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.

  • Frog@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    I use social media from time to time. The amount of misinformation that is created and spewed without consequence is really alarming. A lot of it is dangerous. People give medical advice and pretend to be doctors. That should be illegal.

    If they could filter out all the garbage content and just have children cartoons, comics, food, and cute animals, I would be fine letting kids watch it from time to time.

      • Frog@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Some ways I saw around this is by being in another country, and/or getting some bullshit PhD. I see a lot of chiropractors giving nutrition advice.

        Even if they don’t call themselves doctor, they will say they are a medical practitioner, or health expert because of their self published PDF book or their shitty blog.

        • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Not only that, lots of things that sound like official medical titles aren’t. As such they aren’t protected at all but do mislead the public.

    • Lumidaub@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 hours 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
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours 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.

      • Frog@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 hours 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
          3
          ·
          8 hours 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
            2
            ·
            8 hours 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.