeting children."

So instead of adressing the algorithms we will collect information about everyone (including children) and violate their privacy instead. Makes perfect sense...

[-] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 19 points 1 year ago

It's all a ploy to monitor adults under the guise of "save the children"

The only way to prove you're not under 16 is to provide valid id and I'm not doing that to use anything

[-] absGeekNZ 5 points 1 year ago

As a parent of young kids....youtube is a complicated mess.

It is full of really great content; but YT kids sucks...so if you want access to the good stuff it is standard YT.

But the utter shit that shows up in the side bar and suggested videos is insane.

For older teens/adults; you don't have to worry about the shit tier garbage that is suggested.

I block the ads, but that is a whole other level of cringe/inappropriate content that just gets shoved into videos; completely unrelated to what is on.

[-] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You can use uBlock Origin to block the recommended section or another player like FreeTube which allows you to disable that section entirely.

FreeTube also offers Hide Videos and Playlists Containing Text feature in addition to general channel blocking. That should help tailoring content to kids where YouTube fails.

[-] absGeekNZ 2 points 1 year ago

uBlock is my go to for killing the ads.

I'll look into freetube, my 9yo has some cool interests but YT wants to drive engagement through whatever means necessary.

[-] shani66@ani.social 2 points 1 year ago

As a not parent: it's actually very simple, just parent your kids (not you specifically, unless it applies idk you).

[-] Taleya@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

You do know your kids don't actually have to use youtube at all, right?

[-] absGeekNZ 1 points 1 year ago

Well, obviously.

Completely restricting, potentially the biggest and most accessible corpus of knowledge ever created, is not my goal.

I'm trying to balance the good with the bad here.

Example:
Lichess training embedded videos are hosted on youtube; but can just be watched on youtube directly.

[-] tyler@programming.dev 28 points 1 year ago

This law will just make the problem worse. It says that <16 won’t be able to have accounts. Not being logged into YouTube means you get the worst algorithm imaginable.

[-] Psythik@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Nah Google will just do what they did to me and force you to login before you can watch anything.

Which fucking sucks because I used to watch YT logged out all the time so that I could see something new outside of my bubble.

[-] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

My bubble is the only thing that makes YouTube watchable.

The few times I’ve opened it without signing in presented me with a shitshow of “viral” insane garbage of the lowest order. Usually a weird mix of right wing gun shit, influencer bullshit (women explaining shit while sitting in stupid poses to show off various body parts) and scam cures. The ads are even worse.

[-] RisingSwell@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

My bubble doesn't have all the trash people bitch about yt for so I'm never leaving it.

[-] abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 15 points 1 year ago

The UK: We just age gated all content that we decide could be harmful to children, resulting in mass surveillance, scams, and dodgy VPNs.

Australia: Hold my Beer, mate.

[-] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

The UK: We just age gated all content that we decide could be harmful to children,

I didn't realise they'd banned religion in the UK, well done /s

[-] abbiistabbii@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago

You joke, but the "could" there is loadbaring, because it could mean literally anything. The people who decide this are the website or the government, and the government isn't telling us what "could" means.

In short, anything the government wants age gated can the age gated and websites are over-age gating to cover their arses just in case.

[-] roguetrick@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Alphabet pulling this "we're not social media" nonsense for YouTube is asinine. They could argue they're not a social network but they've always been social media. Just like slashdot or Reddit. For Christ sakes, YTMND was social media to the non social media hamster dance. YouTube is out of it's mind thinking it's somehow making a distinction here.

[-] tyler@programming.dev 4 points 1 year ago

None of those are social media. God I fucking hate how we’ve somehow gotten to the place where anywhere with people on the internet talking to each other are always defined as “social media”. A comment section or a forum aren’t fucking social media. They’re comment sections, or forums. Reddit is a forum. Lemmy is a forum. Slashdot is a forum.

Calling all those things social media just makes the term completely meaningless.

[-] roguetrick@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So let me get this straight, you're also stating that Twitter wasn't social media then? Blogs like WordPress and livejournal aren't social media compared to the old static pages with guestbooks? That social media isn't media being social? What the fuck is it exactly? Is tiktok social media with its little social interaction while YouTube isn't? It's mind boggling to me to attempt to create social media as some narrow term when it always was a broad Web 2.0 term about creating, sharing, and commenting on media.

[-] tyler@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

Social media is a subset of social networking. Twitter -> social networking. It’s not social media. Anyone claiming that fucking Wordpress or LiveJournal is social media is out of their goddamn mind. Just because you’re talking to someone in a comment section doesn’t mean it’s a social networking site and it sure as hell doesn’t mean it’s social media.

Social media -> a social networking site where the majority of users are sharing media. Example: Flickr. A literal social networking site built around all users sharing their photos. YouTube -> not social media, barely a percentage point of users are commenting much less making their own videos. It’s more akin to a TV station than any sort of social site, and this is readily apparent when you actually compare it to TV show websites!

Social media was never a broad Web 2.0 term, how old are you!? It literally referred to sites like MySpace where you friended others and put fucking MEDIA on your goddamn profile page! It has never once included anything like LJ or WP and that’s such a backwards rewriting of history it’s pretty apparent you’re just saying shit to make it match up with the definition you have in your mind.

load more comments (15 replies)
[-] rumba@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20media

Those are all by definition social media.

[-] tyler@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago

I honestly do not give one shit what merriam Webster says, nor any dictionary. It’s an idiotic way to describe what amounts to almost every website on the Internet. That definition includes personal blogs and news websites for fucks sake. You might as well just say “website” because that’s just as descriptive.

Merriam-Webster added that as a definition because that’s how people started referring to everything they did or didn’t like. It’s not because it’s the actual definition or even a good definition.

[-] rumba@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago

Ahh, yes, the old I don't care what the actual definitions are or what people in this community are telling me it means, I have my own definitions and you all are wrong defense, smart man.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

to shield them from “predatory algorithms”

Fair point, but not the way to go about it :/

[-] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 6 points 1 year ago

I’m way too lazy to sort out a VPN and start doing piracy, but this will motivate me.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I mean, good, but also, how?

[-] jared@mander.xyz 21 points 1 year ago

By taking just a little bit of privacy from everyone.

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Even if we all were willing to make that trade, how?

[-] sys110x@feddit.nl 3 points 1 year ago

MyGovID/DigitalID (maybe as SSO) is my bet; a Google account linked to one of these two government services.

https://my.gov.au/en/about/help/mygov-website/sign-in-to-mygov

https://my.gov.au/en/about/help/digital-id

[-] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

How's that going to stop someone with a VPN?

[-] sys110x@feddit.nl 4 points 1 year ago

It won't.

This is how I see 'giving up a little privacy' looking. Legitimate/compliant users will link their accounts, the government & Google both enhance their tracking, and the rest of us will abandon our existing accounts (if we have one) and skip out via VPN to a region without this requirement.

[-] shani66@ani.social 2 points 1 year ago

One of those quotes heavily implies they want private corporations to massively step up surveillance and individualize it so they can pick you out if a crowd. It's genuinely insane.

[-] SpicyLizards@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago

No single limit to freedoms is the end goal

[-] mr2meows@pawb.social 3 points 1 year ago

god i love governments

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2025
122 points (99.2% liked)

Global News

6884 readers
504 users here now

What is global news?

Something that happened or was uncovered recently anywhere in the world. It doesn't have to have global implications. Just has to be informative in some way.

Post guidelines

Title formatPost title should mirror the news source title. If you don't like the title of article, look for an alternative source instead of editorializing it.
URL formatPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title. Opinion articles refer to articles that their publisher doesn't explictly endorse.
Country prefixCountry prefix can be added to the title with a separator (|, :, etc.) if the news is from a local publisher who doesn't clearly mention the country.

Rules

This community is moderated in accordance with the principles outlined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasizes the right to freedom of opinion and expression. In addition to this foundational principle, we have some additional rules to ensure a respectful and constructive environment for all users.

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. No social media postsAvoid all social media posts. Try searching for a source that has a written article or transcription on the subject.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation. Any kind of discrimination will not be tolerated.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.

Companion communities

Icon generated via LLM model | Banner attribution

If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
BrikoX@lemmy.zip