Social Media Bans and AO3

Post Header

Published:

2024-12-13 22:05:37 UTC

Tags:

OTW logo with the words 'Spotlight on Legal Issues'

Recently, the Australian Parliament passed the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill as part of the Online Safety Act of 2021 amendment. Starting in late 2025, the bill will prevent teenagers under 16 from using social media platforms including Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter/X. The bill plans to apply enormous fines to tech companies that don’t take measures to prevent minors from creating social media accounts.

Despite its intentions of protecting minors' mental health, the ban has sparked debate over digital censorship and privacy – raising notable concerns related to identity verification, digital access, and freedom of expression. One frequently cited concern is that this ban separates young people from any information and online support networks they may have: many young people primarily receive news on current events from social media and have cultivated online communities where they connect with other young people.

Others critique that setting a ban will lead to problems going unreported by teens who successfully circumvent it. In addition, social media companies have raised further concerns that this bill lacks guidance or advice on implementation.

Experts also comment that the bill lacks input from the group it impacts most – young people. The Australian government has said that they will solicit further expertise from young people, but critics argue that it's too late.

Outside of Australia, other countries have put forth or are discussing similar ideas:

In Norway, the prime minister has announced plans to raise the minimum age to use social media from 13 to 15 in order to better protect young people from the "power of algorithms."
Meanwhile in Turkey, the Information and Communication Technologies Authority announced plans to ban users under 13 from media applications; however, following news of Australia's ban, they adjusted their direction and are now considering a ban of all users under 16.
In the UK, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has also said that a social media ban for people under 16 is "on the table" in the name of online safety.

Understandably, bills like these have raised concerns regarding what counts as "social media" – more directly, whether this bill will affect OTW projects. While the Legal committee is keeping their eye on these and other bills that may affect us, we do not believe these bills will affect any of our projects, including AO3.

While bills like these may not affect AO3, they are a reminder to stay alert and aware of legal changes in your jurisdiction. If applicable, you may also want to contact your local representatives and submit concerns regarding how legislation will affect fans in your country.

Is there a new law that might affect fans or fannish activities in your country? Send us a message about legislation you think we should know about. (Submitting a concern doesn’t guarantee that it will be included in a future Spotlight on Legal Issues post.)

The Organization for Transformative Works is the non-profit parent organization of multiple projects including Archive of Our Own, Fanlore, Open Doors, Transformative Works and Cultures, and OTW Legal Advocacy. We are a fan-run, entirely donor-supported organization staffed by volunteers. Find out more about us on our website.

Actions

Comments

Sorry, this news post doesn't allow comments.

Pages Navigation

Thinker90 Sat 14 Dec 2024 04:22AM UTC

I'm not a teenager, I'm in my 30's. I was never really interested in social media even when I did start using it around 15/16 when FB started overtaking friendster and myspace. I did start to see a big frame of reference separation between my peers and I as the years went by.
Social media is a language. For Gen Z and Gen Alpha it is damn near their mother tongue. To ban social media outright is to cut their tongues out and say, "There is no need for you to speak or be heard." To do it under the guise of safety of minors is the most insidious play of the moral panic crowd.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. GrinningGremlin Sat 14 Dec 2024 04:31AM UTC
  
  I am proud to say you have earned that wonderful name 👍
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. Thinker90 Sat 14 Dec 2024 04:53AM UTC
    
    Thank you, I'm just saying what is evident or what I believe should be evident to those holding the levers of power.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. GrinningGremlin Sat 14 Dec 2024 04:59AM UTC
      
      And your right.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
3. NoSignificantNumber Sat 14 Dec 2024 06:46PM UTC
  
  It is also the laziest play. Rather than tackle the underlying issues, they'd rather issue lazy and simple blanket-restrictions that they hardly even know the technical feasibility of.
  That multiple countries are in a rush to implement the same half-baked idea is just a recipe for a train crash. If it goes as poorly as expected in Australia and in other countries, maybe it'll pour some cold water on this moral panic of the decade.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
hischughes1386 Sat 14 Dec 2024 04:25AM UTC

Thank you for the good work you do. we love you!

Comment Actions
- Thread
anubisisms Sat 14 Dec 2024 04:42AM UTC

Glad to see you guys are keeping on top of the situation and considering the impacts here - I'm well over the age for the ban but as an aussie it's been rough to see the government push things like this through without any sort of input from the people they want to ban. Yes, social media can definitely be damaging to young people but the community it can provide is a valuable benefit they love to ignore. I thrived off connecting with others my age online when I was 16. Helped me really get into fandom and the community surrounding it as well.
If you have a problem, a blanket ban won't solve it - teach kids online safety and common sense when using social media instead of just taking it away because you think that's the best method. Government doesn't seem to understand anything other than negative punishment.

Comment Actions
- Thread
ChloeTheTaco Sat 14 Dec 2024 05:13AM UTC

I have faith in kids around the world to circumvent these restrictions, but they shouldn't have to in the first place. The internet is the only place of refuge for a lot of people before they're old enough to leave home, and their access to it should be protected because of that.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. Stellathyst Mon 16 Dec 2024 06:56PM UTC
  
  I think that the kids who are able to safely get around the age-restrictions might be well-off on the internet anyways
  the only reason a kid would get caught is if they announce that they are a kid and post pictures of themselves/their friends or give away hints of their age.
  if a kid knows the dangers and knows how to avoid giving their age away, they are mature enough to be on social media anyways
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
DAZAI_KUNN Sat 14 Dec 2024 06:26AM UTC

does ao3 count as social media?

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. CloudyLavenders Sat 14 Dec 2024 09:03AM UTC
  
  From what I've read, no. It defines itself as an archive, not a social platform.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. DAZAI_KUNN Sat 14 Dec 2024 02:49PM UTC
    
    ah i see, thank you
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
3. OTW_News_Post_Moderation (Official) Mon 16 Dec 2024 04:24AM UTC
  
  Hello,
  AO3 is not a social media platform and will not be affected by these laws.
  Our Legal team is keeping an eye on these bills as well as others that could affect fandom and we will let you know if this changes.
  Best,
  Chuck
  OTW News Post Moderator
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
Obsessed_with_owls_and_turtles Sat 14 Dec 2024 06:53AM UTC

I'm in my early 20s, but I remember the way I went on tumblr when I was 12 and managed to find a great community and *thrived*. My parents weren't letting me do anything and go anywhere, and I only saw my peers at school. A terrible time for me. The idea of isolating young people like this is absolutely terrible. But as usual, it's easier to talk about 'protecting children', like they're a species of fern, not actual human beings

Comment Actions
- Thread
ruietsu Sat 14 Dec 2024 07:09AM UTC

I don't like the idea of young kids under the age of 13 to be using social media, but for those older it has undeniably integrated into our lives and taking it away isolates teens from the rest of the world. Monitoring what the kids are doing should be the parents' job. The government should not have to step in.

Comment Actions
- Thread
Shyhearted Sat 14 Dec 2024 07:31AM UTC

As an Australian I can say A03 will not be a target. A03 is not considered social media.
The bill has been passed but they have no idea how they’re actually going to make it work.
Kids could just use their parents ID.

Comment Actions
- Thread
trobedyuri Sat 14 Dec 2024 07:32AM UTC

It feels like there’s a new ao3 ban scare every other week atp 😭

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. CloudyLavenders Sat 14 Dec 2024 09:21AM UTC
  
  Thankfully it seems the OTW is super on top of everything but that doesn't stop me from quaking in my non-existent boots
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. MalcontentCatboy Sat 14 Dec 2024 10:48AM UTC
  
  This really can't and won't affect AO3 because it's an American site. The worst these countries could do is ban it with a national firewall, but that may not be possible for several of them to implement and would be easily defeated if they tried.
  If the US tried it would be more worrying, but it's very likely that would not fly in the US as it is unconstitutional. It's already been ruled the president can't block people on Twitter so I don't see how this sort of thing would be acceptable. It also would be highly damaging to the politicians dumb enough to support it, just like the TikTok ban.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
Lady_Moira_Reyes Sat 14 Dec 2024 07:34AM UTC

It always frustrates me that laws are made to 'protect children online'. It IS parents' responsibility to teach their children online safety. And they can look up online on how they can do that. And given how the government will not mandate the ID show alongside teenagers being tech smart people, this law will crumble like house of cards. It doesn't help that UNICEF in Australia raised a concern that teens will go to the unregulated websites.

Last Edited Sat 14 Dec 2024 10:12AM UTC

Comment Actions
- Thread
ashkazora Sat 14 Dec 2024 08:39AM UTC

Aussie, here. The government has no plan to realistically regulate these changes as they will not mandate the showing of ID to these social media companies.

Comment Actions
- Thread
Mithrelles Sat 14 Dec 2024 10:02AM UTC

I personally think it is actually very healthy to monitor minors' usage of social media platforms. People are very unaware of the long term effects of what it does to children and it needs to be controlled. There is no reason a minor should be on these platforms listed. Absolutely none. However, a more reasonable approach would have been moderation control, rather than straight up bans and if that solved nothing, last resort. I think is incredibly dishonest to blanket this ban under the rug as "censorship" when it's not. It's just preventing an easily exploitable and impressionable group of people (children) from accessing something that can and has been linked to all sorts of issues--including predators using these platforms to hunt down children/minors.
Let's not just discuss the negatives of this here, but also the positives, otherwise this does nothing to the discussion.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. MalcontentCatboy Sat 14 Dec 2024 10:56AM UTC
  
  You're preventing entire classes of people from speaking in the modern public square. That is by definition censorship. Further, you're preventing those same people from accessing the speech of others, which is censorship. In the process, you're compromising the rights and privacy of the entire population by requiring them to prove their age, which in itself is a form of censorship because many people will be silenced by their loss of privacy. Most importantly, to actually enforce this, a country would literally have to directly censor the internet at its border because no international social media site will comply with these demands. Not one.
  The long term effect of laws like this is loss of personal rights for everyone. I'm far more worried about that than anything the bunk science you're alluding to, but conspicuously not actually citing, claims may happen.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. Mithrelles Tue 17 Dec 2024 01:33AM UTC
    
    I don't agree that keeping impressionable and vulnerable children from social platforms is censorship. There are plenty of websites in which we monitor minor use, and no one bats an eye. Youtube. Netflix. Amazon. The list can and cetainly does go on, and for good reason. You're arguing for absolute free access to platforms that have been linked through multiple studies across the world by professionals who know far more about the dangers than you or I, to contribute to critial issues such as predatory natures against children ranging from sexual abuse to addiction access like gambling, contributes to the mental health epidemic of children and the easy-access of wildly inappropriate data to them. This is not the world deciding that all poor people or all people of a specific ethnicity or political group etc etc ought not to view these websites, and it is intellectual dishonesty that you would try to paint the two as comparable situations when they are, without a doubt, not the same.
    There is no reason anyone under the age of 16yr olds should have access to websites in which, for example, pornographic content is readily and easily available. Where predators can contact them through comments or DMs. Where they can and will be exposed to dangerous practices such as gambling, drinking or drugs. It isn't "bunk science" just because you don't like it. It is a fact that you want to throw aside because you're fearmongering that banning CHILDREN from social media will somehow lead to direct and overreaching wide-armed censorship of the internet. This is asinine conclusion jumping, the very same disingenuous and wildly insane rhetoric that Republicans spew on a day to day basis to control what they want and do what they want. "If we do that, THE FLOOD GATES OPEN". You cannot be serious with this nonsense.
    
    Last Edited Tue 17 Dec 2024 01:34AM UTC
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. ClosetSkeleton Wed 18 Dec 2024 05:04PM UTC
      
      I totally agree! So weird to see people argue kids should basically have unfettered access to social media when we’re learning every day just how damaging it can be to kids developmentally and socially. Kids are vulnerable, that’s why we restrict their activities and access to places in IRL all the time: casinos, bars, strip clubs, sex shops, etc. it’s not unreasonable to restrict areas of the internet as well. How we do that effectively and ethically is up for debate, but I see a lot of people in the comments acting like the mere discussion of restricting access is some form of abuse or infringement of children’s rights.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. LordiTheRailgun Wed 18 Dec 2024 08:48PM UTC
        
        I do agree that aspects of the internet and social media can have a negative impact on youths. Anecdotal but I've seen it happen in real life. That said, I believe this bill is rather excessive, poorly planned, and won't necessarily fix everything. For young people at risk, it might actually make everything a whole lot worse. Granted, that is a minority of teenagers in general but it's a group that's worth protecting.
        Personally, I think this is some level of overreach. I get wanting to protect kids but at the same time, I do also think parents should be more involved in what their kids do on the internet. Of course, there are ways to hide your tracks like incognito mode and deleting browser history and stuff like that. Plus media literacy is not all parents are well-versed in and minors can and will and do lie about their ages online. Which, btw, won't be fixed by this bill at all. People will just find a way to walk around it.
        Absolutely there are issues with the way things are working, but this solution doesn't feel like the right one. As I said in another comment, it's a bit like "shoving a square brick in a round-shaped problem."
        Granted, this is a complex issue that surely can't be solved by a couple of randos on a fanfic site. I'm a military-grade idiot. I couldn't come up with a solution even if you paid me lol. But I don't think banning social media is going to be the answer and given the immense public outcry that this bill has brought from several experts and digital rights activists as well as the public and whatnot, I think it's fair to consider that the bill absolutely has problems.
        I hope this rambling made sense. I come in peace and these are just my thoughts.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      2. ClosetSkeleton Wed 18 Dec 2024 10:41PM UTC
        
        I actually agree with you. I think the roll out of a bill like this is not going to work in the long run. I think that its consequences have not been fully examined. However, I do hope it opens up a dialogue about this issue as it becomes increasingly obvious that social media has negative impacts on minors.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        LordiTheRailgun Thu 19 Dec 2024 09:05AM UTC
        
        *high fives in casual conversation without bitterness!
        Ahem, I do agree. I hope this also will also make these lawmakers actually do a double take every time they come up with these laws and bills. That would be ideal but...
        I'm far too cynical and jaded to believe they will with how often we find ourselves with these poorly thought out proposals but hey, a random loser on the internet (me) can always dream lol.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        Mithrelles Fri 20 Dec 2024 10:50PM UTC
        
        That was no rambling, it made complete sense! No one in their reasonable mind will engage you negatively for being so receptive to discussion, reasonable and clear with your words. And if they do, my advice is that they are not worth your time or concern!
        I very much agree on that parent point. It's unbelievable how much of the problem could be resolved by an engaging parent that safely moderates and monitors their child's activities in life and online. They are certainly the core cause of issues. They stick an iPad in a 3yrs face to avoid parenting them, and then 5yrs later, wonder why their child freaks out when the phone is taken away from them. This is an extremely on point argument to make. You're also right that this solution is far too extreme. And even if they get it to work, there's no real protection in it. How do they verify who is a minor? Are they going to require Twitter to verify age? And if so, how is that not dangerous information being given? What if there is a predator monitoring that information? The list just goes on and on.
        I can understand the desire behind Australia's actions. There is a growing problem. But reacting with only extremes will undoubtedly solve nothing, and prevent more backsteps than anything. Because without a doubt, when these things happen, there will be ways around them, and dangerous people to exploit these "safety nets" to attack/prey upon the very people this is aimed to protect.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      3. MalcontentCatboy Wed 18 Dec 2024 09:34PM UTC
        
        It is an infringement of children's rights and it's pretty creepy how willing you are to bend yourself into a pretzel to say it isn't. More importantly, it's an infringement of everyone's privacy rights to not have to show ID to use the internet.
        Anything can potentially be harmful. That doesn't mean you have a right to dictate that others don't have the right to see or do it. Human rights exist, even if you hate it.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      4. ClosetSkeleton Wed 18 Dec 2024 10:35PM UTC
        
        I already said that HOW we go about restricting access is up for debate. I think showing ID is not a good way to do it, but there are other options in mitigating social media usage and its negative effects. I think there is an interesting discussion to be had about it.
        And creepy? What are you trying to imply here? It’s creepy that I think that children should not be allowed in spaces frequented by adults and have had many studies showing the negative impact on their mental well-being? Facebook’s own internal documents show that they know there are negative mental health impacts on young girls using their platform.
        Children don’t have the same rights as adults, and for good reason: they are not fully developed people. They cannot consent to sex, get married, get a tattoo, work a 9-5, gamble, or smoke cigarettes. Why? Because we know it can have negative impacts on them and they are not old enough to understand those negative impacts and consent to the possibility of incurring them. Adults have a duty to protect children from things that are detrimental for their healthy development, even if they do not like it.
        
        Last Edited Thu 19 Dec 2024 04:10AM UTC
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      5. Mithrelles Fri 20 Dec 2024 10:15PM UTC
        
        It makes them uncomfortable to realize that unlimited access for minors to dangerous and inappropriate platforms isn't a good thing. Pew Research did several surveys from 2020-2023 and they found that 85% of teens on social media spent so much time on social media, the teens themselves said that they know they could not mentally handle not having free access suddenly. Is that the kind of addiction that we want children to form at the most impressionable part of their growing? Now, I don't think Australia should have gone to the extreme it did straight off the bat, but I can understand the position that incited the reaction. I'm aware enough to realize there are serious negatives with it. With parents unwilling to control their children and the dangers just too wide a thing to properly moderate online, they are doing what they can to protect a group of statistically endangered persons. Is it a perfect reaction? No, of course not, but it could pave way for a better way of moderation or even a better way to end up protecting these groups without greatly impacting their access. The issue is that someone HAS to at least try and not just let it continue because of a hyerbole that "oh it will lead to complete and utter censorship of the internet".
        I do see the argument and agree entirely that social media platform or general internet access is extremely benefitial to the youth, but most other platforms have systems in place to protect children. Social media largely does not. With unfettered access, and no moderation in what they are doing, it becomes extremely dangerous.
        That was what I was trying to get through with that other person. I expected a lot I think, because they seemed very intelligent and engaging argumentively, but then accused me of things (bad faith arguing itself) and the froze their replies so that I could not respond (more bad faith arguing). It really opened my eyes, because I went back through the replies and realized how completely unbending they were with the concept that unrestricted access was dangerous for the youth to have.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
    3. MalcontentCatboy Wed 18 Dec 2024 09:48PM UTC
      
      "multiple studies across the world by professionals who know far more about the dangers than you or I"
      Pseudoscience from fraudsters. You know that, too, because you again intentionally avoided citing them even after I pointed out that unwillingness in my first response.
      "contributes to the mental health epidemic of children"
      Might have more to do with having a large part of their lives locked in doors under threat of arrest than the internet, the very thing that allowed them to still have some contact with human society during it.
      "easy-access of wildly inappropriate data to them"
      According to you. Very curious: can you give us a complete, comprehensive list of that "inappropriate data" right here, right now?
      "and it is intellectual dishonesty that you would try to paint the two as comparable situations when they are, without a doubt, not the same."
      Yet here you are, making sweeping statements built upon studies you refuse to cite because you know they don't stand up to scrutiny and defending them with dog whistles. Here you are, doing your best to justify locking out a massive segment of the population from communication with their peers, communication with their elected officials, access to news, access to communities around the world, "inappropriate data," and generally ideas from outside their local bubble. Here you are justifying policies which will impact everyone's privacy, as has been proven repeatedly across the world, not just the group you feel entitled to censor.
      "There is no reason anyone under the age of 16yr olds should have access to websites in which, for example, pornographic content is readily and easily available."
      So you're telling us right here and right now, you do think anyone under 16 should be banned from accessing this very site. Thank you.
      "Where predators can contact them through comments or DMs."
      That's literally any communication service, including text messages and postal mail. So in your ideal world, children cannot receive a Christmas card. Thank you.
      "Where they can and will be exposed to dangerous practices such as gambling, drinking or drugs."
      Back to the same spiel as with video games, I see.
      "It isn't "bunk science" just because you don't like it."
      It's bunk science because it is. It's bunk science and you know it is because you refused to actually cite it because you know we can look up the people and institutions behind it. It's easier to be vague and pretend the science is somehow settled, when instead you're making an argument from authority with absolutely no authority to back it up.
      "It is a fact that you want to throw aside because you're fearmongering that banning CHILDREN from social media will somehow lead to direct and overreaching wide-armed censorship of the internet."
      Most implementations of these laws utilize government IDs being sent to websites. That's not fearmongering, that's fact. For fearmongering, look in the mirror.
      "This is asinine conclusion jumping, the very same disingenuous and wildly insane rhetoric that Republicans spew on a day to day basis to control what they want and do what they want."
      I can't say what I want to about this statement, but I'll say this: we can see what you're saying. You're not fooling anyone.
      You're engaging in bad faith an you have made that apparent.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Frozen
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
3. forgotten_totoro Sat 14 Dec 2024 01:20PM UTC
  
  I agree! I also believe that parts of AO3 are not appropriate for minors and for kids under the age of 16. A lot of people are complaining about lack of connection to online friends, which is understandable, but I think that 16 is around the time a lot of people actually start making online friends so it's not exactly a huge concern. I do have concerns about the logistics and credibility of how they enforce and implement this ban, but I think at its heart it genuinely seeks to protect children, which the big social media companies are not doing at the moment and you cannot rely on all parents to monitor their child's internet usage safely.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
4. 1. GarfieldJL Tue 17 Dec 2024 01:33AM UTC
    
    If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you on Saturn.
    Many Governments have lost all credibility after the COVID lock downs, especially when they say "it's for the children."
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. Mithrelles Tue 17 Dec 2024 01:50AM UTC
    
    I do not understand this desire to let children go wherever they want. They do not even have fully developed brains. It is a biological fact. And numerous studies over decades of research have shown that they are an extremely impressionable group. I can understand the argument that children, specifically teenagers, should have a way to communicate with others, especially across the world, but not at the general cost of the group itself. At one point, we need to weight the benefits over the negatives. Why let 10,000k kids suffer, for example, so that 1,000 can go onto social media?
    At the very least, let us at least consider age verification somehow for these platforms, so that minors cannot see adult content or engage with adults and predators easily.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  3. 1. MalcontentCatboy Wed 18 Dec 2024 09:51PM UTC
      
      Cite your sources.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
5. tactfulthaumaturgy Sun 15 Dec 2024 12:04AM UTC
  
  I disagree. Not letting teenagers have a voice that isn't controlled by their parents is bad enough, but you have to consider it in the context of current events. If Project 2026 achieves its goal, much of the information on the USA internet will be wiped out, on social media or otherwise. Hell, they want to remove the word "gender identity", "marginalized" (and many others) from the text of all laws, you think they won't take down websites for having any info they idealogically disagree with?
  If that happens, Australian teenagers who are locked out of social media will have much fewer places to turn for for advice if they can't trust their parents on a topic.
  For instance, are there no homophobic or transphobic Australians? Not a single one? Is it still worth it to you if those children, having no idea that they aren't alone and don't have to suffer forever, end their lives?
  You may say I'm jumping to extremes, but that's the exact reality people are worried about under Project 2026. The Australian government should really think about what kind of effect this will have on children with little IRL support for their struggles.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
6. 1. Mithrelles Tue 17 Dec 2024 01:41AM UTC
    
    I don't see how Project 2025 connects to other countries also wishing to ban children from social media? I will not argue against the project itself, as I think it is terrible and should not be allowed to happen, but just because Project 2025 is absolutely insane, does not mean the suggestion that children should not be accessing social media (at least without moderation) is a bad thing. It has been proven time and time again how negatively these platforms are for minors. It's not like Australia decided one day, "Hey, I really hate children, let's keep them off social media". They decided this off of years of research and data that these platforms are extremely unhealthy and unsafe for children.
    I do think you are jumping to extremes, but despite that, you have a valid point about safe spaces for those who cannot achieve that anywhere else. I will ask this: how do you think social media helps those children, in that case? And how could that help be applied elsewhere, so that it won't have to rely on social media? And why should that stasitical minority far outweight the enormity of the harm these platforms do to children? I am more than willing to acknowledge if I am wrong, but as I have seen what these platforms can do to children, it will be a very tough sell, I think.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. tactfulthaumaturgy Wed 18 Dec 2024 01:31PM UTC
      
      The concern I was expressing was not for other countries wishing to ban children from social media (though that is certainly a concern I have!) but of other countries potentially passing laws banning the distribution of certain information, or regulating it to websites that are 18-over only. For instance, given the rampant transphobia in England, I could see something like Section 18 being reenacted but just about trans people this time. In that case, all websites hosted in England would be forced to either remove mention of trasngender people from their content, lock their content to 18+ only, or operate outside the law.
      Should such laws be passed, and that information wiped out of public-access websites, the only way for e.g. closeted trans youth to access any information or speak to people who are supportive to them would be attempting to access websites hosted in countries that have not banned such information being accessed by minors, or attempt to find support groups on social media who are evading those restrictions extrajudicially. But of course, if people need to start uploading legal I.D. in Australia to access government websites, this would make it impossible for children under 16 to access such information. This is bad enough just on the face of it, but becomes worse if you consider the possibility of transphobic or homophobic parents monitoring their internet use/what websites they go on. Social media sites, particularly on chatrooms like Discord, are harder to track in terms of exactly what content you're accessing. For instance, on many chatrooms you can simply delete messages that your parent wouldn't approve of (such as discussing LGBT+ issues). Of course this can be used for evil, but it is also often a lifeline for closeted children and teens.
      In terms of social media platforms being bad for children, I agree that the current state of social media is bad for children. However, I do think there are probably ways to improve it without so much risk of totally isolating LGBT youth. For instance, enacting more laws about paid online sponsorships (like influencers promoting diet teas), or maybe regulating the kinds of advertisement and algorithmic-suggestion that social media sites are allowed to use (like recommending content that makes people upset because they're more likely to keep scrolling). Maybe limiting the type of data that sites can collect, such as the GPDR. I'm certainly not an expert, these are just ideas I came up with off the top of my head.
      (Also, in a comment to another person you mentioned that your brain isn't fully developed at 16. If you're referring to the study I think you're referring to, it was never actually proven that the brain stops developing at 25-- the final range of data they had for the longitudinal study being age 25 was because *that was when the study ended.* Right up until the end, it showed that peoples' brains were still developing and changing even at 25. So while I won't say it certainly means one thing or another thing in this argument, this 'brain develops at 25' thing is, to my understanding, a misrepresentation of the data.)
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. MalcontentCatboy Wed 18 Dec 2024 10:03PM UTC
        
        Thank you for pointing out the brain thing. I am so tired of hearing the brain development claims, to the point I consider it a meme. I've heard people arguing to and beyond age 30 for brain development, as if they believe what was approaching the average lifespan in some historical time periods isn't sufficiently developed to drink a beer or have sex. The fact is the human brain develops until it starts to degrade, that's how brains work.
        The amount of evil agendas that are repeatedly propped up on that dog whistle really shows how damaging bad science and bad citation can be for discourse.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      2. LordiTheRailgun Wed 18 Dec 2024 11:14PM UTC
        
        Lol makes me think of the "humans only use 10% of their brain capacity" claim a few years back. I'm not smart but I'm certain if that was the case, we'd all be clinically brain-dead.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      3. Mithrelles Fri 20 Dec 2024 10:43PM UTC
        
        I understand that concern completely. I think the situation is far more complicated than most people seem to realize. And each side of the argument only wants to see the negatives or the positives of opposing arguments or their own, which solves absolutely nothing. I especially agree for the trans issue you bring up. There are platforms that offers spaces for them to talk or seek help or anything they need, such as Reddit. That is a site that offers that kind of unmeasurable support for a numerous of issues too.
        We are in general agreement then. I think my stance was greatly misunderstood by MalcontentCatboy and I wasn't even provided a way to respond to their accusations/arguments. I acknowledge these risks and believe something should be done, and believe that Australia's actions were far too extreme (especially so soon in attempts to even fix it). That's all and I made that clear from the start. There's no real way to moderate time on the platform though, and even if there were, we would be approaching dangerous practices of moderation and censorship like South Korea does (which has prompts and locks based on hours online, especially as a youth). You say you not an expert, but it's funny because you offered far better solutions straight off the bat. lol the problem with this though, is that loses money, and Twitter and TikTok covets that more than anything else and so won't try even an ounce of that. I agree either way; those would have been far more suitable solutions. And then if it continued to be an issue and Twitter for example could not moderate itself, enforce them to do it instead.
        As for the research I'm referring to, no that's not the one, or you would have to provide it because it does not sound familiar to me. I am discussing the biological understanding that staggering development of the brain for youth is still going until around 16yrs of age. All development beyond that continues, this is called "remodelling", and it occurs until you pass about 30-35. What is failed to understand with these studies mentioned, is that they are not saying those changes at that later age, are significant, only that remodelling keeps going for quite some time. Those are minor changes, completely insignificant in the general construction of say the prefrontal cortex. Think of it [that later stage remodelling] as the same way that every day of your life, your cells die and get replaced. I am referring to the speed and significance of development in say myelinogenesis, during the ages of 1 to 10 and 10 to about 16. What this means, is that between those years, the growth that happens in the previously mentioned "remodelling", is significant as opposed to those at later ages.
        Those research groups are not saying that the growth that happens between the ages of 20 and 35 is the same as the ages of 1 through 20, only that the initial development as a youth, continues and is extremely important for the complete function of a developed brain in later stages of life.
        Here is one research on the topic that is extremely interesting to read...or at least it is to me (studying to be a cognitive psychologist lol).
        https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3621648/
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
  3. GarfieldJL Tue 17 Dec 2024 01:49AM UTC
    
    Project 2025 is a wishlist of some Right Wing Groups in the US, and is not affiliated with President Trump whom has said he hasn't even read it.
    Also given how little the American Right trusts Government at the moment, I don't see too much to worry about.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  4. 1. tactfulthaumaturgy Wed 18 Dec 2024 01:44PM UTC
      
      Assuming you were engaging in good faith, your information is outdated.
      Trump said in July that “(...) I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal (...)" X to doubt on him having no idea who The Heritage Foundation is, since several of his admin picks are associated with Project 2025. Peter Navarro in particular, a trade advisor in the former Trump administration, has been re-nominated for a position after authoring a chapter of the Project 2025 manifesto. Either way, he says he "disagrees with *some* of the things they're saying", meaning he agrees with at least some of it. Of course, he declined to elaborate on which exactly of these proposals he liked.
      Ah, see, you've made the fatal error of assuming that the Right aren't total hypocrites. Overreach is fine when they do it (they intend to put a nationwide ban on a medical procedure specifically because it makes them feel icky and they don't want it in their country!) of course, they're just.... (spins wheel, throws dart) protecting The Family and American Values :)
      What effects P2025 will have on the American people's ability to live authentically as themselves or even just attain basic quality of life are yet to be determined, but given some of the stuff I saw in what of the manifesto I could stomach to read thus far, it is not looking good for access to LGBT+ resources, particularly for minors. I'm just grateful that, knock on wood, AO3 might be relatively unscathed, and worst case would move their servers to a different country (though what changes that might bring to their mission to archive all fannish content we won't know)
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. GarfieldJL Wed 18 Dec 2024 08:05PM UTC
        
        You realize he could have read it after he was repeatedly asked about it right?
        I haven't read Project 2025, but I'd imagine there are things I'd agree with and things I'd disagree with, but I'm going to form my own opinion.
        I'm going to refrain from discussing the other topic you brought up because that it is unrelated to the attempt of the Government of Australia to stifle political dissent (which is arguably a slide towards authoritarianism).
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      2. MalcontentCatboy Wed 18 Dec 2024 10:16PM UTC
        
        Every politician is a hypocrite and you shouldn't try to justify them by making exceptions.
        Project 2025 is exceptionally long and I'm confident in saying it is longer than Trump's attention span, even if he was having it summarized for him. It's so long it's not really practical to talk about as a whole. It's also written by multiple people who I don't think agreed on all the points, or maybe even most of them. A few sections have alternative versions that directly disagree. The result is that there are some things in it that are good ideas and some that are completely insane, plus a lot more that are just irrelevant.
        So I think he took the most diplomatic way to say "don't know, don't care" possible. The fact is, Trump doesn't need or want people to tell him their ideas, he has an answer to everything. They're often changing and usually poorly considered, but they're his answers, by God! The suggestion he would devote his term to trying to shove through a bunch of largely unpopular policy requests from a third party he had no input on just doesn't fit with the character we know him to be.
        However, that doesn't mean nothing bad will happen. I could easily see some sort of federal age/ID verification system under a republican house-senate-president. But it's not like the democrats aren't up for doing the same; they'll probably vote for it like they do with most of the worst things the republicans propose (and vice-versa).
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
energy_flxwers Sat 14 Dec 2024 10:18AM UTC

as an australian, this bill is scary. no doubt this will isolate minors from accessing online information. i hope it doesn't affect ao3—fanfiction was my saving grace as a teenager

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. CloudyLavenders Sat 14 Dec 2024 11:06AM UTC
  
  From what I know, Ao3 doesn't define itself as a social media platform, but rather as an archive.
  
  Last Edited Sat 14 Dec 2024 12:22PM UTC
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
Sedineeseeds Sat 14 Dec 2024 10:45AM UTC

These people never actually give a fuck about the safety of kids but rather the lining of their own pockets. I can't wait till the older generations phase out of government they really shouldn't be there.

Comment Actions
- Thread
knight7272 Sat 14 Dec 2024 10:48AM UTC

i think in theory it is a sound idea to restrict kids under 16 from social media but in practice has not been thought through fully

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. CloudyLavenders Sat 14 Dec 2024 12:24PM UTC
  
  Not at all. The Australian government doesn't even know how to implement it yet, expecting the apps and sites to figure it out around the same time they do. The bill has already passed, what do you mean you don't know how it even works?
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. knight7272 Sat 14 Dec 2024 01:06PM UTC
    
    the problem that this bill runs into is the same as the one all others did, no-one thought it through fully before bringing to be a bill for voting on
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
planettenko Sat 14 Dec 2024 11:29AM UTC

im aussie, and im just concerned that this entire thing will just turn into an id tracker system. post a negative take on the internet? well, the government has your id. idk i dont think itll affect me personally, but i have friends who are super vocal about their distaste of the gov lol. i reckon its pretty stupid, but hey, what can you do about it now? not like we'll have any input lmfaoo

Comment Actions
- Thread
woegy Sat 14 Dec 2024 12:56PM UTC

Why has it gotta be my country like cmon. It’s not fair they pass this bill without even considering how it might affect young people- we live in an age where EVERYONES on the internet, everyone’s communicating online, everyone has social media, you cant can’t stop it. There’s no way it’s sticking around for very long.
What’s even stupider is they don’t even know how they’re going to enforce it, like what’s stopping a 13-year-old from signing into an account in their parents name? So dumb.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. LordiTheRailgun Sat 14 Dec 2024 02:30PM UTC
  
  My deepest sympathies. Idk what they are smoking over there or why other countries want some of that dank ol' kush. It's like a parasite of incompetence and malice that seems to spread without consideration of who it actually affects. Hell, I don't even live there and my brain is breaking from the madness.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
car0_s3n3 Sat 14 Dec 2024 01:15PM UTC

ao3 stays winning #winnerslovewinning #loveprevails #hurt/comfortprevails

Comment Actions
- Thread
bookfanatic_genius_weirdo Sat 14 Dec 2024 01:46PM UTC

I'm an Aussie (and a teenager), and tbh, this ban makes no sense. It was rushed into and not thought out at ALL, evidenced by the complete lack of announced methods of age verification (or list of platforms that are going to be banned. Twitter, FB, Snapchat, and TikTok are a given, but apart from that, they haven't really said anything. All they've said is "some platforms won't be included. Okay, what platforms? Are you gonna ban Tumblr (which hasn't been brought up AT ALL, at this point (I think))? What's your criteria for platforms that are not going to be affected?).If they're gonna just leave it up to the individual platforms… They really won't do much. They do not like this one bit and will probably just do the bare minimum, which will probably have tonnes of loopholes. If they do implement stronger methods (AI age/face verification, ID verification), it's either gonna be faulty, have tonnes of loopholes or just be a risk to privacy (I'm sure I don't have to explain why).This ban is also not gonna stop kids who have accounts where they are fifty years old or whatever, so… Yeah. ALSO, because this ban has a year to go into affect, kids have heard about it and are just gonna make new accounts with higher false ages to transfer their data to. So, yeah, there's gonna be a tonne of loopholes, and already is. The truth is, kids can find loopholes for almost anything, and this ban won't stop them because it has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese. Really, instead of limiting age, teaching online safety should be prioritised. This also punishes (wrong word… kinda) teens to some extent… y'know… I have friends who have made friends and joined communities and have generally been more free to express themselves on the internet. This ban… it's just gonna take that away. Anyways… that's my take on this. It's really just regurgitating what a lot of other people have said, but considering this ban is happening where I live, I just wanted to comment and criticise it. :) (Also, it's 99.99% sure that AO3 is not going to be affected, based on the Australian government's criteria for social media.)
Edit: OH GODS, THIS WAS LONG. Sorry guys.

Last Edited Sat 14 Dec 2024 01:49PM UTC

Comment Actions
- Thread
LordiTheRailgun Sat 14 Dec 2024 02:16PM UTC

....*Sigh*
I'd be chuffed if governments would go cold turkey on whatever censorship/ban/powertrip drug they all appear to be cramming down their throats by the truckloads.
What the hell is even going on at this point? I'm not loving this current trend.

Comment Actions
- Thread
1. NoSignificantNumber Sat 14 Dec 2024 06:51PM UTC
  
  Personally I'd not be so bothered if there wasn't such a rush to do this in the laziest manner possible. They want a simple fix for a complicated problem.
  People cite some kind of big, worldwide national ID scheme, but what I see as much more likely is a case of copycats and companies selling age-verification tech lobbying lawmakers (after all, you'd be practically swimming in money if the majority of the world depended on YOUR tech.)
  I'm sure the trend won't last forever, but the sooner it ends, the less headaches it entails down the line, I will also say.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread
2. 1. LordiTheRailgun Sat 14 Dec 2024 08:46PM UTC
    
    Indeed. I'd love it to end soon.
    They seem to be pushing these bills out with no nuance or thought whatsoever, indifferent to anything from people cheating the system to the standards of free information they set to security risks and the commodification of their citizens or that these bills can very easily hit certain people disproportionally.
    For example, Australia only wants people aged sixteen and above to use social media. But in their incompetence, they have inadvertently created a system where everyone has to prove they are sixteen and above via personal ID.
    It's not very well thought out but in conjunction with your theory of lobbyists lining their pockets, the incompetence makes "sense" - although I am wondering if it's not outright malicious greed at this point. Would explain why they keep trying again and again despite vicious backlash every time.
    Not to say that the current system is perfect either. It's just that this seems to be overkill and ultimately a giant farce that tries to shove a square brick in a round-shaped problem. And the rest of us have to deal with it.
    
    Comment Actions
    - Thread
    - Parent Thread
  2. 1. GarfieldJL Tue 17 Dec 2024 02:24PM UTC
      
      They are pushing it to silence dissent and so the government sanctioned propaganda can't be questioned by the unwashed masses.
      Look at how governments lied to the people they are supposed to serve and locked down their countries during the COVID hysteria.
      
      Comment Actions
      - Thread
      - Parent Thread
    2. 1. MalcontentCatboy Wed 18 Dec 2024 09:55PM UTC
        
        Unfortunately, I have the same opinion. Children being on social media is much more of a threat to the government than it is to the children. It's easier to keep them siloed to their families and hearing what is taught in (government run or sanctioned) school than to let them interact with the world at large. It's especially sinister when combined with how chummy mainstream media always is with the government (even when it pretends otherwise). It's even more sinister with how there is a trend now of banning international media for vague reasons, like TikTok and RT. You don't have to like those places to see the direction this is all headed.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
      2. GarfieldJL Thu 19 Dec 2024 12:20AM UTC
        
        Tik Tok kinda cooked their own goose when they used Spyware on journalists and possibly members of Congress. Additionally, the government of China is considered a bad actor. The ban could be overkill, but they kinda did it to themselves.
        As for the rest of the media, Reuters current scandal illustrates your point perfectly.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
        
        MalcontentCatboy Thu 19 Dec 2024 03:46AM UTC
        
        While I'm sure TikTok did bad things, so has Western social media. The difference is the Chinese government can't knock down my door and carry me off to jail on fake charges because I said something that offended a politician. Even if they really badly want to, they just can't do it, since I'm not in China and not planning to go there.
        I can understand the concern for having government business conducted via foreign services, or even certain high-level government officials using those services at all, but that doesn't justify things like the TikTok ban or Huawei embargo. What is the Chinese government going to do to the average American? Credit card fraud? I'm just not worried about them and conversely, I am worried about the American (and other friendly) governments spying on me and how that could be used against me in unexpected ways in the future. Once they have your data, they never give it back.
        We just recently had a scandal about cities using AI on traffic camera data to track people as they moved around. What might they be doing with something like a Facebook app, that has location, audio recording, camera, and filesystem access on people's phones? I suppose it doesn't even matter when the Android/IOS operating system and most of the hardware is made by American companies that also give over all their data and access on a whim.
        I've reached the point I just assume whatever the US government accuses Russia and China of doing, true or not, is something they themselves are doing. Which has lead me to some very worrying conclusions. Remember the hysteria about a microchip in Chinese memory that was supposedly spying on everyone? Interesting how that story has since died and been buried.
        I guess I just don't trust anyone in a position of authority over me, and it turns out, China doesn't really have any authority over me.
        
        Comment Actions
        
        Thread
        
        Parent Thread
3. MalcontentCatboy Sat 14 Dec 2024 08:38PM UTC
  
  One of the biggest problems is we have career "lawmakers" who need to justify their existence, when in fact we had enough laws made, generally speaking, about 200 years ago.
  
  Comment Actions
  - Thread
  - Parent Thread

AO3 News

Post Header

Actions

Comments

Pages Navigation

Thinker90 Sat 14 Dec 2024 04:22AM UTC

Comment Actions

GrinningGremlin Sat 14 Dec 2024 04:31AM UTC

Comment Actions

Thinker90 Sat 14 Dec 2024 04:53AM UTC

Comment Actions

GrinningGremlin Sat 14 Dec 2024 04:59AM UTC

Comment Actions

NoSignificantNumber Sat 14 Dec 2024 06:46PM UTC

Comment Actions

hischughes1386 Sat 14 Dec 2024 04:25AM UTC

Comment Actions

anubisisms Sat 14 Dec 2024 04:42AM UTC

Comment Actions

ChloeTheTaco Sat 14 Dec 2024 05:13AM UTC

Comment Actions

Stellathyst Mon 16 Dec 2024 06:56PM UTC

Comment Actions

DAZAI_KUNN Sat 14 Dec 2024 06:26AM UTC

Comment Actions

CloudyLavenders Sat 14 Dec 2024 09:03AM UTC

Comment Actions

DAZAI_KUNN Sat 14 Dec 2024 02:49PM UTC

Comment Actions

OTW_News_Post_Moderation (Official) Mon 16 Dec 2024 04:24AM UTC

Comment Actions

Obsessed_with_owls_and_turtles Sat 14 Dec 2024 06:53AM UTC

Comment Actions

ruietsu Sat 14 Dec 2024 07:09AM UTC

Comment Actions

Shyhearted Sat 14 Dec 2024 07:31AM UTC

Comment Actions

trobedyuri Sat 14 Dec 2024 07:32AM UTC

Comment Actions

CloudyLavenders Sat 14 Dec 2024 09:21AM UTC

Comment Actions

MalcontentCatboy Sat 14 Dec 2024 10:48AM UTC

Comment Actions

Lady_Moira_Reyes Sat 14 Dec 2024 07:34AM UTC

Comment Actions

ashkazora Sat 14 Dec 2024 08:39AM UTC

Comment Actions

Mithrelles Sat 14 Dec 2024 10:02AM UTC

Comment Actions

MalcontentCatboy Sat 14 Dec 2024 10:56AM UTC

Comment Actions

Mithrelles Tue 17 Dec 2024 01:33AM UTC

Comment Actions

ClosetSkeleton Wed 18 Dec 2024 05:04PM UTC

Comment Actions

LordiTheRailgun Wed 18 Dec 2024 08:48PM UTC

Comment Actions

ClosetSkeleton Wed 18 Dec 2024 10:41PM UTC

Comment Actions

LordiTheRailgun Thu 19 Dec 2024 09:05AM UTC

Comment Actions

Mithrelles Fri 20 Dec 2024 10:50PM UTC

Comment Actions

MalcontentCatboy Wed 18 Dec 2024 09:34PM UTC

Comment Actions

ClosetSkeleton Wed 18 Dec 2024 10:35PM UTC

Comment Actions

Mithrelles Fri 20 Dec 2024 10:15PM UTC

Comment Actions

MalcontentCatboy Wed 18 Dec 2024 09:48PM UTC

Comment Actions

forgotten_totoro Sat 14 Dec 2024 01:20PM UTC

Comment Actions

GarfieldJL Tue 17 Dec 2024 01:33AM UTC

Comment Actions

Mithrelles Tue 17 Dec 2024 01:50AM UTC

Comment Actions

MalcontentCatboy Wed 18 Dec 2024 09:51PM UTC

Comment Actions