Will eevblog be banned in Australia for under 16's as well?

[.RC.]

Reading the ABC today the federal government's proposed banning of all social media for under 16's and no doubt some "verification" system required for those over 16 to access.

The definition of "social media" is very broad and then minister in charge said youtube will be included.

Does this mean eevblog will also be banned for under 16's? Or will esafety Karen class it as "low risk"  I have seen some risque photos of dismembered circuit boards here, and indecent uses of soldering irons.

Of course I post this with a bit of tongue in cheek, while the Australian government really is pushing ahead with this.   We all know it is in all likely not going to happen, but if they pushed it, it will be an abysmal failure.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-08/how-the-age-minimum-for-social-media-will-work/104571790

The definition of a social media service as per the Online Safety Act according to the ABC can be found below:

    1.  The sole or primary purpose of the service is to enable online social interaction between two or more end users;
    2.  The service allows end users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end users;
    3.  The service allows end users to post material on the service.

[magic]

Maybe it would be enough to disable the "mentions" and "thanks" plugins, if that's what they mean by "linking to or interacting with other users".

[coppercone2]

databases of personal infromation are not safe, you can get a criminal actor stealing some incompetent government bullshit. I wonder how they figured out how to send all those people text messages in our little recent USA event. Apparently massive accurate messaging (race and phone number) for just a nasty little prank.

I feel like the elites never care about this, because they have piles of money, armies of lawyers and 'friends'  (strings to pull) that will vouch for them to get them off the hook for like identity/personal information-related scams and crimes that will bury a regular citizen without special powers. Hell, witness testimony basically means nothing for them, they don't even knowledge that personal information and IDs can possibly be harmful.

Its always someone who lives on the fucking moon that comes up with these kinda things. "I will have my servants deal with those kinds of problems"

[jpanhalt]

Is that the same ABC News as the American Broadcasting Company?  I considered it could the the Australian Broadcasting Company, but then saw this:

American women join 4B movement as Trump's male-supremacist supporters threaten rape

 

That would fit reporting from the deranged American company.

In a Vietnam era (1969) the SCOTUS ruled that students don't “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”   Although schools may require surrender of cell phones and the like so as not to disrupt classes, I doubt an age-related banning from social media would pass our constitutional test.  According to Google AI, Australia doesn't have the exact equivalent right, but its courts have ruled that freedom of expression is incorporated in other aspects of its constitution.

 

[Halcyon]

Does this mean eevblog will also be banned for under 16's? Or will esafety Karen class it as "low risk"

The definition of a social media service as per the Online Safety Act according to the ABC can be found below:

    1.  The sole or primary purpose of the service is to enable online social interaction between two or more end users;
    2.  The service allows end users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end users;
    3.  The service allows end users to post material on the service.

I highly doubt it. Can you imagine the impact it would have on all those forums out there. What about vendor support forums?

In my opinion EEVblog forum doesn't meet the definition of point #1. It has to tick all those boxes, not just one or more of them. The primary purpose of this forum is to exchange technical information, data, assist learning, etc...

While some people use it as a social "hangout", it's not the sole or primary purpose. I think LinkedIn is more "social" than here.

EEVblog as a company, is a professional engineering organisation. The forum is just the side salad.

[jpanhalt]

In my opinion EEVblog forum doesn't meet the definition of point #1. It has to tick all those boxes, not just one or more of them. The primary purpose of this forum is to exchange technical information, data, assist learning, etc...

1) I don't think your distinction between social and technical media will fly.  The interactions and reactions by individuals on this forum are social. "Be excellent to each other."
2) In the US, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects social media companies from legal liability for most user content.  It might be a serious mistake if EEVBlog argued it was not social media and won as it would lose that protection.

[vk6zgo]

Is that the same ABC News as the American Broadcasting Company?  I considered it could the the Australian Broadcasting Company, but then saw this:

American women join 4B movement as Trump's male-supremacist supporters threaten rape

 

That would fit reporting from the deranged American company.

In a Vietnam era (1969) the SCOTUS ruled that students don't “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”   Although schools may require surrender of cell phones and the like so as not to disrupt classes, I doubt an age-related banning from social media would pass our constitutional test.  According to Google AI, Australia doesn't have the exact equivalent right, but its courts have ruled that freedom of expression is incorporated in other aspects of its constitution.

 

No it is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation---nothing to do with the US company.
As to the quoted bit, they just report the news--they don't make it up!

[.RC.]

As to the quoted bit, they just report the news--they don't make it up!

  

[Stray Electron]

   It's interesting to me that this discussion started out talking about the proposed Australian ban on children under 16 using social media but then immediately pivoted to the topic of the dis-honesty of some news networks.  Networks which are legally WELL protected in most western countries.  It seems to me that all any social media company really needs to do in order to completely insulate itself from any and all restrictions and liabilities, is to simply call themselves "a news-company".  Then they will have all of the protections available to the New York Times, CNN and all of the rest of the lying news organizations.

  This problem is a lot bigger than just sub 16 years olds using social media and I'd like to see some kind of restrictions placed on all "harmful content", and in particular "dishonest reporting", in all media regardless of the age market that it's intended for.  Harmful content obviously to include anything that would make it addictive.

[jpanhalt]

News organization are protected in the US, but that protection  is less than Section 230 provides.  They can be sued for slander and have lost:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/washington-post-settles-lawsuit-with-family-of-kentucky-teenager/2020/07/24/ae42144c-cdbd-11ea-b0e3-d55bda07d66a_story.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/24/media/washington-post-sandmann-settlement-lawsuit/index.html

Those are just the top two hits Google gave me.  EEVBlog is better protected as a social medium in the US.

[.RC.]

   It's interesting to me that this discussion started out talking about the proposed Australian ban on children under 16 using social media but then immediately pivoted to the topic of the dis-honesty of some news networks. 

I suppose the irony about your observation though is that something not mentioned here is the same Australian government seeking to "ban" all under 16's from "social media" also has just passed laws through parliament (but hopefully unlikely to pass the senate) whereby "misinformation" whatever that is, will be banned with penalties for those who said the whatever with the government created committee to be the determinator of truth, also the politicians have exempted themselves from said laws.

When both left wing and right wing media outlets totally pan the same laws, you can pretty much guess they are stupid laws.

Left wing media outlet panning the laws https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/09/19/anthony-albanese-misinformation-disinformation-legislation/

Right wing media outlet panning the same laws.  https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/attack-on-our-freedoms-governments-revised-online-misinformation-bill-slammed-as-chilling-assault-on-free-speech/news-story/03f202bf41f4255fd0f7c4b4c05682fe

So while forums operating in Australia may potentially have to introduce an identity mechanism so only >16 year olds are able to use it, these same forums also may have to potentially also trawl their forums to combat what think a capital city based committee will think is "misinformation".

It will be like the tighter they hold their grip, the more star systems will slip through their fingers.

[jpanhalt]

Oh, my, don't tell me Australians are actually considering having  a Minister of Truth with police powers?  You are further away than just 16 hours.

[coppice]

No it is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation---nothing to do with the US company.
As to the quoted bit, they just report the news--they don't make it up!

How do those 2 statements go together?

[Halcyon]

In my opinion EEVblog forum doesn't meet the definition of point #1. It has to tick all those boxes, not just one or more of them. The primary purpose of this forum is to exchange technical information, data, assist learning, etc...

1) I don't think your distinction between social and technical media will fly.  The interactions and reactions by individuals on this forum are social. "Be excellent to each other."
2) In the US, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 protects social media companies from legal liability for most user content.  It might be a serious mistake if EEVBlog argued it was not social media and won as it would lose that protection.

I disagree.

You need to consider the wording of the legislation. "Sole" or "Primary purpose" is very important here. EEVblog is much more than just this forum. No matter how social or anti-social this forum is, it still doesn't meet that definition. If it would, that would mean the likes of Lawrence Systems' forum would be considered social media (which of course it isn't).

I don't even think that the Australian telecommunications forum, "Whirlpool", which is just a forum, would even meet the definition. I don't think there would be a single court in Australia that would agree that it was.

Secondly, application of US law would rely on the definitions under that law, not what another country considers to be "social media". Besides, I don't think Dave is worried about US law. EEVblog is governed by Australian law, first and foremost.

[jpanhalt]

Hey, if EEVBlog wants to be a publisher of technical information, that is fine with me.  Dave's lawyers may disagree.  That is, if you can hide under the social media label do it, even if it offends your ego. 

The US is a big place with lots of crazy people and contingency lawyers.  Aren't your servers here, or did you move them?

[coppice]

You need to consider the wording of the legislation. "Sole" or "Primary purpose" is very important here. EEVblog is much more than just this forum. No matter how social or anti-social this forum is, it still doesn't meet that definition. If it would, that would mean the likes of Lawrence Systems' forum would be considered social media (which of course it isn't).

I suspect a high percentage of this forum's users are barely aware of anything EEVblog consists of besides this forum. I see no mention of the types of social interaction which this legislation covers, whether they be hobbies, technical, or the types of thing more typical of mainstream social media sites. It appears to be a blanket thing.

I don't even think that the Australian telecommunications forum, "Whirlpool", which is just a forum, would even meet the definition. I don't think there would be a single court in Australia that would agree that it was.

As far as I know, from getting some answers there over the years, the sole and primary purpose of Whirlpool is to be a social forum, where people post problems and discuss solutions. I've mostly been there for technical issues, but it seems to host a pretty wide range of interactions.

[magic]

In my opinion EEVblog forum doesn't meet the definition of point #1. It has to tick all those boxes, not just one or more of them. The primary purpose of this forum is to exchange technical information, data, assist learning, etc...

While some people use it as a social "hangout", it's not the sole or primary purpose.

Well, it says "social interaction", not "socializing". So I guess you can go to court and argue that information exchange and learning assistance aren't social interactions. Someone else will say that it is. Lawyers will win either way

Experience teaches that expecting politicians not to be stupid may be placing an unrealistic demand on them...

[Halcyon]

I suspect a high percentage of this forum's users are barely aware of anything EEVblog consists of besides this forum.

User awareness doesn't factor into the argument.

[EEVblog]

Does this mean eevblog will also be banned for under 16's?

Over my dead body.

[EEVblog]

Secondly, application of US law would rely on the definitions under that law, not what another country considers to be "social media". Besides, I don't think Dave is worried about US law. EEVblog is governed by Australian law, first and foremost.

Also under US law for the server itself. e.g. DMCA

[EEVblog]

Oh, my, don't tell me Australians are actually considering having  a Minister of Truth with police powers?

We already do (seriously), she is known as eKaren here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Inman_Grant

Elon Musk famously told her to get stuffed when asked to remove a video from X, he beat eKaren in court. This case was front page news in Australia.
https://www.rebelnews.com/australia_s_e-karen_plays_victim_following_failed_legal_action

[jpanhalt]

I feel for you.  Biden floated the idea and was soundly beaten down.

It's hard to imagine a free people living under that sword.

[coppice]

I feel for you.  Biden floated the idea and was soundly beaten down.

It's hard to imagine a free people living under that sword.

Few countries have something solid to cling onto, like the US first amendment, when oppression tries to strike. That makes most countries quite vulnerable. In the UK we have something called a D notice, which not only makes it illegal to publish information the government chooses to suppress, but makes it illegal to even mention that there is something going on that can't be talked about. So, it goes way beyond withholding sensitive information that might be a risk to national security. It gets used in idiotic ways, like Margaret Thatcher suppressing a book in the UK that was published everywhere else for "national security" reasons.

The Biden proposal was highly unlikely to get very far. It just made him look really bad. The proposal was pretty honest, though, including a category that was basically "its true, but inconvenient for the government".

[vk6zgo]

No it is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation---nothing to do with the US company.
As to the quoted bit, they just report the news--they don't make it up!

How do those 2 statements go together?

Real TV networks only have a couple of hours between something happening & reporting it, so it is hard to confer with flinty eyed agents of the "Left".
When I worked for TVW7 in Perth, they got the news right many more times than the Murdoch owned "Sunday Times", which had a whole week to get it right.

Things like Sky "News" Australia don't have the same time constraints, so produce "opinion pieces", which reflect the ideas of their management.

[themadhippy]

In the UK we have something called a D notice, which not only makes it illegal to publish information the government chooses to suppress

rebranded as  dsma a few years back,and not legally binding