The $6.5 million study that tells us that “age assurance can be done in Australia – our analysis of age assurance systems in the context of Australia demonstrates how they can be private, robust and effective”, might be a load of BS.

This is about the censorship of under 16s on the internet that is exciting the uniparty and odds and sods like the Greens and other authoritarians, as they continue to interfere with parental controls and wreck the family in true Marxist style.

The Free Speech Union of Australia has done some investigating of its own, without a $6.5 million impost on taxpayers.

The FSU has ferreted out information on systems that the Australian Censor will use to do the deed.

. A company called Yoti's thingy allowed 30% of 13 year olds, and 56% of 15 year olds access to “age-gated” content.
. ‘Lucidity’ allows 45% of 10 year olds and 75% of 15 year olds to access “age-gated” content.
. ‘VerifyMy’ allows 30% of 13 year olds and 58% of 15 year old access.
. ‘Unissey’ allows 34% of 12 year olds and 84% of 15 year olds access.
. ‘Privately’ allows 43% of 10 year olds and 87% of 15 year olds access.

And, it seems the systems don't work very well with “coloured” people. Indeed, the existing systems tend to overestimate the ages of Aborigines “considerably”: one 15 year old passing for a 68 year old.

As the FSU concludes, the December introduction of censorsing who can access what might be a “collision with reality”.

(Source: ‘The Pseudoscience of Age Assurance’, Reuben Kirkam, Quadrant Online. 29/7/25)

A quick check reveals The Free Speech Union of Australia is a right wing sovereign citizen outfit, which campaigned strongly against Covid-19 vaccination, and may well be associated with the ultra right The Libertarian Party.

"In September 2022, PayPal shut down the accounts of the Free Speech Union and Toby Young (FSU founder) due to claimed breaches of PayPal's acceptable use policy, believed to relate to alleged misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines."

Of course it is right wing, you idiot. The opposite to your communist trash. Those of us who are right wing are proud to be so; wouldn't be anything else. The 'right' is a fact of life. It opposes the 'left'. Only a thorough-going dimwit thinks there should only be one side - the dimwit's side.

You keeping stating the bloody obvious. If course there is a right wing that opposes the authoritarian left, that everywhere but Australia and Communist China people have had a gut full of.

The right will be back, even if I am not around to see it.

Troll 1405,

Your absurd post also proves that you are a troll. You don't address the topic, but try to put down the source. You could agree or disagree about the topic; but no, your default action as to shoot the messenger. For you, it's not what is said, but who says it. You are a thoroughly reprehensible person.

The source is not creditable, a reactionary extremist group headed up by a person who has been described as a raving lunatic by people of sound mind. The leader of this extreme fringe group, Toby Young, an Englishman calls himself, "Lord Baron of Action".

As for the threads author, the bloke who for years has been making 100 posts a week a must do on this little forum, has nothing better in his state of boredom. The bloke shows how unintelligent he really is, by launching into a tirade of abuse at me; idiot, communist trash, dimwit, troll. Many of the knowledgeable posters have given up on this old fella, calling him out, now seeing him for what he is, just uneducated trying to mix it with much smarter people.

Troll,

I regard you as being not credible and a raving lunatic. You are a great one to say that about anybody else.

You are the last of 3 initial wackjobs that has been hanging around OLO since it started. There have always been 3 of you: the latest being you, Armchair Critic, and John Daysh.

I have nothing better to do? What about you? You hang onto every word. You are obsessed with me, you sicko.

And, you get abused only by people you have yourself abused in the first place. You get what you give in this world, buster.

Uneducated? You can't even spell properly. You have told everyone that your son is a bus driver. If kids do better than their parents, what were you? A street sweeper?

Your problems with the English language suggest that you would have struggled to finish primary school.

Now, bugger off. You have had all the time I am prepared to waste on a nasty lout like you.

It seems negative partisanship is quite the trend among those on the right. It must get exhausting and confusing, though, ironing out all the inevitable contradictions that come with such an illogical decision-making process.

So exhausting, apparently, that this Reuben Kirkham character couldn't even be bothered figuring out how to frame the online protection of minors as "censorship." He just asserts that it does so in passing at the start of the article.

As for the data? Yes, Paul was right to be sceptical. The data is as suspicious as it is context-free.

The figures quoted by ttbn don’t appear in the official $6.5m Australian age-assurance trial report, nor in any transparent vendor documentation:
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/aatt_part_a_digital.pdf

And even if such numbers exist, without context - sample size, threshold, fallback systems - they’re meaningless. Age estimation is probabilistic, not binary, and governments use layered safeguards precisely because no single system is perfect. Cherry-picking unsourced numbers turns nuance into scare-mongering.

Yes, facial analysis can misestimate minority groups - and the government report acknowledges this, stressing the need for more inclusive training data. Researchers and civil rights advocates treat this as a problem to fix (http://www.esafety.gov.au/industry/tech-trends-and-challenges/age-assurance).

But here, misestimates of minority groups are only mentioned to weaponise outrage. The concern ends at how this can all be framed to make the current government look bad.

The moral of the story here is to choose a neutral, non-partisan source for your data. For the information illiterate out there, it's the kind that declares conflicts of interest, applies consistent standards regardless of political alignment, and is open about the methodology used.

We're not stuck choosing between the two extremes of communist and fascist.

The FSU is a notorious activist outfit with a track record of conspiracies and grievance politics. It doesn’t publish peer-reviewed work, declare funding sources, or show methodology. It exists to misinform and enrage, not to educate or warn.

Hi Paul,
'campaigned strongly against Covid-19 vaccination'
Well that's not a bad thing. I'm probably the only one here sensible enough to say 'no' to that poison.

Hi ttbn,

"Of course it is right wing, you idiot. The opposite to your communist trash. Those of us who are right wing are proud to be so; wouldn't be anything else. The 'right' is a fact of life. It opposes the 'left'. Only a thorough-going dimwit thinks there should only be one side - the dimwit's side."

If the other right-wingers all jumped off a cliff, would you do that too?
Personally I look at the balance of policies, and fyi there is only one side, when your side wanted us to vote for death.

LNP - Israel all the way, Dutton made that clear.
The right are the religious genocide hypocrite party.
And the left well, they are the party of gays and women and immigrants.

"You keeping stating the bloody obvious. If course there is a right wing that opposes the authoritarian left, that everywhere but Australia and Communist China people have had a gut full of."

The right exists to stick it to the left.
The left exists to stick it to the right.
They tend to stuff everything else up, and we the citizens get a steaming pile of weasels that can't agree on anything and rarely have the nation as a whole in its best interests.

Democracy downward spiral / Check best before date

"The right will be back, even if I am not around to see it."
- They are in self-implosion mode, they can't decide whether or not to boot their conservative base and become more moderate to win inner city seats, because if they don't they're out of the game.

Thanks for screwing things up, for Israel.
Like I support mass immigration and transgender toilets.

ttbn, the only sensible thing you have said so far is; "I (ttbn) am not around to see it" We can only hope for such a small mercy.

John, yes I am sceptical of anything put up by The Free Speech Union of Australia, as I believe their agenda is not to inform, but to mislead, the aim being to satisfy their own agenda.

AC, with hindsight, I agree there were many mistakes made by government during Covid, Australia was not alone in that regard. Just as there is in any war, requiring quick response, mistakes are made, Covid was no exception. What government is bad at is quick reaction, and Covid required quick reaction, given that our representatives are not particularly gifted with exceptional knowledge, and they rely on expert opinion to determine the course of action moving forward. When politicians are left to go it alone, there will be many bad decisions, and many bad mistakes made. That's what happened with Covid, but overall we got through it, millions didn't.

Hi Paul,
"What government is bad at is quick reaction"
So what does that mean?
Democracies perform poorly under pressure?

I read a couple of paragraphs of ttbn's quadrant article, I wish he'd just add links in his opening comment.
Honestly, I couldn't read any more than that because the entire concept seems ridiculous and completely unworkable to me,

I'm not sure who the biggest fool is, was it the person who came up with it (age estimation) or the person who decided to sign off on funding it?
They deserve to have their heads knocked together.

So the poor younger looking kid turns 16 all excited on their birthday,

'Yay! I can get back on Snapchap and TikTok'
- All smiles, goes to log on 'So sorry we estimate that you won't be 16 for another 18 months'
Geez, I'd hate to be mum on the end of that mess to start off 16th birthday celebrations.
What next?
Maybe the kid goes down the Transport Department to get it's learners permit, 'Yay, I'm 16 now! I'm going to be able to drive a car!'
'Sorry our facial recognition AI estimates that you won't be 16 for another 18 months'

Seriously, what a bunch of f---heads.
Sorry for the language [as in - sorry / not sorry]
but I just don't know what else to say.
Who comes up with this stuff?

Speaking of online censorship.
Turns out all this TikTok owned by China business, is really all about Israel losing influence amongst US conservative youth, which is a serious issue for Israel.
And Trumps got a sale all lined up to his Jewish businessman mates, I'm sure the frightening images from Gaza will be the first thing censored.
- For the USERS OWN SAFETY of course.
'We're here to protect you, what BS'
Algorithms promoting holocaust museums instead...

They can't even stop kids watching porn, it's all a load of shite.
The info about TikTok's in the following video at the 13 min mark.

Max Blumenthal : Iran Fully Prepared.
http://www.youtube.com/live/Kap9aIdqaiw

I suppose it behoves me to thank Troll 1405 and Armchair for their continuing interest in my posts, and their revealing comments. Although Troll says that some posters have “given up on this old fella”, he is not one of them - always jumping in, pouncing on my every word. And, the time Armchair puts in on my behalf … on and on. … sometimes three or four posts together (although that could be because he can't count to 350).

So, thanks boys

Hi AC,

"What government is bad at is quick reaction"
So what does that mean?

Government (parliamentarians/our representatives) need to be well informed before they can make well judged decisions. In a rapidly changing environment, such as a war, or a pandemic etc, there is no time for the bureaucracy/experts to give that quick advice, it takes time, a luxury they don't have under the circumstances. Our style of government is desired to be run by a slow moving apparatus, politicians, bureaucrats, functionaries, experts etc, its a very slow moving juggernaut.

Democracies perform poorly under pressure?

Yes, under extreme pressure government can become chaotic as competing forces try to assert their authority with their differing opinions, arguments and complete chaos ensues, with no effective government in control. That's when strong leadership is called for, I call it the "Julius Caesar" effect, a strong leader who can make the right decisions quickly under pressure. The Romans actually believed a dictatorship was desirable, even necessary for the greater good under those circumstances.

There's no point arguing about it. The government and their authoritarian flying-monkeys always favour censorship and they've hit on something they can sell to a gullible public. Whenever you hear people claiming its "all for the kiddies" you can be sure the welfare of the kiddies is least of their concerns. You can be sure that when these new measures fail to achieve the level of censorship they desire, new measures will be already at hand.

Just go and get your VPN and by-pass their authoritarian policies. Not for ever mind you because eventually they'll come after VPNs as well...for the good of the kiddies, mind you.

mhaze gets it. The communists don't care about children; they want to control them earlier. Child-minding factories are now called 'early learning centres' - more correctly early brain-washing centres.

The family has always been feared by the Left. Take the kids away from their mothers and fill their heads with dangerous rubbish. So, they don't actually tear babies from their mothers' arms. They just make it too hard live off one wage. It is no less crucial for a child to be with its mother - full time until the age of 5 - now, than it was when Australia was a decent place to live.

mhaze,

Thanks for going where no one else seemed to dare - not even the author of the article ttbn referenced in his OP.

It's one thing to be concerned about where legislature will go with a particular form of technology, but to claim that censoring us was the primary goal from the outset is next-level crazy. In other words: the government is lying about its intentions, and child safety is a Trojan horse.

But for a claim that serious, and that sinister, you’d expect some evidence. A leak, a memo, a whistleblower, an internal comms strategy.

Anything!

This talking point has been around for years, but I’ve never once seen a case - in any liberal democracy - where a child protection measure was exposed after the fact as being designed for broader, unrelated censorship. Even the UK’s Online Safety Act, arguably the most controversial recent example, was openly debated, criticised, amended, and is now being legally challenged - not a stealth operation.

Same for our eSafety regime. Heavy-handed? Arguably. Misguided? Perhaps. But a covert censorship plot? Not unless you define “plot” as “policy you disagree with.”

The only country where your theory fits cleanly is China - and even then, their censorship is not hidden. They say the quiet part out loud.

So unless you’ve got something more than vibes and suspicion, it seems you’ve confused emotional marketing with actual conspiracy. Politicians will always frame their laws in the most palatable terms. That’s not proof of deceit, it’s PR. And it’s not unique to child protection. “National security” and “economic stability” are used the same way.

There’s a vast difference between:

- A law that’s politically popular but poorly designed,
- A law that overreaches and needs safeguards,
- And a law that’s deliberately sold under false pretences to disguise a censorship agenda.

You’re asserting the third. But all the evidence and lack of precedent suggests the first two.

If you’ve got something concrete, by all means share it. Otherwise, this just sounds like another case of assuming malice where incompetence - or policy disagreement - would suffice.

I remember the Internet Safety Commissioner (I think the Internet Safety Commissioner should be called the Commissioner Against Free Speech in contradiction to perceived Orwellianism's) and the Prime Minister or someone else talking about the "new social media age restrictions" and how they will be implemented. They took great pains to point out that they are against using the new child protection protocols as a ploy to undermine anonynymity. However my experience of Youtube "is" using child protection as an excuse to force users to use odious means to prove their age giving the message "Sign in to confirm your age. This video may be inappropriate for some users". This message seems to predate or predict the legislation. Not sure why.

Maybe this idea has been floating in global Woke Marxist circles for a while.

These extremists with their conspiracies, everything a progressive government does is some how concocted as Orwellian in nature with a hidden agenda. Just let these extreme nut job take over, then you will see how brain washing and social control becomes the order of the day. The Hitler Youth will never be dead with thee guys.

CM

They are certainly not censorsing to save children. Their only interest in children is to get them into brain-washing facilities (aka child care) to shape their minds before the age of 5, when they are not being preyed on by paedophiles, left in dirty nappies, or left alone while an “educator” (as they are now calling child-minders) has a stress break.

Any idea who Troll 1405's “Hitler Youth” are? Can't be us “old farts”.

Canem Malum,

The YouTube age-gating you describe has been around for years - long before this current legislation. It wasn’t predicting laws, it was reacting to them.

YouTube (and its parent Google) have been fined repeatedly in the US and EU for breaching child protection laws. That’s why they rolled out “confirm your age” screens - it’s liability management, not prophecy.

And it’s worth drawing a line here. A platform policy =/= government legislation. YouTube tightened its own rules under pressure from regulators around the world. That doesn’t make it part of a global “Woke Marxist” conspiracy - it makes it a corporation doing whatever it takes to avoid another billion-dollar fine.

Finally, let’s be honest: if YouTube didn’t implement any age gates, the same critics would be accusing them of flooding kids with porn and violence. Platforms can’t win - and that doesn’t automatically mean it’s some covert censorship project. Sometimes it’s just the messy middle ground of child safety, liability, and PR.

And as for throwing “Woke Marxist” into every complaint - it doesn’t make the point stronger. It just makes what could be a serious civil liberties discussion sound like a parody of itself.
_____

ttbn,

How exactly are childcare centres supposed to brainwash children? And with little more than nap mats and picture books at that?

Sounds as miraculous as the universities' ability to brainwash their students, while simultaneously teaching them how to assess claims critically - and even testing their ability to apply these skills.

Anyway... since it sounds like you have the evidence of foul play that mhaze doesn't, perhaps you could help him out and share it with us all?

"The FSU has ferreted out information", ttbn did they use a Ouija board, or did they rely on their stock standard Crystal ball?

Nah ttbn, its not the Hitler Youth for you, more like the Volkssturm.

Kudos Kid, when are you going to give up claiming everything you don't agree with is the work of the Woke Marxist!

"preyed on by paedophiles", What's this! has the conservative Catholic Church taken over the pre-schools,with an Archy Pell lurking in every one

Hi John Daysh
"...but to claim that censoring us was the primary goal from the outset is next-level crazy."

Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.
I tend to stand with the others on this.

Whats needed is a FOI request to see data on the exact content that has been targeted for removal on social media.
Is it largely content inappropriate for kids, or something other than that?
Is what they are currently removing consistent with the reasons given for censorship?

Both sides may have their own quiet reasons 'other than kids' for supporting censorship.
The left may fear the rise of populist leaders, or the right openly questioning their progressive agendas.
The right may fear anything anti-Semitic and the promotion of progressive agendas.
Beyond that, wars are on the horizon, and the information war for the people must be shaped.

Armchair Critic,

Everyone faces hardship, yes, but let’s not pretend all discrimination is created equal. It's frustrating to be judged superficially when applying for a job, but it’s not the same as being systematically denied fundamental needs.

That’s the difference between everyday misfortune and structural inequality.

You mention quotas and suggest they disadvantage "straight white males." But for most of modern history, being a straight white male was the quota. It’s only when the playing field starts to level that some interpret fairness as an attack. In reality, quotas aim to counteract unconscious bias and open doors previously closed. Successful applicants still need to be unqualified, though.

On the surface, DEI just looks like another form of discrimination - only in the other direction. I get that. However, DEI measures:

- are a bias that we're actually conscious and in control of.
- surface overlooked talent.
- promote productivity, creativity and profitability.
- and most importantly, they aim to ultimately render quotas unnecessary and naturally render themselves increasingly obesolete over time as biases fade (whereas unconscious biases are self-perpetuating).

Inclusion doesn’t cause disunity. Exclusion does. If the presence of different people - culturally, sexually, religiously - feels threatening, the problem isn't diversity. It’s fragility. Unity doesn’t require uniformity. It requires maturity - the ability to coexist with those who aren’t just like us.

Regarding religion, yes, there are conflicts between some views and LGBT rights. That’s why we differentiate between personal belief and public responsibility. We’re free to hold any religious beliefs we like, but that doesn't mean we should have the right to impose them on others in shared spaces.

As for free speech, being expected to not hurt others or incite division isn’t censorship - it’s civilisation. Expecting people to moderate their words in the public square isn’t about silencing them, it’s about choosing to live in a society where dignity and peace matter more some boofhead's freedom to announce his ignorance to the world.

You say you want unity, but it can only start with inclusion. That should actually be quite obvious, when you think about it.

Damnit, wrong thread. Sorry. I'll post in the correct thread.

Armchair Critic,

FOI requests are fine, and transparency is always good, but let’s be clear: Kirkham never actually explains how this is censorship. He just drops the word in his opening line, then spends the rest of the article listing technical failings.

If you’re going to call protecting children "censorship," you need to show how it silences everyone else. He doesn’t.

//Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction.//

That might apply to religion, but with conspiracy theories it’s the opposite - the truth is almost always more boring. People are too selfish to devote their lives to a grand plot, and far too disorganised to pull one off without leaving evidence behind.

If you went into politics, I suspect you’d find not a secret cabal, but a bunch of people just in it for themselves, watching the clock and thinking about the weekend.

Furthermore, why would politicians deliberately ruin the country their kids will inherit, just for a fleeting tactical gain? Then there's the 'risk vs reward' imbalance - the risk of being exposed in a grand censorship scheme (career destroyed, possible prison) massively outweighs the tiny political "advantage" of keeping a few critics off social media.

Conspiracy theories like this collapse under their own weight.

And the idea that "both sides secretly want censorship" is just speculation - a placeholder you can use to explain away anything. It doesn’t fit reality: if conservatives really wanted censorship, wouldn’t they be championing these systems instead of attacking them as pseudoscience?

What we’re actually seeing here is negative partisanship: the right opposes the policy mainly because the left supports it, or because it’s the Albanese government proposing it.

The right are quick to campaign for the removal of LGBT literature from school library shelves in the name of protecting children, but a method of protecting them from developmentally harmful online platforms that won't even alienate entire minorities in the process?

Not on your life!

At least not if Labor's proposing it, anyway.

I agree with many of your logical points.
It feels like the same kind of argument I've had with people who from time to time tried to convince me the world was flat.
- And I'd say what about the tides, what about the shape of the moon, and wouldn't all the worlds airlines pilots have to be in on it and keep the secret?
- But logic never gets in the way of their flat earth beliefs.

I'm not saying I think the politicians are in on a deliberate conspiracy.
I'd probably argue the pollies are merely branch managers and its probably sold to them as being for the protection of kids, I doubt they know any better.

I've always said from the start that everyone will have to provide ID to use social media with these policies, it's all just slowly taking us all to digital ID. You can bet the government and/or intelligence agencies want real time access to everything we say and do, and to be able to access and collate all an individuals life data from one place.

If it had nothing to do with protecting kids and was done at the advice of intelligence agencies i.e 5 eyes, would Albo tell us?
- Doubtful.

Tony Blair Institute for Global Change

Digital ID - What It Is and How It Works
http://institute.global/digital-id-what-is-it-and-how-it-works

"Digital-ID systems improve governance, facilitate greater inclusion, fuel economic growth and help governments achieve their core goals. Far from enabling greater surveillance, digital IDs can actually make information more secure. Beyond their public-sector benefits, they also allow citizens to interact more safely and smoothly with private-sector institutions. They are a critical component of a reimagined state fit for the 21st century.

Safely storing identifying information in a digital wallet enables individuals to securely verify their identity and other attributes in an interoperable manner that streamlines processes, reduces fraud and ensures that services reach those who need them most. From accessing benefits to applying for jobs, the potential applications for these verifiable credentials are enormous."

TBI feels like Clinton Foundation reinvented.

TBI funded by Billionaire Larry Ellis, who is connected to CIA
http://www.lighthousereports.com/investigation/blair-and-the-billionaire/
Ellison invested $130 million in the TBI between 2021 and 2023, with a further $218 million pledged since then. The scale of funding took the TBI from a headcount of 200 to approaching 1,000. Blair himself takes no salary from TBI but over this time the institute has been able to recruit from bluechip firms like McKinsey and Silicon Valley giants Meta. In 2018 before the Oracle founder’s funding surge, TBI’s best-paid director earned $400,000. In 2023, the last year where accounts are available, the top earner took home $1.26 million.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2025/09/26/tony-blair-larry-ellison-ai-influence-nhs-data/

Larry Ellison co-founded and owns a majority stake in Oracle, making him the largest shareholder of the software giant. He serves as the Chairman and Chief Technology Officer of the company, which he started in 1977 and grew into a dominant force in the database and cloud computing markets.

What is the relationship between Oracle and CIA?
They developed a company called Software Development Laboratories (SDL) whose main product was the Oracle database, named after a project they were asked to develop for the US Central Intelligence Agency.

"Show me the man and I'll find you the crime."

Lavrentiy Beria

JD would have you believe it benign and beneficial. It isn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho8Tde3vhBQ

Hi Fester, no it's not is it.

JD's worldview seems to focus on inclusion.
'Inclusion doesn’t cause disunity. Exclusion does.'

My worldview maybe seems to focus more on 'The causes (and consequences) of conflict'.

Someone once said that getting the ethnic mix right is like making concrete.
Too much of one or the other ingredient, and the concrete will be either too soft or too brittle.

Ethnic mixing is ridiculous and dangerous. People seem to have forgotten, or never heard of, natural law, and the fact that different people were put in different places around the world from the very beginning. It's only Godless meddlers and self-servers who have altered the perfectly good arrangement.

I know. I know. There's little point in telling numpties this when it's far too late to stop it, even if there was a will to do so.

Hi AC,

I think of the matter more generally. Recent calls for censorship came from claims of misinformation campaigns, as per the Voice referendum defeat and more recently the slow pace in achieving net zero. Long ago East Germany blamed its economic under-performance on a misinformation campaign by "the west". It used this as justification for establishing the Stasi, much to the relief of unemployed Gestapo agents who had been twiddling their thumbs since Hitler's downfall.

Censorship does have a place protecting the vulnerable, but the government's push for censorship has been more a matter of suppressing public criticism and scrutiny of its policy, which is undemocratic.

The latest atrocity comes from the Australian Human Rights Commission that wants "misinformation" about climate change interfered with.

They seem to have come to the obvious conclusion that the supposed cause of climate change, fossil fuels, is a massive con job, that more and more people are realising it, and their opinions must be censored to allow government to continue their wrecking of the Australian economy in favour of money-grubbing foreigners whose own countries have woken up to the scam.

The AHRC is totally useless when it comes to protecting freedom of speech - just the opposite, if its latest splutterings mean anything.

Armchair Critic,

I appreciate that you’re not saying there’s a deliberate conspiracy. That's where others here had departed the realm of reasonable commentary and into that of the batshit crazy.

Yes, privacy and surveillance are always worth scrutinising. That’s why transparency, independent audits and privacy-by-design matter. But there’s a big difference between "we should make sure this can’t be abused" and "this is secretly being done for an intelligence agenda." One is a real, evidence-based debate; the other is speculation.

The age-assurance trial isn’t some hidden Five Eyes program - it’s a public process with published reports, privacy testing and stakeholder input. If the government wanted a covert digital ID scheme, this is about the worst possible way to do it.

By all means, keep pushing for privacy safeguards. But let’s not assume a secret plan where there’s only a messy but public policy process.

_____

Fester,

That Rebel News clip is about a protest arrest in the UK. Whatever you think of it, it has nothing to do with Australia’s age-assurance trial. Citing Rebel News - whose whole business is outrage-fundraising - doesn’t make Kirkham’s case any stronger.

Your Stasi comparison ia hyperbole. East Germany ran secret police in a closed dictatorship. Australia’s trial is a public, transparent process with published reports and reviews. They’re not remotely the same thing.

If you’re worried about privacy or digital ID creep, fair enough. That’s a legitimate debate. But framing it as "the Stasi" or leaning on Rebel News anecdotes isn’t evidence, it’s just rhetoric.