Where does the legislation say that? My reading is that it specifically says that social networks have to provide an alternative verification mechanism that doesn’t rely on government ID.
Think of it this way - how will YOU, specifically, prove you are actually over the age of 16 without having some proof of age object that is tied to your device(s) or usage patterns?
If a 15 year old will have to prove they're 16 to use a service, so will a 35 year old. It's not just the kids proving their age.
> A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts with the age-restricted social media platform.
It doesn’t specifically require them to collect IDs. However it does say the opposite and that the site can only collect government ID or a digital ID information if:
> the provider provides alternative means [not involving IDs] for an individual to assure the provider that the individual is
not an age-restricted user; and
(b) those means are reasonable in the circumstances.
I’m not going to argue that the legislation is perfect. But it doesn’t actually do what most opponents are accusing it of doing.
You're either going to need to have a Digital Id, such as the Australian Govt myID, or something else to prove you're over 16. A burner email doesn't prove age, and that's what AusGov says they want to do.
JeremyStinson|1 year ago
Think of it this way - how will YOU, specifically, prove you are actually over the age of 16 without having some proof of age object that is tied to your device(s) or usage patterns?
If a 15 year old will have to prove they're 16 to use a service, so will a 35 year old. It's not just the kids proving their age.
underwater|1 year ago
> A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts with the age-restricted social media platform.
It doesn’t specifically require them to collect IDs. However it does say the opposite and that the site can only collect government ID or a digital ID information if:
> the provider provides alternative means [not involving IDs] for an individual to assure the provider that the individual is not an age-restricted user; and (b) those means are reasonable in the circumstances.
I’m not going to argue that the legislation is perfect. But it doesn’t actually do what most opponents are accusing it of doing.
bongodongobob|1 year ago
JeremyStinson|1 year ago