I am here to share that there is no need for so much YouTube in the classroom. I have been in and out of classrooms and see it heavily used for filler time. I.e Bluey and content that should be covered by the teacher. We can’t keep outsourcing teaching to tech!!
There is this misconception that AI/technology is the way to equip students for the future world. However, the most important life skill that we need for our humanity is human connection, understanding, and the reciprocal connection that comes from interpersonal communication. That is the most undervalued skill in schools.
I couldn’t agree more, Gema! Schools have forgotten that they have a responsibility to protect and nurture our kids’ cognitive potential. That can’t be done when the technologies we use in the classroom distract our students at best or automate their opportunities for thinking at worst. It’s time for a pedagogy of cultivated attention.
Agree with this. It’s unbelievable what is shown in classrooms now. Grizzy and the Lemmings when a supply teacher can’t fill the time? I get that controlling elementary students is challenging but that’s the job — not drugging them via online videos.
Man I hope Australia goes through with this, actually enforces it, and it works and then we can copy it in Canada.
One interesting thing to watch for will be retaliation from the Trump administration.
A recent parallel example: after lobbying by the Big Tech firms, the US trade negotiators explicitly tied the proposed Canadian Digital Services Tax to the Canada-US trade discussions. Canada ended up dropping the proposed tax as a bargaining chip for more important trade issues, so the tech companies got what they wanted.
If the US tech companies think that getting kids addicted early is a big revenue driver, and the US Congress doesn’t care about that for American kids, we may see a similar thing here, where Australia is told to drop this law or face escalating trade consequences. Hopefully that doesn’t happen but after the way it’s gone for Canada lately, I’m a bit nervous.
This post came at the most serendipitous moment, as I’m talking about social media with my first year writing students this week. I’ve had them already write some reflective “tech memoirs” that narrate their love/hate relationship with a piece of tech, and the ones that mention their phone or social media ALL described how it ate up time and being present, and left them feeling crappy. I am cautiously hopeful for what Australia is doing. It is something.
THIS is such a brave & courageous move by Australia! I’m hopeful the will be the fire-starter our country, (& all the world’s,) kids & teens NEED to thrive. Thank you for sharing!🩵
As a dad of a 1 and 2 year old in Australia, I'm bloody pleased with this. There's been the usual fake outrage here in the media around this law though. I'm also hopeful by the time my kids reach their tweens the phone landscape will be completely different to today. And at least through Jonathan's work I'm aware of some of the issues around screen time and social media.
The main characterisation I have heard of it is that it is a Trojan Horse for the government‘a new digital ID system. I’m sure there are well meaning people involved in it as well but I largely agree with the predominant characterisation given the Labor government’s track record of lying through omission. I’m sure a lot of parents do feel a heavy burden lifted from their shoulders now that it is the government’s responsibility to tell their children ‘no’.
Are any of the cited problems specific to teens? I was 17 as a college freshman. Turned 16 after a HS junior. So I would have been cyber-isolated and challenged in these yrs already socially problematic because I had no drivers' license until after graduation. I read a lot as a teen. Participated in many other adult activities. Crucial to my college prep and on from there.
Some rational-sounding opponents seem to agree in principle, before arguing that a proof-of-age mechanism cannot preserve anonymity, or is too costly, or cannot be 100% reliable, or would be easily bypassed and therefore we should not even try.
Yet the same people are not also seeking to undermine established age-based rules that rely on good old-fashioned "consequences" in order to have a worthwhile deterrent effect.
As a thought experiment: as a responsible adult, suppose I could use my government-issued digital identity to certify & attest online that the anonymous owner of this newly-created TikTok account is indeed "over 16" AND THAT if I know this declaration to be false I may be held criminally liable later on, in the event of a worst-case scenario. Sure, there are adults - even parents - who would be willing to take that risk. Just like there are some who supply liquor for their kids' parties. Less than 100% compliance, in other words. So?
Your thought experiment (and the subsequent comments) could be read as assuming that the legislation will criminalise parents in some way. It won't. It requires only 'reasonable steps' on the part of the platforms
I can think of three problems here that adding perjury consequences would not solve:
1) Big tech or third-party verification services could still use the data provided in ways which could violate privacy, such as for offline tracking or using face verification to train AI unless otherwise banned. There are also concerns about the government using this data.
2) The criminals involved in data breaches by definition do not abide by laws. Even if platforms try not to retain verification data (and current law does not prohibit this AFAIK), there could easily be third-party checkers outside of Australia retaining this, malware retaining and diverting this information, or simple human error (as with the Tea app). If such data retention were banned, it would be debatable whether any crime occurred; even if so, it would hurt small sites far more than Big Tech and the law would have dubious value.
3) Regarding this proposal specifically, your proposal assumes adult intervention. How do we tell if a ten-year-old borrowed or "borrowed" their parent's ID? Or worse, if the kid used a video game avatar or deepfake software to spoof the AI Age-check algorithm? The only person who committed a crime would be the child; yet, would you want them charged? The parents or the companies for being fooled?
Perhaps this law is the least bad solution, but it still creates a host of problems and is certainly an early iteration of a better one. Obviously the best solution would be for parents to limit device and service access themselves; many (likely a majority) consistently are not, but I don't think that it's established that the legal option is the best (or even least bad) choice for solving it.
Points 1 & 2 seem to be all about the potential weaknesses with fancy, expensive AI-driven solutions.
As for Point 3: "How do we tell if a ten-year-old borrowed or "borrowed" their parent's ID?" In that scenario I imagine the parent would automatically be in breach of the terms & conditions that they agreed to when registering with myGovID. (And have you tried using the app? Your kid must be ever so gifted!)
The last paragraph leads me to wonder if there any family situations you can think of where it would be right for a government agency to intervene. Ever.
What I'm suggesting is a low-tech "good enough" approach based on traditional paper-based controls. The only intelligence required would be that of the human who signs the attestation.
Their "public key" would be the only new data element needed. In the event that it's compromised later, it could be used to reveal that two individuals were acquainted with each other, well enough for one of them to feel confident about the other's true age. As an incremental privacy concern that's vanishingly trivial. Still, there are those who would regard even that as yet another step in the wrong direction, and only some of them are actual sovereign citizens.
Ever heard of a Hegellian Dialectic? Examine the role & character of Australia's "E-Commissar", here we name her the E-Karen. An American Corporate witch, with outrageous powers & reach (and well, wellll paid,). This filthy Kontrol Freak Karen wants to CRUSH Real News & replace with FedGov Mal, Mis & Dis-information. And DO NOTE: We are still FULL STEAM AHEAD with the DeathJab BioWeapon programme... like all Autocratic Left DiKKTators, she believes in The Noble Lie, 🤫 it's for their own good...
Let the parents take responsibility. I am an Australian who is sick and tired of the government deciding what I can and can't do. I wasn't on social media until about 17 and I didn't need our nanny state to manage that for me.
I think it's a step in the right direction, although I can already imagine 'reasonable steps' means barely anything. There surely won't be a new department created within Meta- Australia to scan passports through to verify age. So whose responsibility is this? What if this extends to other markets (ebay/amazon/anywhere where you purchase things) and then there is a need for a government ID database that's so cybersecure and encripted that will effectively be used as a 'microsoft authenticator' but for age. Didn't France have something like it?
The pretext of child protection will soon be forgotten and resources will be focused toward surveillance of adults who have the necessary digital ID. It is the way of all things government
any form of censorship should be viewed with concern. more worryingly in this case is what happened to parents ability to raise their children and why are they so eager to hand that over to the state. at no time in history has this ever gone well. you may argue i am exaggerating but the prosecutions in the UK for social media posts was never the intention of those laws when enacted. govt is unable to resist the creeping rise of authoritarianism.
Save the kudos. If only. It simply diverts users from one platform to another. There is no mention of enforcement outside of the big names affected; and what of the inevitable newbies? Foreign language platforms? Underground alternatives? It does nothing to address toxic chats (such as on online gaming platforms) nor little for online addiction. Thank you for pointing out it's not a "ban". It will, however, almost certainly be constitutionally challenged--not least for failing its objects. (Sadly, mischaracterization and politicization could be enough to topple it.) A good start (anything is preferable to the status quo) but a long way to go.
The legislation applies to 'social media platforms' according to a stated definition (quoted in the post). Any newbies etc will be covered if they fall within that definition. You're quite right about online gaming platforms, which they are purposely *exempting*. Not sure what could be done about addiction, but limiting exposure to the kinds of structures that drive it can only help
I am here to share that there is no need for so much YouTube in the classroom. I have been in and out of classrooms and see it heavily used for filler time. I.e Bluey and content that should be covered by the teacher. We can’t keep outsourcing teaching to tech!!
There is this misconception that AI/technology is the way to equip students for the future world. However, the most important life skill that we need for our humanity is human connection, understanding, and the reciprocal connection that comes from interpersonal communication. That is the most undervalued skill in schools.
This ↑↑↑
I couldn’t agree more, Gema! Schools have forgotten that they have a responsibility to protect and nurture our kids’ cognitive potential. That can’t be done when the technologies we use in the classroom distract our students at best or automate their opportunities for thinking at worst. It’s time for a pedagogy of cultivated attention.
Agree with this. It’s unbelievable what is shown in classrooms now. Grizzy and the Lemmings when a supply teacher can’t fill the time? I get that controlling elementary students is challenging but that’s the job — not drugging them via online videos.
Man I hope Australia goes through with this, actually enforces it, and it works and then we can copy it in Canada.
One interesting thing to watch for will be retaliation from the Trump administration.
A recent parallel example: after lobbying by the Big Tech firms, the US trade negotiators explicitly tied the proposed Canadian Digital Services Tax to the Canada-US trade discussions. Canada ended up dropping the proposed tax as a bargaining chip for more important trade issues, so the tech companies got what they wanted.
If the US tech companies think that getting kids addicted early is a big revenue driver, and the US Congress doesn’t care about that for American kids, we may see a similar thing here, where Australia is told to drop this law or face escalating trade consequences. Hopefully that doesn’t happen but after the way it’s gone for Canada lately, I’m a bit nervous.
This post came at the most serendipitous moment, as I’m talking about social media with my first year writing students this week. I’ve had them already write some reflective “tech memoirs” that narrate their love/hate relationship with a piece of tech, and the ones that mention their phone or social media ALL described how it ate up time and being present, and left them feeling crappy. I am cautiously hopeful for what Australia is doing. It is something.
Jonathan if we all make small changes - I fully believe we can turn the situation around. Great that you can teach your first year students!
THIS is such a brave & courageous move by Australia! I’m hopeful the will be the fire-starter our country, (& all the world’s,) kids & teens NEED to thrive. Thank you for sharing!🩵
As a dad of a 1 and 2 year old in Australia, I'm bloody pleased with this. There's been the usual fake outrage here in the media around this law though. I'm also hopeful by the time my kids reach their tweens the phone landscape will be completely different to today. And at least through Jonathan's work I'm aware of some of the issues around screen time and social media.
Agreed - nice observation!
Delighted Australian mum here 🥳🥳🥳
Where are the parents? I wasn't allowed to use the phone until I got to high school.
The parents are too busy addicted to their own social media.
It is a start.
The main characterisation I have heard of it is that it is a Trojan Horse for the government‘a new digital ID system. I’m sure there are well meaning people involved in it as well but I largely agree with the predominant characterisation given the Labor government’s track record of lying through omission. I’m sure a lot of parents do feel a heavy burden lifted from their shoulders now that it is the government’s responsibility to tell their children ‘no’.
BINGO
Are any of the cited problems specific to teens? I was 17 as a college freshman. Turned 16 after a HS junior. So I would have been cyber-isolated and challenged in these yrs already socially problematic because I had no drivers' license until after graduation. I read a lot as a teen. Participated in many other adult activities. Crucial to my college prep and on from there.
Indeed, the Law of Unintended Consequences is all too real.
Some rational-sounding opponents seem to agree in principle, before arguing that a proof-of-age mechanism cannot preserve anonymity, or is too costly, or cannot be 100% reliable, or would be easily bypassed and therefore we should not even try.
Yet the same people are not also seeking to undermine established age-based rules that rely on good old-fashioned "consequences" in order to have a worthwhile deterrent effect.
As a thought experiment: as a responsible adult, suppose I could use my government-issued digital identity to certify & attest online that the anonymous owner of this newly-created TikTok account is indeed "over 16" AND THAT if I know this declaration to be false I may be held criminally liable later on, in the event of a worst-case scenario. Sure, there are adults - even parents - who would be willing to take that risk. Just like there are some who supply liquor for their kids' parties. Less than 100% compliance, in other words. So?
Your thought experiment (and the subsequent comments) could be read as assuming that the legislation will criminalise parents in some way. It won't. It requires only 'reasonable steps' on the part of the platforms
I can think of three problems here that adding perjury consequences would not solve:
1) Big tech or third-party verification services could still use the data provided in ways which could violate privacy, such as for offline tracking or using face verification to train AI unless otherwise banned. There are also concerns about the government using this data.
2) The criminals involved in data breaches by definition do not abide by laws. Even if platforms try not to retain verification data (and current law does not prohibit this AFAIK), there could easily be third-party checkers outside of Australia retaining this, malware retaining and diverting this information, or simple human error (as with the Tea app). If such data retention were banned, it would be debatable whether any crime occurred; even if so, it would hurt small sites far more than Big Tech and the law would have dubious value.
3) Regarding this proposal specifically, your proposal assumes adult intervention. How do we tell if a ten-year-old borrowed or "borrowed" their parent's ID? Or worse, if the kid used a video game avatar or deepfake software to spoof the AI Age-check algorithm? The only person who committed a crime would be the child; yet, would you want them charged? The parents or the companies for being fooled?
Perhaps this law is the least bad solution, but it still creates a host of problems and is certainly an early iteration of a better one. Obviously the best solution would be for parents to limit device and service access themselves; many (likely a majority) consistently are not, but I don't think that it's established that the legal option is the best (or even least bad) choice for solving it.
Points 1 & 2 seem to be all about the potential weaknesses with fancy, expensive AI-driven solutions.
As for Point 3: "How do we tell if a ten-year-old borrowed or "borrowed" their parent's ID?" In that scenario I imagine the parent would automatically be in breach of the terms & conditions that they agreed to when registering with myGovID. (And have you tried using the app? Your kid must be ever so gifted!)
The last paragraph leads me to wonder if there any family situations you can think of where it would be right for a government agency to intervene. Ever.
What I'm suggesting is a low-tech "good enough" approach based on traditional paper-based controls. The only intelligence required would be that of the human who signs the attestation.
Their "public key" would be the only new data element needed. In the event that it's compromised later, it could be used to reveal that two individuals were acquainted with each other, well enough for one of them to feel confident about the other's true age. As an incremental privacy concern that's vanishingly trivial. Still, there are those who would regard even that as yet another step in the wrong direction, and only some of them are actual sovereign citizens.
Or simply certify "under penalty of perjury".
Ever heard of a Hegellian Dialectic? Examine the role & character of Australia's "E-Commissar", here we name her the E-Karen. An American Corporate witch, with outrageous powers & reach (and well, wellll paid,). This filthy Kontrol Freak Karen wants to CRUSH Real News & replace with FedGov Mal, Mis & Dis-information. And DO NOTE: We are still FULL STEAM AHEAD with the DeathJab BioWeapon programme... like all Autocratic Left DiKKTators, she believes in The Noble Lie, 🤫 it's for their own good...
I know, right? SMH
Let the parents take responsibility. I am an Australian who is sick and tired of the government deciding what I can and can't do. I wasn't on social media until about 17 and I didn't need our nanny state to manage that for me.
I think it's a step in the right direction, although I can already imagine 'reasonable steps' means barely anything. There surely won't be a new department created within Meta- Australia to scan passports through to verify age. So whose responsibility is this? What if this extends to other markets (ebay/amazon/anywhere where you purchase things) and then there is a need for a government ID database that's so cybersecure and encripted that will effectively be used as a 'microsoft authenticator' but for age. Didn't France have something like it?
The pretext of child protection will soon be forgotten and resources will be focused toward surveillance of adults who have the necessary digital ID. It is the way of all things government
any form of censorship should be viewed with concern. more worryingly in this case is what happened to parents ability to raise their children and why are they so eager to hand that over to the state. at no time in history has this ever gone well. you may argue i am exaggerating but the prosecutions in the UK for social media posts was never the intention of those laws when enacted. govt is unable to resist the creeping rise of authoritarianism.
Save the kudos. If only. It simply diverts users from one platform to another. There is no mention of enforcement outside of the big names affected; and what of the inevitable newbies? Foreign language platforms? Underground alternatives? It does nothing to address toxic chats (such as on online gaming platforms) nor little for online addiction. Thank you for pointing out it's not a "ban". It will, however, almost certainly be constitutionally challenged--not least for failing its objects. (Sadly, mischaracterization and politicization could be enough to topple it.) A good start (anything is preferable to the status quo) but a long way to go.
Can I recommend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aC_Ka8_7u4
The legislation applies to 'social media platforms' according to a stated definition (quoted in the post). Any newbies etc will be covered if they fall within that definition. You're quite right about online gaming platforms, which they are purposely *exempting*. Not sure what could be done about addiction, but limiting exposure to the kinds of structures that drive it can only help