Summary

Meta has criticized Australia’s new law banning under-16s from social media, claiming the government rushed it without considering young people’s perspectives or evidence.

The law, approved after a brief inquiry, imposes fines of up to $50 million for non-compliance and has sparked global interest as a potential model for regulating social media.

Supporters argue it protects teens from harmful content, while critics, including human rights groups and mental health advocates, warn it could marginalize youth and ignore the positive impacts of social media.

Enforcement and technical feasibility remain significant concerns.

  • Lumidaub@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    27 days ago

    You don’t consider Lemmy social media? Honest question.

    That’s an actual issue I see with this law: how does one define social media? I’ve seen YouTube described as social media which I find highly dubious but I can’t really explain why.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      Under 16 year olds probably shouldnt be on lemmy either.

      Even this tiny social media network has plenty of misinformation and bullshit a tween/teen likely could not parse well.

      • wurzelgummidge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        27 days ago

        Even this tiny social media network has plenty of misinformation and bullshit

        That shout be repeated often

    • Frog@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      27 days ago

      I do consider Lemmy and Reddit and other content aggregators social media.

      I might be mistaken but I think being able to comment on YouTube and anyone is able to upload a video puts it in the social media category.

      • Lumidaub@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        27 days ago

        Wouldn’t that make many (most?) news sites social media since they let you comment on articles? (IMDB dodged a bullet?)

        • Frog@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          27 days ago

          Sorry I edited my comment. I think the difference, not just being able to comment, but is being able to post. Like not everyone is able to post an article in Gizmodo but anyone can post a video on YouTube, or a story on Instagram.

          This is just my own thoughts on it. I don’t actually know what the official definition of social media is.

    • Paragone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      24 days ago

      yt was social-media, before they ripped-out massive quantities of comments, for things like, you know,

      • fact checking
      • linking to Wikipedia
      • not pushing the disinformation they find so profitable
      • being objective
      • calling-out disinformation-pushers, establishment or otherwise

      Now that they’ve got an autodelete on any comment linking to Wikipedia, the’re not really “social media” anymore, now they’re “social” media, if you see the difference…

      ( propaganda-for-profit, & controlled, deeply. )

      _ /\ _