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.
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.
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.
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.
Wouldn’t that make many (most?) news sites social media since they let you comment on articles? (IMDB dodged a bullet?)
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.
Ah, I see what you’re saying. That might be a way of looking at it.