Hi Pete, valuable to hear of your on-the-ground observations from the cricket sidelines. It’s fascinating (and a bit predictable!) to see how quickly the boys have already adapted.
One pushback, though, on the idea that the ban’s “intended purpose” is protecting kids. That’s certainly the public justification, but when governments introduce sweeping age-verification regimes without first tackling the actual sources of online harm (porn platforms, gambling sites, violent content) it’s hard to accept the narrative at face value.
If child safety were the genuine driver, we’d surely see the first enforcement steps taken against the adult-content and high-risk platforms, yet those remain untouched.
And there are far less intrusive tools available. Even SIM-level age controls, while not perfect, avoid dragging the entire population into biometric scanning or digital-ID-based logins. Curiously, governments don't appear interested in those.
That’s why many of us see this not as a child-protection measure at all, but the front-end of a broader infrastructure push: a Trojan Horse for mainstreaming digital ID, normalising biometric age checks, and conditioning the public to ID-gated internet access.
Also, you mention that the intentions are “widely acknowledged as sincere.” I’d note that many now question that assumption. When vast new identification systems arrive packaged as “for the kids,” but the biggest commercial platforms of genuine concern are left alone, the sincerity of the policy narrative becomes part of the public debate.
For anyone wanting to dig deeper into the implications of these so-called “age-verification” laws, we’ve pulled together a plain-English explainer at www.RejectTheCage.com
Always appreciate the thoughtful way you open up these discussions and looking forward to hearing your thoughts on our end-of-year wrap-up panel next week!
What do u think of how this ban is linked to contentious digital i.d, and the rash of behaviour control measures that could be enforced on an uninformed population?
There's multiple parties with a variety of interests involved.
Grumpy teenagers will be looking for (and finding) workarounds.
Parents may agree with the Oz government move. Others not so much.
Social media platforms are of course publicly proclaiming their compliance. In practice, actual mileage varies considerably. They certainly don't want age verification to work too well, lest other countries are encouraged to follow.
Regulators say they're not aiming for 100%. Just 80% would do.
The problem is that many (most?) teenagers feel they have to be on social media because every other teenager is. If/when that no longer applies, under-aged prospects no longer face the same compulsion and the ban would have done its job - maybe.
We will have to see how all that plays out of course.
For myself, I am several years into a separation from social media and happy to consume more worthwhile content like Peter's Substack and add my opinion occasionally.
Loopholes and teenage ingenuity. What could possibly go wrong?
Hi Pete, valuable to hear of your on-the-ground observations from the cricket sidelines. It’s fascinating (and a bit predictable!) to see how quickly the boys have already adapted.
One pushback, though, on the idea that the ban’s “intended purpose” is protecting kids. That’s certainly the public justification, but when governments introduce sweeping age-verification regimes without first tackling the actual sources of online harm (porn platforms, gambling sites, violent content) it’s hard to accept the narrative at face value.
If child safety were the genuine driver, we’d surely see the first enforcement steps taken against the adult-content and high-risk platforms, yet those remain untouched.
And there are far less intrusive tools available. Even SIM-level age controls, while not perfect, avoid dragging the entire population into biometric scanning or digital-ID-based logins. Curiously, governments don't appear interested in those.
That’s why many of us see this not as a child-protection measure at all, but the front-end of a broader infrastructure push: a Trojan Horse for mainstreaming digital ID, normalising biometric age checks, and conditioning the public to ID-gated internet access.
Also, you mention that the intentions are “widely acknowledged as sincere.” I’d note that many now question that assumption. When vast new identification systems arrive packaged as “for the kids,” but the biggest commercial platforms of genuine concern are left alone, the sincerity of the policy narrative becomes part of the public debate.
For anyone wanting to dig deeper into the implications of these so-called “age-verification” laws, we’ve pulled together a plain-English explainer at www.RejectTheCage.com
Always appreciate the thoughtful way you open up these discussions and looking forward to hearing your thoughts on our end-of-year wrap-up panel next week!
Best, Claire
What do u think of how this ban is linked to contentious digital i.d, and the rash of behaviour control measures that could be enforced on an uninformed population?
There's multiple parties with a variety of interests involved.
Grumpy teenagers will be looking for (and finding) workarounds.
Parents may agree with the Oz government move. Others not so much.
Social media platforms are of course publicly proclaiming their compliance. In practice, actual mileage varies considerably. They certainly don't want age verification to work too well, lest other countries are encouraged to follow.
Regulators say they're not aiming for 100%. Just 80% would do.
The problem is that many (most?) teenagers feel they have to be on social media because every other teenager is. If/when that no longer applies, under-aged prospects no longer face the same compulsion and the ban would have done its job - maybe.
We will have to see how all that plays out of course.
For myself, I am several years into a separation from social media and happy to consume more worthwhile content like Peter's Substack and add my opinion occasionally.
Stupidity, the world would be a better place without politicians and priests
https://open.substack.com/pub/nandigamharikrishna/p/from-debate-to-enforcement-the-story?r=8op1j&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Remember when you asked a grandchild for help if technology was beyond you? Just saying.