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.

  • Lumidaub@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year 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.

    • Paragone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      yt was social-media, before they ripped-out massive quantities of comments, for things like, you know,

      • fact checking
      • linking to Wikipedia
      • not pushing the disinformation they find so profitable
      • being objective
      • calling-out disinformation-pushers, establishment or otherwise

      Now that they’ve got an autodelete on any comment linking to Wikipedia, the’re not really “social media” anymore, now they’re “social” media, if you see the difference…

      ( propaganda-for-profit, & controlled, deeply. )

      _ /\ _