[mossTechnician]

I appreciate the wealth of technical solutions that don't violate privacy, but isn't this overlooking an important point: that children don't need to be connected to the Internet at all times from such an early age? Many internet and cell phone providers seem to take it for granted that children must be online, which is already a net loss for their privacy as they mature.

[biophysboy]

Its a tragedy of the commons situation. The benefits of being offline are dampened by the kid being out of the loop

[hasteg]

I agree, I think kids should have limited access to the internet. I pretty much did and it worked out for me but I have seen so many reports about it causing harm in schools and personal life. (Specifically I think LLMs should not be used in education also, but different point) However, I think the main problem people have with this "think of the children" narrative is that it will force EVERYONE to give up their credentials to access the internet, not just kids. And the general consensus is that we as adults do not want to and should not have to prove our identity to access the internet.

[mossTechnician]

I am wholeheartedly against identity verification, especially when it comes to giving up privacy. And I hope these "think of the children" arguments can be pushed back at from multiple angles. If the danger is real, then by the time a child is online, 4 out of 5 in them in Australia can apparently access social media anyway. So even if everyone's privacy was somehow an acceptable price to pay, these requirements do nothing.

[HerbManic]

Unfortunately, they are looking to expand the eCommmisioners powers to try and close that door a bit tighter now.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-06-25/australia-will-streng...

[hasteg]

Lol yeah exactly, if kids want to go on social media they will 100% find a way around it.... putting in these identity requirements will literally do nothing except require us as adults to give over more information. I'm sure everything will pass through congress fine though because "someone think of the children!!!!".

[Aurornis]

That's their parents' decision to make, not yours.

[drooby]

Should it also be their decision that they can gamble? Smoke cigarettes? Get a job? Have sex?

We draw the line somewhere because these things that "are the parents' decision" have consequences on broader society. They have consequences that impact you and me. And we also have a say.

You can make the argument that it's just the parents' decision. But you have to say why.

[jolmg]

> Should it also be their decision that they can gamble? Smoke cigarettes? Get a job? Have sex?

Not on the first 2 because they're illegal for minors. Yes on the last 2. A parent can e.g. forbid their minor from being employed if it's hindering their studies. They also have a say on their romantic partner and how they interact. If rules are not followed, they can e.g. be grounded.

[pibaker]

The idea that browsing the internet is remotely comparable to smoking is utterly retarded.

[wolvesechoes]

What is "parents' decision" is up to debate. This is how the society always worked.

[jszymborski]

I mean its only a hope and a skip away from having to validate ones age to turn on the router.

[port11]

This isn’t about children, mate. It’s about controlling the population’s access to content.

The children are fine. Many countries no longer allow smartphones at school, which lowers the peer-pressure factor to be online.

Parents are doing their best to steer kids. But these pesky adults, goshdarnit, they access whatever content they want without approval from The State, potentially reading dissident materials, borrowing 1984 from libraries… politicians don’t like that.