[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.