From your other thread ttbn
Communications Minister Anika Wells attended the 'Protecting children in the Digital Age' conference at the UN in New York.

Protecting children in the Digital Age - PM Albanese Address
http://www.pm.gov.au/media/protecting-children-digital-age

He closed his speech with this:

It is now my honour to introduce a true inspiration.
Someone who has found the courage to channel her grief into the most profound and powerful call for change.
Her story personifies why we are here.
Please welcome, Emma Mason.

Emma Mason shares her daughters story on 702 ABC Radio Sydney
http://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/sydney-mornings/emma-mason/105821342

I have mixed feelings about her story.
Obviously I feel devastated for her as a mum losing her daughter Tilly
But despite the bullying I can't help thinking that
'It's a parents job to ensure your childs physical and emotional wellbeing'
Why didn't her kid come to her?
Why wasn't she there for her kid?

It seems shes been copping a lot of flak from other parents for this ban she has helped bring about.
They say when it's introduced that it's anticipated kids might play up for up to 3 weeks. I'm not sure what the right age is for kids on social media, the kids can be pretty ruthless with bullying and threats towards each other nowadays.
I turned 15 in Grade 10.

"So now we’re holding Albo accountable for comments made by Lammy in the UK?"

No, but he does bear some responsibility for the company he keeps, and the behaviour of his mates at the conference was revolting.

"No, the 17-year-old was arrested first under Section 14 of the UK’s Public Order Act "

Yes, I'm sure you know all about the kids thoughts, conduct and motives, yet you seemed to draw a complete blank about Kirk's killer, and the irony of the same police protecting protestors calling for genocide seems to escape you as well.

"no one could explain to me how the bill would actually have such effect"

There was widespread opposition to it, and your belief that defining truth was a simple matter might explain why you had no issue with it. That you also thought the net zero rollout to be hampered by "misinformation and disinformation" would suggest that you are not a great believer in democracy. You seem more in favour of suppressing free speech to facilitate progress. I think that a surefire way to failure.

"If the only way it can be done accurately which is workable is age verification, then doesn't that then really mean identity verification, for all users?"

Well said, AC. A MAD bill by stealth.

Armchair Critic,

//If the only way it can be done accurately which is workable is age verification, then doesn't that then really mean identity verification, for all users?//

Not necessarily. That depends entirely on the method chosen.

Some systems use estimation (e.g. AI facial analysis), others use assertion (e.g. document scans), and others use tokenisation (e.g. a verified third party confirms your age range, not your full ID). Some are more invasive than others - and that’s the debate we should be having.

//Age verification is identity verification, and how can you verify an age if there isn't a pre-existing database with an existing identity to check it against?"

Again, that’s one model - but not the only one.

You’re assuming a centralised, database-driven approach is inevitable. But many proposals, including ones being discussed by the eSafety Commissioner, involve privacy-preserving models like zero-knowledge proofs or age bands that confirm eligibility without disclosing identity.

//If it's not checked against a pre-existing database with an existing identity, then can forged documents be produced by kids or others and be accepted as age verification?//

Absolutely - that’s a legitimate implementation risk. But again, it doesn’t prove intent to surveil. It just proves that any system will have trade-offs: if it’s too lax, it’s ineffective; if it’s too strict, it risks overreach. That’s why public scrutiny and legislative guardrails matter - and are happening.

//I'll bet 'age-verification' actually becomes 'identity verification' for all users...//

That’s a bet based on pessimism, not evidence. You might be right - if people disengage from the policy process and let worst-case designs go through unchallenged. But so far, privacy advocates, journalists, and civil liberties groups are deeply involved. That’s the opposite of a shadowy rollout.

//...all sold to you to 'protect the kids', who can say no to protecting kids?//

Fair call. The "think of the children" framing has been abused before. But that doesn’t make every child protection policy inherently deceptive. Some of them are just messy, well-intentioned, and in need of proper design. We shouldn’t replace naïve trust with blanket cynicism. The real answer lies between.

Fester,

You've made no effort there to rebut any of my points. All you've done is reframe, imply, and insinuate.

//No, but he does bear some responsibility for the company he keeps...//

Only if he endorses what they said. Being in the same room isn’t guilt. That’s just tribal association dressed up as moral judgement.

//I'm sure you know all about the kid's thoughts, conduct and motives, yet you seemed to draw a complete blank about Kirk's killer...//

False comparison. One case has public charges and video. The other is an open investigation with no confirmed motive. You’re conflating clarity with speculation.

//...and the irony of the same police protecting protestors calling for genocide...//

Different issue. I was responding to your claim that he was arrested just for having an opinion. That claim doesn’t hold up.

//There was widespread opposition to [the bill]...//

Opposition doesn’t equal oppression. Plenty of bad arguments get loud. The bill was public, debated, then dropped. That’s not stealth - that’s transparency.

//Your belief that defining truth is simple...//

That's a strawman. I've never said that. But claiming all truth regulation = authoritarianism is just as simplistic.

//You thought the net zero rollout was hampered by disinformation...//

Because it was - and still is. Wanting public decisions based on facts isn’t anti-democratic. It’s the bare minimum for democracy to function.

//You seem more in favour of suppressing free speech...//

No, I favour separating free speech from deliberate disinformation campaigns. That’s not suppression. It’s protecting the space where real speech still means something.

//Well said, AC. A MAD bill by stealth.//

You're still assuming the bill was about censorship.

There's all sorts of nonsense getting around on social media unchecked and taken as gospel by the information illiterate (e.g. about vaccines, lockdowns, cancer treatment, climate change, fluoride, GMOs, etc...) Yet, despite the overwhelming amount of damage and harm misinformation causes - and the fact that the bill had no provisions allowing for overreach too, for that matter - you're just going to assume it was all about censorship?

This is not how a rational mind processes information.

I found the comment you were mistconstruing here, Fester.

//There was widespread opposition to it, and your belief that defining truth was a simple matter might explain why you had no issue with it.//

What I said is that determining what's factually correct takes media and information literacy, but that it's possible for an individual to do themselves when/because the hard yards have already been done by professional researchers who are experts in their fields.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10476#364498

It’s complex but achievable, and it’s how democracies hold misinformation in check without resorting to authoritarianism.

Misrepresenting that as a naïve faith in government truth-control just tells me you didn’t actually read what I wrote - or chose not to engage with it honestly.

What I find particularly offensive, however, is your a loaded reframing designed to make me sound authoritarian: "defining truth..."

The issue I wish to discuss now isn't specifically about Australia's plan to ban social media for under 16's, but it does involve online censorship.

Our government is going to be actively involved in removing any content deemed 'antisemitic', and Israeli interests are already active in trying to censor social media.

Case in question. Tik Tok.

Israel wins TikTok
http://responsiblestatecraft.org/tiktok-larry-ellison-israel/
'Larry Ellison and a constellation of billionaires will finally get their way, buying the very app they wanted to kill a year ago for being too pro-Palestinian'

Pro-Israel Jewish CEO Just Bought TikTok - This Is Much BIGGER Than We Thought!
http://youtu.be/-P3Q-SfLHqA

We were told it was all about the risk of Chinese ownership.
When in truth it was about Israel's diminishing support and influence in the U.S. on the back of the war / genocide in Gaza.

I don't think the Chinese are necessarily being antisemitic, I just think that maybe they laugh at and care not for the idea that Jews are 'God's chosen people' and everything that comes from that.

Also know that if you go over to the Charlie Kirk thread and look for the grayzone.com and YouTube links for Max Blumenthal I added in my comments there is more to this story.

Larry Ellison supports Israel and bought Tik Tok to stop anti-Israel sentiment, no doubt there will be censorship, and I wonder if our government will make Australians move over to the new non-Chinese Tik Tok.

Larry Ellison also provides funding to Tony Blair Institute, Tony Blair was a part of these string of wars in the M/E spanning 3 decades after 9/11, (Coalition of the willing) and Tony Blair is also a strong advocate for Digital ID.

Online Censorship might not come from government, but the interests of donors and lobbyists.