To be clear, for teenagers this is basically the equivalent of banning them from watching television or reading the news www.reuters.com/legal/litiga...
Replies
Tbf most teenagers will have no problem getting round these rules.
jul 30, 2025, 9:34 pm • 1 0 • view
That's an empty assertion.
jul 31, 2025, 5:05 am • 0 0 • view
As is that. 🤪
jul 31, 2025, 5:30 am • 0 0 • view
You're the one making the assertion. You're also the one running away from proving the assertion.
jul 31, 2025, 6:08 am • 0 0 • view
Australia's always had a tendency to nanny state.
jul 30, 2025, 8:30 pm • 0 0 • view
Like teens don’t know about VPNs 😂
jul 31, 2025, 5:25 pm • 1 0 • view
"I want Australian parents to know that we have their backs," Albanese lied.
jul 30, 2025, 8:41 pm • 0 0 • view
Only up to 16, though, right. And there are still other sources of information?
jul 31, 2025, 1:20 pm • 0 0 • view
After 2 years of sensory deprivation, that’d be the time to haul out the super secret holographic projection systems to simulate a Martian invasion in order to confound the working class. This was tested out already in the US by Orson Welles with only a radio program.
jul 31, 2025, 5:51 pm • 0 0 • view
Here's me having grown up watching the failed bans on media sharing. It's going to be amusing to watch the Australian government play an outraged and futile game of whack-a-mole as youth find workarounds.
jul 30, 2025, 6:30 pm • 6 0 • view
Gentleman I've got it. We'll simply ban the printing press
jul 30, 2025, 6:36 pm • 11 0 • view
But no ban on gaming. World's most out of control gambling addicted nation... reminder this is all Murdoch driven to protect the legacy media
jul 30, 2025, 9:02 pm • 0 0 • view
Gambling and video gaming are not the same. You need to get your terms right.
jul 31, 2025, 5:10 am • 0 0 • view
I used both terms advisedly. You keep giving good advice.
jul 31, 2025, 5:40 am • 1 0 • view
What's the connection between gambling and video gaming?
jul 31, 2025, 6:07 am • 0 0 • view
Loot boxes
jul 31, 2025, 12:30 pm • 0 0 • view
Because draconian methods have such a wonderful "success" rate. 🤷🏻♂️🤦🏻♂️
jul 30, 2025, 6:51 pm • 10 1 • view
Train children in the way they should go; when they grow old, they won’t depart from it. -- Proverbs 22:6 (CEB)
jul 30, 2025, 6:51 pm • 0 0 • view
Not quite They can still use YouTube or other internet sites, they just can't have an account So they have to watch YouTube adverts It's nonsensical at every possible level
jul 30, 2025, 8:32 pm • 3 0 • view
Not if they watch with Brave browser 😎
jul 30, 2025, 11:45 pm • 0 0 • view
Overreach
jul 30, 2025, 8:33 pm • 0 0 • view
And how do they intend to enforce it? Gesture politics.
jul 30, 2025, 6:27 pm • 1 0 • view
Easy enough, you get Youtube to do it for you, like they've done with the porn websites in the UK. It's just a stupid idea.
jul 30, 2025, 6:40 pm • 0 0 • view
By banning VPNs, it appears
jul 30, 2025, 6:55 pm • 1 0 • view
No, there is no ban on VPNs. You're just making up stuff.
jul 31, 2025, 5:06 am • 0 0 • view
But they can still, er, watch television and read the news. Neither of which have quite so much harmful content. If that matters.
jul 30, 2025, 9:23 pm • 1 0 • view
I am surprised how many of my high school gov students get what they refer to as their “news” from YouTube. TikTok is their other main source. 😒
jul 30, 2025, 10:14 pm • 1 0 • view
YouTube has replaced network tv
jul 30, 2025, 8:10 pm • 0 0 • view
Info on UK Viewing: www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/20...
jul 30, 2025, 8:12 pm • 0 0 • view
I’d like to ban a few people from watching YouTube, but they aren’t kids. They’re angry old men who can’t tell the difference between AI slop and actual things that have happened.
jul 30, 2025, 6:32 pm • 39 2 • view
Good for Australia. And social media does far more (and longer lasting) damage to young minds than any newspaper or television show. It’s a toxic, unregulated mess. More countries should follow.
jul 30, 2025, 6:33 pm • 2 0 • view
And utterly impossible to enforce.
jul 30, 2025, 10:59 pm • 1 0 • view
Ha, what an entirely fake interpretation of the ban.
jul 31, 2025, 5:00 am • 0 0 • view
It's also the equivalent of banning teenagers from swearing.
jul 31, 2025, 2:17 am • 1 0 • view
I’m willing to bet 13-15 year olds who have grown up with internet technology will find workarounds 0.01 seconds after this comes into effect.
jul 31, 2025, 7:53 pm • 1 0 • view
No, it really isn't. This is orobably more like the equivalent of removing them from their abuser.
jul 30, 2025, 8:11 pm • 2 0 • view
Parents will simply let children watch on their accounts (as I do now). The problem is that this will lead to stronger age verification systems, which will cause many parents to stop using the platform altogether, and those who remain will eventually have their ID breached
jul 30, 2025, 11:42 pm • 1 0 • view
No it's not, because they can STILL WATCH YOUTUBE. They just can't have their own account to post videos or comments etc
jul 30, 2025, 9:28 pm • 6 0 • view
If so, it's still a dumb rule but would be less restrictive, I agree. But the government is talking about allowing parents and teachers to show YouTube content to kids, suggesting they might not get it otherwise
jul 30, 2025, 11:13 pm • 1 0 • view
It may be that because the bill was written with social media in mind, they assumed that banning accounts was the same as banning access
jul 30, 2025, 11:16 pm • 2 0 • view
It's perfectly well understood that banning accounts doesn't stop access. It's all about making YouTube less addictive - which it is if the algorithm doesn't know what to serve up to you.
jul 31, 2025, 5:03 am • 0 0 • view
Didn't mean original post to sound aggressive, just stressing the point :) Not sure on the intention, but it could be a good result, if the thinking is the interaction / "insta v reality" type angle of social media that causes the problem? This could reduce that aspect but still allow tv-type use.
jul 30, 2025, 11:22 pm • 2 0 • view
Unfortunately it would prevent kids from creating/publishing their own content, right?
jul 30, 2025, 11:40 pm • 1 0 • view
This is actually a small minority use of YouTube. For the great majority it's mindlessly watching whatever the algorithm throws at them.
jul 31, 2025, 5:04 am • 2 0 • view
Yeah definitely. Shame, but is in line with the aims of the bill
jul 30, 2025, 11:48 pm • 2 0 • view
This sucks, but I'm sure they'll all figure out VPNs in no time.
jul 30, 2025, 6:33 pm • 0 0 • view
Oh, both the Australian and UK governments have thought of that and are looking to ban the use of VPNs (without regard to VPN use in business or government functions of course)
jul 30, 2025, 6:37 pm • 8 2 • view
I'm intrigued as to how some location-specific governments are going to ban something when its whole thing is that it can pretend to be something it isn't to get around location-specific internet regulations.
jul 30, 2025, 7:19 pm • 3 0 • view
That's not the only use of VPNs though. Plenty of enterprise networks use them to allow employees to safely access internal applications.
jul 30, 2025, 7:37 pm • 3 0 • view
Oh sure, I'm not saying there aren't other beneficial and positive uses for the technology as well ... but I'm unclear how they propose to enact such a ban, and whether it will simply be a prohibition on trading that good VPNs will abide by, and will then lead to a rise in less ethical VPNs.
jul 30, 2025, 8:29 pm • 0 0 • view
That would indeed be the most likely outcome
jul 30, 2025, 11:29 pm • 0 0 • view
This is totally fake. There's no proposed ban on VPNs.
jul 31, 2025, 5:11 am • 0 0 • view
When government ministers are clarifying that they have no intention of banning VPNs “at the moment,” as the Minister of Tech did in the UK the other day that means it has 100% been brought up in closed door meetings
aug 1, 2025, 3:51 pm • 0 0 • view
The OP is talking about Australia. It's false to say that banning VPNs has been considered in Australia. Stop the scaremongering.
aug 1, 2025, 7:39 pm • 0 0 • view
“To be clear”. Then obfuscates the truth. Fuck me. To be banned from watching YouTube you would need to put an equivalent to a paywall up that children would need to prove they are over a required age to watch. This isn’t the case this is flat out disinformation
jul 30, 2025, 10:27 pm • 0 0 • view
"The law passed in November only requires "reasonable steps" by social media platforms to keep out Australians younger than 16 . . . The government, which is due to receive a report this month on tests of age-checking products, has said those results will influence enforcement of the ban."
jul 30, 2025, 11:09 pm • 0 0 • view
Maybe like the UK, which just imposed an age-verification requirement
jul 30, 2025, 11:10 pm • 0 0 • view
It's not age verification as normally understood. No documents are required. It's about the companies using their own data plus using various technologies they already use.
jul 31, 2025, 5:09 am • 0 0 • view
But not actually banning them from either of those things. Because you can access them outside of social media.
jul 31, 2025, 2:18 am • 0 0 • view
'YouTube now second only to BBC as media destination' - BBC UK www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...
jul 30, 2025, 7:00 pm • 0 0 • view