Plans To Ban Kids From Watching YouTube
As well as:
npr.org/…/australia-social-media-ban-children
The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment
It sounds like, from my quick skim, that their criteria would also apply to the Threadiverse, as I don’t see any sort of size or revenue restrictions on their definition of its scope. Here’s the bill text:
(1) For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted social media platform means:
(a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:
(i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users;
(ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users;
(iii) the service allows end-users to post material on the service;
(iv) such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules; or
(b) an electronic service specified in the legislative rules;but does not include a service mentioned in subsection (6). Note 1: Online social interaction does not include (for example) online business interaction. Note 2: An age-restricted social media platform may be, but is not necessarily, a social media service under section 13.19 Note 3: For specification by class, see subsection 13(3) of the Legislation Act 2003.
Subsection (6):
(6) An electronic service is not an age-restricted social media platform if: (a) none of the material on the service is accessible to, or delivered to, one or more end-users in Australia; or (b) the service is specified in the legislative rules.
I’m sure that there will be more discussion on this that will probably clarify it.
For the moment, I’m pretty confident based on past case law that the US legal system won’t consider a US-based Threadiverse instance that isn’t actively doing something like advertising to users specifically in Australia or selling products to Australia to be within the legal jurisdiction of Australia, so the US will not enforce Australian law against it. Australia might block a node but shouldn’t be able to fine someone, so blacklisting Australian IP addresses or the like probably isn’t necessary.
I don’t know what the EU’s position on Internet jurisdiction is.
That might be a much more substantial problem for Australia-based instances, like — to name one that comes to mind — aussie.zone.
WalnutLum@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
I don’t agree with a total ban, but the writers of the article downplaying the harmful content on YouTube I think have forgotten the multiple times YouTube has gotten in trouble with advertisers for shit like “elsagate” where they were showing mutilation etc. of Disney characters targeted at children.
There needed to be some kind of regulation, but an outright ban is a bit much.
This feels like they’re trying to drive a tack with a sledgehammer.
Ek-Hou-Van-Braai@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
I a friend their 4 year old was watching YouTube on a tablet
At some point I sat next to him to see what he was watching, It a cartoon where the one character looks evil and has long claws, catches another, stabs it with it's long claws, cuts it head of, hold its corpse about it and drinks litres of blood gushing out. Then gains an aura, pupils dilate and sprouts wings and flies into the sky to attack more creatures.
This wasn't some Anime, it's a kids cartoon made for kids.
I started watching happy tree friends etc. when I was like 13, but what the fuck this is next level.