Latest news with #OnlineSafetyAmendment
Scoop
31-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
The Paranoia Of Officialdom: Age Verification And Using The Internet In Australia
Australia, in keeping with its penal history, has a long record of paranoid officialdom and paternalistic wowsers. Be it perceived threats to morality, the tendency of the populace to be corrupted, and a general, gnawing fear about what knowledge might do, Australia's governing authorities have prized censorship. This recent trend is most conspicuous in an ongoing regulatory war being waged against the Internet and the corporate citizens that inhabit it. Terrified that Australia's tender children will suffer ruination at the hand of online platforms, the entire population of the country will be subjected to age verification checks. Preparations are already underway in the country to impose a social media ban for users under the age of 16, ostensibly to protect the mental health and wellbeing of children. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 was passed in November last year to amend the Online Safety Act 2021, requiring 'age-restricted social media platforms' to observe a 'minimum age obligation' to prevent Australians under the age of 16 to have accounts. It also vests that ghastly office of the eSafety Commissioner and the Information Commissioner with powers to seek information regarding relevant compliance by the platforms, along with the power to issue and publish notices of non-compliance. While the press were falling over to note the significance of such changes, little debate has accompanied the last month's registration of a new industry code by the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. In fact, Inman Grant is proving most busy, having already registered three such codes, with a further six to be registered by the end of this year. All serve to target the behaviour of internet service companies in Australia. All have not been subject to parliamentary debate, let alone broader public consultation. Inman Grant has been less than forthcoming about the implications of these codes, most notably on the issue of mandatory age-assurance limits. That said, some crumbs have been left for those paying attention to her innate obsession with hiving off the Internet from Australian users. In her address to the National Press Club in Canberra on June 24, she did give some clue about where the country is heading: 'Today, I am […] announcing that through the Online Safety Act's codes and standards framework, we will be moving to register three industry-prepared codes designed to limit children's access to high impact, harmful material like pornography, violent content, themes of suicide, self-harm and disordered eating.' (Is there no limit to this commissar's fears?) Under such codes, companies would 'agree to apply safety measures up and down the technology stack – including age assurance protections.' With messianic fervour, Inman Grant explained that the codes would 'serve as a bulwark and operate in concern with the new social media age limits, distributing more responsibility and accountability across eight sectors of the tech industry.' These would also not be limited in scope, applicable to enterprise hosting services, internet carriage services, and various 'access providers and search engines. I have concluded that each of these codes provide appropriate community safeguards.' From December 27, such technology giants as Google and Microsoft will have to use age-assurance technology for account holders when they sign in and 'apply tools and/or settings, like 'safe search' functionality, at the highest safety setting by default for an account holders its age verification systems indicate is likely to be an Australian child, designed to protect and prevent Australian children from accessing or being exposed to online pornography and high impact violence material in search results.' This is pursuant to Schedule 3 – Internet Search Engine Services Online Safety Code (Class 1C and Class 2 Material). How this will be undertaken has not, as yet, been clarified by Google or Microsoft. The companies have, however, been in the business of trialling a number of technologies. These include Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP) cryptography, which permits people to prove that an aspect of themselves is true without surrendering any other data; using large language models (LLMs) to discern an account holder's age based on browsing history; or the use of selfie verification and government ID tools. Specialists in the field of information technology have been left baffled and worried. 'I have not seen anything like this anywhere else in the world,' remarks IT researcher Lisa Given. This had 'kind of popped out, seemingly out of the blue.' Digital Rights Watch chair, Lizzie O'Shea, is of the view that 'the public deserves more of a say in how to balance these important human rights issues' while Justin Warren, founder of the tech analysis company PivotNine, sees it as 'a massive overreaction after years of police inaction to curtail the power of a handful of large foreign technology companies.' Then comes the issue of efficacy. Using the safety of children in censoring content and restricting technology is a government favourite. Whether the regulations actually protect children is quite another matter. John Pane, chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA), was less than impressed by the results from a recent age-assurance technology trial conducted to examine the effect of the teen social media ban. And all of this cannot ignore the innovative guile of young users, ever ready to circumvent any imposed restrictions. Inman Grant, in her attempts to limit the use of the Internet and infantilise the population, sees these age restricting measures as 'building a culture of online safety, using multiple interventions – just as we have done so successfully on our beaches.' This nonsensical analogy excludes the central theme of her policies, common to all censors in history: The people are not to be trusted, and paternalistic governors and regulators know better.
Indian Express
30-07-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
YouTube joins list of platforms banned for children under 16 in Australia
After TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X and Snapchat, YouTube has now joined the list of online platforms included in Australia's social media ban for children under the age of 16, BBC reported. YouTube was earlier excluded from the ban, citing the benefits and values it offers to younger Australians. The move comes a month after Australia's internet regulator urged the government to reverse a planned exemption for the video-sharing platform from its world's first national teen social media ban, Reuters noted. Australia is set to put curbs on social media usage of a million teens, beginning this December. It announced the ban initially in November last year by introducing the new Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, which puts the onus on social media companies to prevent children from accessing their platforms. What does the ban on YouTube entail? Teenagers will still be able to view YouTube videos but will not be permitted to have an account, that is required for uploading content or interacting on the platform, according to BBC. Under the ban, the social media platforms, now including YouTube, will need to deactivate existing accounts and prohibit any new accounts, as well as stopping any workarounds and correcting errors, the report underlined. The government, currently awaiting a report on tests of age-checking products, said those results will influence enforcement of the ban, Reuters mentioned. Chief information security officer at cyber security firm Arctic Wolf, Adam Marre, welcoming the Australian government's move said that artificial intelligence has supercharged the spread of misinformation on social media platforms such as YouTube. 'The Australian government's move to regulate YouTube is an important step in pushing back against the unchecked power of big tech and protecting kids,' he wrote over an email. Feud between YouTube and Australia government? The government last year, at the time of introducing the Online Safety Amendment Bill, said that it would exempt YouTube due to its popularity with teachers, as per the report. However, social media platforms Meta, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok, complained. Australia's internet regulator last month urged the government to overturn the exemption on YouTube, citing a survey that found 37 per cent of minors consuming harmful content on the site, in the worst demonstration for a social media platform, Reuters reported. The country's eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant then recommended YouTube be added to the ban as it was 'the most frequently cited platform' where children aged 10 to 15 years saw 'harmful content'. She said social media companies deployed 'persuasive design features' such as recommendation-based algorithms and notifications to keep users online and 'YouTube has mastered those, opaque algorithms driving users down rabbit holes they're powerless to fight against', Reuters quoted. YouTube, over a blog post, accused Grant of giving inconsistent and contradictory advice, discounting the government's own research which found 69 per cent of parents considering the video platform suitable for those under 15, according to the report. 'The eSafety commissioner chose to ignore this data, the decision of the Australian Government and other clear evidence from teachers and parents that YouTube is suitable for younger users,' the report quoted Rachel Lord, YouTube's public policy manager for Australia and New Zealand. Last week, YouTube had told Reuters it had written to the government urging it 'to uphold the integrity of the legislative process'. YouTube also threatened a court challenge, as quoted by local media, however, YouTube has not confirmed the same. What has YouTube stated? In a statement on Wednesday, YouTube, a tech company owned by Google, argued against the ban, saying that the platform 'offers benefit and value to younger Australians.' YouTube also highlighted that its platform is used by nearly three-quarters of Australians aged 13 to 15, and should not be classified as social media, considering its main activity is hosting videos. 'Our position remains clear: YouTube is a video sharing platform with a library of free, high-quality content, increasingly viewed on TV screens. It's not social media,' a YouTube spokesperson stated over an email. The spokesperson also stated YouTube will 'consider next steps' and 'continue to engage' with the government. Why has the ban been introduced? Speaking to the media today, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said, 'Social media is doing social harm to our children, and I want Australian parents to know that we have their backs… We know that this is not the only solution,' he said of the ban, 'but it will make a difference.' Australia Federal Communications Minister Anika Wells, as quoted by the BBC, said that while there is a place for social media, 'there's not a place for predatory algorithms targeting children'. On YouTube threatening a court challenge, Wells said, 'I will not be intimidated by legal threats when this is a genuine fight for the well-being of Australian kids.' What if YouTube and other tech companies refuses to comply? Under the ban, tech companies can fined up to A$50m ($32.5m; £25.7m) if they do not comply with the age restrictions, as per the BBC report. What is Australia's social media ban all about? The Australian law called the ban as one of the 'reasonable steps' to block teen users (below the age of 16) from accessing social media platforms. The Online Safety Amendment Bill 2024 stated, 'There are age restrictions for certain social media platforms. A provider of such a platform must take reasonable steps to prevent children who have not reached a minimum age from having accounts.' PM Albanese had announced via a statement, 'The bill also makes clear that no Australian will be compelled to use government identification (including Digital ID) for age assurance on social media. Platforms must offer reasonable alternatives to users.' Notably, access to online gaming and apps associated with education and health support (like Google Classroom) will be allowed, now barring YouTube from this exemption. Other parts of the world, including, Britain, Norway and European Union countries including France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, have introduced similar curbs on social media usage among teens and children.
Sky News AU
13-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Sky News AU
'I don't care what people say about me': Why Candice Warner wants her daughters on social media despite new age restrictions
Candice Warner has opened up about her and husband David Warner's decision to allow their young daughters to be on social media, explaining why she's not worried about the backlash. The former ironwoman, 40, and Australian cricket star, 38, share daughters Ivy, 10, Indy, nine, and Isla, five, and set up a joint Instagram account for them in October 2023. "During Covid, David was really big on TikTok. He loved doing all the dances and the girls would often get involved," Candice told Stellar. "I saw how much fun we were having as a family. It brought us together on the weekends. "So I started the Instagram account and it was a way for us to teach the girls how to use social media responsibly." Despite having famous parents, Warner said her daughters are "no different to any other kid". "Yes, they've got parents with a high profile, but for us, it was all about putting out a positive image," she said. "At the moment, it's fun. They're not influencers. They're just young girls living their life, having fun, being sporty, and I capture it and I put it on a page." The move comes in the wake of the Federal Government's Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act, passed last year, which set the minimum age for social media accounts at 16. The legislation is expected to be implemented by year's end and cites connections between social media use and mental health issues among young Australians. Warner, who has been outspoken about mental health issues, said she supports the change- but believes education at home is just as crucial. Last month, she opened up about her own struggles following the public fallout from a 2007 incident involving footballer Sonny Bill Williams, which saw her face years of scrutiny and online abuse. "Suicide happens from all this online trolling," she said. "It's very serious." Still, she reiterated that her daughters don't actually run the joint account themselves. "Our girls don't have (personal social media) accounts because I don't believe that young kids have the mental capacity to deal with trolls," she said. "But for us, their joint social media is about teaching our girls how to use it responsibly." Candice added that while both she and David still "experience trolling", shielding their kids from it completely isn't realistic. "I don't care what people say about me, about my husband, about us as a family- it's their opinion, it's not fact. They don't know us," she said. "I'm not here to defend (the girls' social media) page, but I'm here to say that, yes, it can be dangerous. "I truly believe what (Prime Minister) Anthony Albanese is doing is the right thing to protect young adults. "But we also have an obligation as a parent- most parents have social media- to teach our kids how to use it in a positive way." The Warners, who marked their 10th wedding anniversary in April, are "incredibly proud of where we're at in life," she added, "and the parents that we've become." Since retiring from Test cricket in 2024, David has been playing in domestic T20 leagues, including for the Sydney Thunder, and has even hinted at a potential career in politics. Candice, meanwhile, has continued to build her media career, with a regular gig on Triple M's Dead Set Legends radio show every Saturday. If you or anyone you know needs help: Lifeline: 13 11 14 Beyond Blue: 1300 22 4636 Kids Helpline: 1800 55 1800
Herald Sun
11-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Herald Sun
Candice Warner: Marriage to David Warner and why couple are putting daughters on Instagram
Candice Warner reveals why she and husband David have set up a dedicated social media page for their three daughters. Stellar: Happy Mother's Day. You're on the cover of Stellar with your husband, David Warner, and your daughters, Ivy, 10, Indi, 9, and Isla, 5. Three children and lots of props … How was the shoot? Candice Warner: It was so much fun and suited our family to a tee. We had bikes, tennis racquets, balls, hula hoops. That's no different to what our house is like, except I put my foot down because there are no skateboards or bikes in our house. Stellar: You're an extremely close-knit family. Is that shifting as the girls start getting older? Candice Warner: We're still incredibly close. [David] retired from playing cricket for Australia [in 2024] but he's still away a lot. So the girls are my best friends. We do everything together. I'm one of those mothers that loves to be there. I'm present. I'm at school pick-up and I try to do it all because I love that and I had parents like that. The girls are so different. Ivy, she's the sensitive one. I can rely on her for absolutely anything and everything. Indi is the joker, always making us laugh. And then we have Isla, who is the spitting image of David and full of energy. Listen to a new episode of Something To Talk About featuring Candice Warner below: Stellar: One of the biggest hot-button issues this past year has been the conversation surrounding social media and children. Your daughters have a shared Instagram account called The Warner Sisters, managed by yourself and David, which you started in late 2023 – it now has almost 200,000 followers. Tell me about your decision to open an account for them, especially when so many parents are evaluating their kids' relationship with social media? Candice Warner: During Covid, David was really big on TikTok. He loved doing all the dances and the girls would often get involved. I saw how much fun we were having as a family. It brought us together on the weekends. So I started the Instagram account and it was a way for us to teach the girls how to use social media responsibly. Before we post anything, we show them, they can read the comments, it's all about teaching them, guiding them. Our kids are no different to any other kid. They play sport, they like to do dances. Yes, they've got parents with a high profile, but for us, it was all about putting out a positive image… At the moment, it's fun. They're not influencers. They're just young girls living their life, having fun, being sporty, and I capture it and I put it on a page. The Federal Government passed the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act last year, which introduced a minimum age of 16 for accounts on certain social media platforms, noting the link between the rise of social media and the harm to the mental health of young Australians. To be clear, the girls don't manage the account themselves, yourself and David post on their behalf. But how do you navigate issues such as trolling? [Of all the comments we've received] 99.9 per cent have been positive. If there have ever been any negative comments, it's about us as parents, not so much about the kids. In regards to [last year's change in legislation], I definitely support that. Suicide happens from all this online trolling and that's very serious. Our girls don't have [personal social media] accounts because I don't believe that young kids have the mental capacity to deal with trolls. But for us, their joint social media is about teaching our girls how to use it responsibly. They have an input in what we show. I teach them about ignoring negativity. We have experienced trolling. We still experience it… But if you completely block [social media] out and say it doesn't exist, then I don't think you're teaching your kids how to use it properly. If you want to protect your kids in a way where you're not teaching them any life skills, then you're letting your kids down. The Danish royal family recently released an official portrait of Princess Isabella, the 18-year-old daughter of King Frederik and Queen Mary, in which she was holding an iPhone. It sparked huge debate. What do you think that discussion says about us as a society? Everyone is really quick to judge and to point the finger, but let's face it, you might be sitting at the traffic lights and every single person on that bus has their head down on their phone. You go to a park and are playing with your kids [and] the majority of the mums and dads are sitting there on their phones. They're a part of our life, phones aren't going anywhere. Social media isn't going anywhere, but it's about limiting it and using it in a positive way. In speaking about this to Stellar today are you bracing yourselves for potentially negative responses from some people? I don't care what people say about me, about my husband, about us as a family – it's their opinion, it's not fact. They don't know us. I'm not here to defend [the girls' social media] page, but I'm here to say that, yes, it can be dangerous. I truly believe what [Prime Minister] Anthony Albanese is doing is the right thing to protect young adults. But we also have an obligation as a parent – most parents have social media – to teach our kids how to use it in a positive way. Let's not be all doom and gloom about social media. It can be wonderful if we know how to use it correctly and if we can empower or educate or make people smile or laugh. Listen to a new episode of Something To Talk About featuring Candice Warner below: A lot of other high-profile Australians blank out the faces of their children or don't post them on social media, but you and David haven't chosen to do that? We've never found a need to blank our kids' faces out. We're incredibly protective of our girls, don't get us wrong. But I don't feel like someone is going to come and kidnap my daughter if they know what school she's at. I'm not that type of parent. You've got to live a little bit. Just because we have a profile and my husband plays cricket, are we supposed to just live behind four walls and never leave there and never let our kids be seen or heard? If it's good for us, it's good for our kids. And they're very happy. They're thriving. They're really happy young girls. Yes, we're protective but we're also realistic in the world that we live in. You appeared in the newspaper at the age of 14, when you were beginning your ironwoman career. Do you think the pressure you felt as a result of that kind of exposure at a young age differs from your three daughters' experience of living a public life? I know with myself at such a young age, I didn't start putting pressure on myself because my photo was in the paper. I put pressure on myself because I worked really hard and I wanted to achieve at a high level. So pressure is sometimes a good thing. And my girls understand pressure. They play tennis five, six times a week. Most of the time in tennis, you lose; in a tournament, there's only ever going to be one winner. So tennis teaches you how to lose. It teaches you to be resilient, how to keep turning up week after week when you may not have had a win. Almost every parent wants to teach resilience to their children. What's your hack? The best way to teach resilience is to not wrap your kids in cotton wool. A bit of tough love. How can you teach resilience if they've never failed? How can you tell your kids to get back up when they've never fallen? We love our kids and we support them but we also need to let them learn for themselves sometimes. And losing or failing, it doesn't mean that's the end. It means there's going to be growth. Listen to a new episode of Something To Talk About featuring Candice Warner below: You and David celebrated your 10th wedding anniversary last month. How do you reflect on your time together? I'm incredibly proud of where we're at in life, where our kids are at and the parents that we've become. Our relationship is very strong, but it always has been. Certain situations that we've overcome together have made us even stronger. We look at our kids and we see them as our biggest achievements. We're really proud of how far we've come and that we didn't give up along the way. Read the full interview with Candice Warner and see the shoot with the Warner family inside today's Stellar via The Sunday Telegraph (NSW), Sunday Herald Sun (VIC), The Sunday Mail (QLD) and Sunday Mail (SA). And listen to Candice on the Stellar podcast, Something To Talk About, wherever you get your podcasts. For more from Stellar and the podcast, Something To Talk About, click here. Originally published as 'I'm proud of where we're at in life': Candice Warner on marriage to David Warner and why their daughters are on social media
NZ Herald
08-05-2025
- Politics
- NZ Herald
Proposed social media ban for under-16s gains support in Northland
NetSafe had expressed concern around how the ban will work and what the ramifications could be for youth. In Northland, Tai Tokerau Principals' Association spokesman and Whangārei principal Pat Newman was fully supportive. 'We know that in Whangārei we've had teenage suicides as a result of bullying on the internet.' He said some children had been 'scared stiff' to attend school because of cyber-bullying. Newman believed social media allowed for a disconnect that made it easy for young people to write 'nasty, vindictive things'. Children as young as 11 were sending explicit images through social media platforms, too. 'It's easy to send photos of yourself that in 10 years you may not want people to have seen.' Newman said children as young as 9 were organising fights online. The issue came to light in the media last year when a 14-year-old was left with a concussion and other injuries after a violent assault at the Fireworks Spectacular event. The video, circulated widely on social media, showed the boy being kicked in the head. Two students were also assaulted at Kerikeri High School last month, with principal Mike Clent concerned a video of the fight may have been circulating online. Newman believed social media encouraged 'inappropriate adult behaviour' to be undertaken by youngsters. 'We would not let a 10-year-old hop behind the wheel of a fast car and drive off without anybody supervising them,' he said. 'Yet we let them play with and use something just as lethal.' Newman acknowledged social media was a valuable tool in the right hands but people under 16 were still developing. Principals were doing all they could to educate and prevent harm but Newman said a level of responsibility needed to come from parents as well. Netsafe chief executive Brent Carey said Australia's Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill was an example of legislative gaps. 'Our decades of work in this space have shown us the multifaceted nature of these challenges, and effective solutions typically require a more nuanced and long-term approach.' Carey said implementation of the bill and subsequent challenges were of significant concern. Some challenges with Australia's ban included exemptions for platforms like messaging apps, online gaming platforms and services for health and education. 'Such exemptions could lead to inconsistencies in online safety measures and potentially shift risks to less moderated environments.' He said the Australian Human Rights Commission had concerns the ban was a 'blunt instrument' that could inadvertently harm young people by cutting access to support networks. Whangārei Intermediate School learning support co-ordinator Christine Thomson supported the ban. She had observed that students between 10 and 13 years old frequently used social media without supervision. Thomson had seen situations where students had spoken to people posing as teens. Fights were also organised, filmed and posted 'immediately' online, she said. Cyber-bullying had driven some students to be so anxious they avoided school altogether as well. Thomson said the problem was difficult to fully police as pages or groups that were shut down often resurfaced under new profiles. Serious incidents were often reported to Netsafe or police, where required. She felt students were too young to fully understand the responsibility social media use required. Brodie Stone covers crime and emergency for the Northern Advocate. She has spent most of her life in Whangārei and is passionate about delving into issues that matter to Northlanders and beyond.
