[JeremyStinson]

Just so it's clear - this new law will require everyone over 16 to provide proof-of-age, and thus identity, to use the most popular portions of the internet. Saving the children is the voter-acceptable way of getting it past public scrutiny, and paves the way for a national DigitalID that will be required by all citizens.

[underwater]

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.

[JeremyStinson]

That's the outcome of the law.

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]

The legislation is literally

> 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.

[JeremyStinson]

To keep under 16s out, everyone over 16 needs to prove they are indeed over 16. It's like a nightclub/pub/bar - to get in, EVERYONE needs to prove their age, either with a real or fake ID.

IDs don't need to be collected and stored, but "reasonable steps" could mean that Meta, for example, may use services to verify a Driver's License or Passport number, or obtain a myID token that proves age.

How else do you keep kids out for their own safety?

[underwater]

The legislation for social media and alcohol sales are completely different.

There is no expectation of “reasonable effort” to not selling alcohol to minors. It’s flat out illegal and heavily penalised. Nor is there a requirement for companies to find a way to sell alcohol to adults without asking for ID.

I get the concern you have, but you’re arguing against a scarecrow version of the legislation.

[bongodongobob]

So a burner email account? How do you think this is going to work?

[JeremyStinson]

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.

[bongodongobob]

That's my point.

[neumann]

Can you elaborate what you mean? We already need identity for ISP access and mobile phones, no?

[JeremyStinson]

Only for activation of a service, which has nothing to do with the actual user. Purchase a phone using cash from any store selling mobile phones, and then use free WiFi (however insecure that may be) anywhere you can find it. If you want mobile data, get someone to register a prepaid SIM card, then add money to it using a prepaid debit card from AusPost, which you don't need ID to do.