Australia is about to require social media users to verify their age in order to use to social media (ie verify that they are older than 16) . My understanding is that will also impact forums such as this ? I would be interested to hear others understanding of this . Come December 10 we could see a massive impact to Aussies and their use of social media

Dear Breezerering community

I honestly declare that anyone who has seen me in my near crippled state after a descent 25knt+ session can verify I am over 16. Those who only know me digitally can p!SS off, you aren't real to me and I will continue treat you as mere shadows of humanity.

Have a good day.

Don't worry Mark they won't be testing your mental age. Just your biological age

You cant open a facebook account without submitting a head shot video to prove to the robot that you're not a robot.

Gboots said..

hilly said..
Most users in here are well past 60. It will not affect it at all. It will still be a sleepy forum with the occasional bust of activity when Loz lets PC out of the closet.

That's true . But my understanding is that you have to prove you are not under 16

If that is like FB now and the 13 limit you just say you are 13. Same with online liquor stores, yes I am 18. Toothless tiger.

It affects all search engines that you sign into . So Google mail will be on the list

www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-11/age-verification-search-engines/105516256

westozwind said..

Gboots said..
It affects all search engines that you sign into . So Google mail will be on the list

Really. Can you post a link?

Here's another

www.sbs.com.au/news/article/why-australians-will-soon-need-to-verify-their-age-to-log-in-to-search-tools/c20ofisf9

Australia has lots of laws and not the resources to enforce compliance.
Electric bikes and scooters are a classic example and before that regular bikes.

Carantoc said..
I still call Snickers Marathon and Starburst Opal Fruits.

No more proof needed.

But your profile picture?

Subsonic said..
But your profile picture?

That was bestowed imposed upon me, I do not choose to identify as such.


But, whilst on the subject...I've been thinkin'.....

There is clearly a difference between biological age and the social construct of maturity.

Hence if an individual were to choose to identify as mature, would this then make their scientifically derived time-based age redundant and it be perfectly acceptable for such individuals to access these sites and the law to be determined to be not applicable in their cases ?

Likewise, if I were to choose to identify as immature, but Google allowed me to log on using my non-preferred biological age, could I sue them for emotional distress ?

Will the age-verification system include options for under 16, over 16 and non-numerical to ensure inclusivity ?

Just askin'.

An update today

theconversation.com/details-on-how-australias-social-media-ban-for-under-16s-will-work-are-finally-becoming-clear-265323


The Australian government today released regulatory guidance on the social media minimum age law, which comes into effect on December 10. The law will restrict individuals under 16 from holding accounts on many social media platforms.Reasonable steps for tech companiesThis guidance follows a self-assessment guide for technology companies recently released by the eSafety Commission. Companies can use this to determine whether their services will be age-restricted. That guidance included details on the types of platforms to be excluded from the age restrictions, such as those whose "sole or primary purpose" is professional networking, to support education or health, or to enable playing of online games.Today's guidance is aimed at services likely to be age-restricted, such as Facebook, Instagram and TikTok. It sets out what the government considers "reasonable steps" technology companies must take to "ensure they have appropriate measures in place" to comply with the legislation.


The onus will be on companies to prove users are over 16

A few articles with reference to the teen/child social media laws.

For those of us who are parents and remember the brutality of teenage socialising, the protection of our children can be an overwhelming task. We have laws that have built up over time for very good reasons, the physical and psychological protection of minors so as to allow them the space and time to develop into functional adults.

The perspective of Musk below is that of a business man who sees the potential of an addicted client base diminishing. It is no different to the colonisers of lands in the past, the techno landscape is theirs to freely plunder regardless of the human cost.

Elon Musk's X calls for delay in Australia's child social media ban citing 'serious concerns' about policy's lawfulness | Australian politics | The Guardian share.google/XjagrMLv9krcLqFxE

www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/australias-social-media-ban-teens-draws-praise-un-2025-09-25/

Latest update

www.smh.com.au/technology/no-playbook-esafety-boss-backs-social-media-ban-despite-expert-warnings-20251008-p5n141.html

Still much uncertainty on how age verification will work. They have dropped the "Digital ID" hint which is a worry in relation to the protection of sensitive personal documents and ID theft . Also concerns about corporations harvesting biometric data of all users

gs12 said..
I wonder if they will take extra steps to block known ways around it.

Only if they are forced to.

And a court will only force them to take all "reasonable" steps. If it is easy to scam every system and there is no way around the scam then there will be no reason and no ability to take extra steps so they won't have to spend any time, money or effort to take any.

I get the idea of it. Alcohol is additive and harmful to both the individual and to society so anyone selling it has make sure the buyer is responsible by being over 18 or whatever. I get the same principal should be with harmful anything that anyone is selling, including social media.

But the only reasonable way for a bottle-shop to assess somebody is legal is a third party proof of age.

You don't send your a photo to Dan Murphy's and a Dan Murphy's sales assistant then looks at it and is the only entity who decides if you are over 18 and then you are sent a Dan Murphy's proof of age card that allows you to spend money at Dan Murphy's.

But that is what is being introduced here. The person selling the product determines the validity of their potential customer they make a profit on based on whatever system they chose to spend money on developing and using to verify validity. It is not in the big tech companies interest that big tech developed proof of age systems are reliable.

Mmmmm, I wonder what the result will be.

Carantoc said..

umm, it was a rhetorical question, was not really seeking your opinion dude, I guess I will make it explicit next time for ya

Not specifically about Australia's new laws but a conversation on the topic for those interested.