I wish them luck with that, a significant proportion of VPN use is for businesses that have staff working off-site/remotely/in outer offices. I’m sure the business community will be quite enthusiastic about the idea of having to spend time and money reworking their enterprise network systems to use alternative systems to VPNs.
Goes to show just how technologically illiterate so many of those who put these types of proposals forward are.
Great opinion piece written by our own @Leo_Puglisi6 for The Guardian on the social media regulation:
Media Watch tonight has a report on the proposed social media ban for people under 16, and also the age filter technology being trialled to enforce the ban.
There may well be other reasons however, for the Albanese government to want to cling to hope—because we’ve confirmed high level discussions, which have included the gambling industry, the commercial television broadcasters and the Prime Minister’s Office, about using the same technology to avoid the comprehensive online ban on gambling advertising proposed by a Labor-led Parliamentary Committee in 2023, which might have created all kinds of political headaches for Labor and maybe even a few for its fundraisers.
A spokesperson for Anthony Albanese’s office declined to comment on private discussions with broadcasters and bookies.
This 
will not work.
If a kid wants to be on social media, they’ll be on social media. Bans be damned.
Also, if an American social media giant is targeted, expect those tariffs to be raised.
Just because people will find a way around it doesn’t justify not making it a law.
If kids want to drink booze, they’ll also find a way or skip periods at school or whatever.
But we have rules/laws in place to help mitigate that and reduce the number of people doing it.
But they’re not getting to the heart of the matter. These big platforms are still allowing the harmful content on them, and are taking action at a glacial pace. And don’t think the Toxic Tangerine won’t take action against us if we “harm” an American company.
Other laws that are meant to be protecting kids from harmful content are not being kept up to date. The media classification laws are still set at 15 - the social media rule is 16. If protecting kids from harmful content is the key, then this law needs to be updated to 16.
This is a waste of time, and any taxpayers money that is being spent on woefully over reaching laws. Because if this doesn’t work, what happened in the UK will happen here and we consenting adults will cop the punishment. All because parents can’t be arsed to do their job of, you know, being a parent.
I’m all for protecting kids, but there are better ways to do it, and they do not always involve the government.
Agreed , it’s not going to stop el. Unless the government goes for the jugular and starts making vpns illegal.
Probably won’t happen but…
You having faith in parents controlling the kids is laughable . They won’t.
Plus this law may not even be constitutional at all. Here is a video made by an expert in the Australian Constitution in which she explains if the YouTube ban is constitutional.
The parents who have been pushing for such ban will feel gutted if the High Court rules the ban is unconstitutional.
Instagram now has a location sharing feature like Snapchat’s “Snap Map” and a repost feature like TikTok.
I also just saw a video where the girl said that her location was automatically shared with her following although she hadn’t been asked or knew about it.
Raphaël Graven, who was known online as Jean Pormanove, ran a channel that regularly featured him enduring physical violence and humiliation allegedly carried out by two streaming partners known as Naruto and Safine.
The group had been broadcasting a 12-day live streaming marathon on August 18 when Mr Graven died on camera.
The damages awarded by the jury is vastly inferior to the $31 billion the plaintiffs requested at the end of the trial, but still among the larger privacy payouts from a Big Tech company.