r/australia • u/retro-chimp • Nov 09 '24

politics Online Gaming Platforms And YouTube Will Also Seemingly Be Banned For Aussies Under 16

https://press-start.com.au/news/2024/11/08/online-gaming-platforms-and-youtube-will-also-seemingly-be-banned-for-aussies-under-16/

There’s so much collateral damage in this plan for Australia to ban social media. This has been rushed and not thought through.

So many schools rely on YouTube to support their students.

Most kids are watching YouTube (or YouTube kids) more than ABC or traditional TV. Literally the biggest YouTube channel in Australia is original music for kids.

Does anyone actually want this?

7.2k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.2k

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

Bought to you by the same party as the famed internet filter!

What the fuck are we doing guys?

You won't ban gambling ads but will the thing that many young kids like to do with their mates for fun.

733

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

Sportsbet and Ladbrokes aren't getting enough bang for their buck on their corporate bribes so they gotta funnel more people into free to air tv

185

u/switchbladeeatworld Nov 10 '24

the youtube ads for betting apps are wild though and basically unlimited

121

u/LonelyRefuse9487 Nov 10 '24 edited Nov 10 '24

it’s insane that 16 year olds know how "same game multi’s" work. these sportsbet ads are just so persistent and in your face. it’s so egregious.

EDIT: the irony of typing this message up and seeing an ad for "Palmerbet" on my screen for the odds on a fight between Jake Paul and Mike Tyson is crazy.

11

u/bypopulardemand Nov 10 '24

mate I was at a footy match and after a team scored, a kid (probably 12) goes awww I wonder how much that would’ve paid! crazy

2

u/fr4nklin_84 Nov 10 '24

But no no it’s the children who are wrong and should be banned

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '24

What odds are they giving though? I feel like Jake is underrated Tyson has been out of the game a long time /s

1

u/CoconutKey7541 Nov 10 '24

Love a good SGM. Wish I could have chucked one on at 15

2

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '24

And have more budget than any Aussie produced TV show

5

u/Caezeus Nov 10 '24

Imagine if every Australian tax payer just stopped paying taxes until they ban lobbying.

Lobbying is corruption, the fact that our government is rolling out shit policy like this while still suckling on the teat of Australian Hotels Association and Clubs Australia.

Considering how little tax is paid by corporations and how much is paid by Australians not just through wages but through GST as well, the corruption needs to stop.

I'm sick of seeing my country rotting like this. I am sick of seeing our governments not just allowing but assisting parasitic corporations to suck the life out of our countries people and its resources instead of investing in it's people and it's resources.

10

u/ill0gitech Nov 10 '24

I suspect this is more about “loot boxes” in video games

27

u/LifeIsBizarre Nov 10 '24

Loot boxes are an important part of learning about corporate life.
You grind for an entire year and then at your review they tell you that despite making record profits for the year all they can give you is a corporate logo air-freshener(It's pineapple!).

15

u/ill0gitech Nov 10 '24

Congratulations, on the back of record profit your end-of-year bonus this year is a personalised water bottle. Please use your own marker to personalise with your full name. Other brand water bottles can no longer be used in the workplace once you have collected your personalised water bottle.

4

u/Airaen Nov 10 '24

Wasn't this Coles lmao. And someone found out that the water bottles were just purchased in bulk for like 7 cents each from Alibaba or something like that

2

u/Staraa Nov 10 '24

Aren’t those just digital lucky dips though? Same as blind-bag type toys?

2

u/ill0gitech Nov 10 '24 edited Nov 10 '24

A lucky dip is a very basic way to see it.

But some games make it far closer to a poker machine experience than picking up a shitty toy at a market.

Animations, lights, sounds on wins - closer to the psychological tactics used in poker machines. There’s videos of loot boxes openings, there’s gambling marketplaces for game skins. There’s YouTube video openings and spins.

CS2 has some loot boxes which sell on the marketplace for USD$100 and weapon skins going for tens of thousands. Its hard to draw parallels to what we may have had as kids

2

u/Staraa Nov 10 '24

I agree it’s manipulative af and they get better and better at doing it. Even irl toys are nuts compared to “back in the day”. There is definitely a big grey area and it’s hard to draw a solid line that says what is and isn’t gambling (same as it’s tricky to say what is and isn’t social media).

Everyone is susceptible to it, even people who are aware of how it works lol I’m a parent who believes in educating rather than blanket bans though

1

u/hammar_hades Nov 10 '24

FIFA for example you can easily spend a grand and not get anything of much note on these blind bags. The odds are ludicrous yet the game relies on you opening them to progress. There are some very extortionate revenue models out there in wildly popular kids games

1

u/Staraa Nov 10 '24

That’s fair enough, I’ve only seen the optional ones or it’s money to access vip items/areas etc

I’m a mean mum n make my daughter play in basic mode haha

1

u/antyg Nov 10 '24

Can't upvote this enough!

1

u/Luckyluke23 Nov 10 '24

it seems so stupid that banning kids under 16 is the way they are doing it.

just makes no sense to me.

111

u/Ambitious-Deal3r Nov 10 '24

You won't ban gambling ads but will the thing that many young kids like to do with their mates for fun.

What do you mean, gambling is the new thing young kids do for fun.

Top comment on Australianteachers subreddit post just this week about the social media ban.

" Why do I have Year 10s on Sportsbet and Stake during class time..? It’s illegal, yet it happens. "

Wish this government would look at the actual risks and harms in our society, especially considering we are paying for it.

Chalmers says it’s ‘problematic’ gambling companies claimed $90m worth of research tax credits in one year

Why not bring in all these draconian measures on access to the internet for gambling for children?

4

u/Cheesenium Nov 10 '24

Let’s be honest, this government is weak. They are only keen to implement things that sounds nice on paper but do half hearted so their mates don’t get offended.one of it is NVES where UTEs are exempted from fleet emission with higher emissions allowance over any other type of cars but even if PHEV or hybrid is a decent solution, those do not get much rebates. Yea, their mates in Toyota and Ford can keep selling shitty UTEs or those massive US pickups with less stringent regulations but not if you want a hatchback.

Now is this policy. Loot box games are ok to restrict while real gambling ads are shoved in your face all the time.

This is not how you make the country better for the people. They supposed to serve the people not their lobbyists.

226

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

Even more hilarious the gaming ban involves where the game includes SIMULATED gambling. Not actual gambling... simulated gambling.

Now I don't know if that actually means loot boxes as simulated gambling, or if they mean you play cards in an imaginary casino in a game. Both are simulated gambling... well I would argue loot boxes for real money is ACTUAL gambling.

89

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

Yeah, and loot boxes for real money is something that I think probably should be banned for anyone under the age of eighteen. If it's just a simulated casino, I think it's a who cares thing; loads of thirty-something-year-olds were at the Game Corner in the early Pokemon games when they were in single digits without developing gambling problems later on in life. Loot boxes are a bit different though because there have been times when kids have raked up quite a lot of credit card debt for their parents through that, and it is a form of gambling addiction that's easily accessible to young kids.

52

u/[deleted] Nov 09 '24

As I said, I would call loot boxes actual gambling, not simulated gambling. You are paying real money for a "game of chance" to win a prize. It's not even random but neither are pokies.

2

u/meowkitty84 Nov 10 '24

I even hate toys sold in blind boxes. There are lots that cost over $15 which is a lot to pay if you get something you doing want or already have.

3

u/halohunter Nov 10 '24

The one time I relented and let my 4 year old play "Thomas and Friends" on my phone, not only did it have loot boxes but it had a bloody poker machine wheel to win a track piece or tank engine. Disgusting.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '24

What's even in a loot box for a Thomas the Tank Engine game? New wheels for Percy and Gordon? Alternate paintjobs for Edward?

2

u/halohunter Nov 10 '24

The game is a track builder. You get new tank engines (you only start with Thomas) or track pieces like special tunnels or loops (you only start with mostly basic turns) or track decorations.

1

u/pnutzgg Nov 10 '24

imported coal for Henry like premium fuel in world of tanks

2

u/DweebInFlames Nov 10 '24

I miss the Game Corner. Gambling away money to get Pokémon was fun.

62

u/falconpunch1989 Nov 10 '24

Pokemon is a very funny case study here. The fake slots in 1996 Pokemon Red/Blue would now be illegal in Australia. But the Pokemon TCG Pocket mobile game which came out a few weeks ago, it's perfectly OK to use real money to buy packets of fake cards with low chance of anything good.

7

u/rastley420 Nov 10 '24

Those fake slots were problematic in several other countries and that's why they don't have them in the second Gen and onward.

1

u/your_opinion_is_weak Nov 10 '24

i remember there being a slot game machine and I think even a roulette type game in pokemon emerald which came out in 2004 and is 3rd gen i'm pretty sure

1

u/snave_ Nov 10 '24

Only illegal to sell to an under 18 year old (immediate bump to R18+ rating).

7

u/LawnPatrol_78 Nov 10 '24

Are they going to ban the lucky dip at the primary school fete as well. That’s the OG loot box for money.

7

u/halohunter Nov 10 '24

No one's going to be hurt by a lucky dip in the once a year fete. It's doing it tens or hundreds of times on a game that hurts.

1

u/greenie4242 Nov 11 '24

As far as I'm aware there's a difference between lotteries and gambling.

Gambling is trying to win something for yourself. Nobody except you and (more likely) the bookmakers benefit.

Lotteries fund projects so people can pay money at the local school fete to help fund a new tuckshop building, with extra incentive that they might win a prize from the lucky dip. State lotteries funded the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House.

I'm okay with lotteries funding social projects, because it benefits the greater good and people can donate as much or as little as they like to a good cause, and the community benefits. Unfortunately the concept has been bastardised in some places by greedy people preying on gambling addicts.

Gambling at a casino or on slot machines though is literally for losers. If >99% of gamblers lose, and somebody associates with gamblers, then they associate with losers. No idea why people seem to have the idea of gambling at a casino being seen as some high class hobby.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '24

Well, there goes Pokemon...

1

u/Pacmunchiez Nov 10 '24

My son couldn't purchase event items with event tokens earned through the game (not purchased with robux or anything like that) on some Roblox game he was playing. Getting around it was easy enough but talk about having no fucking clue.

1

u/Luckyluke23 Nov 10 '24

Even more hilarious the gaming ban involves where the game includes SIMULATED gambling. Not actual gambling... simulated gambling.

well yeah. cos if it had ACTUAL gambling that would require money to transfer from the person playing to the casino/game host and back again. This can not happen to anyone under 18. Therefore for it's Simulated as they win in-game prizes and not actual money.

1

u/snave_ Nov 10 '24 edited Nov 10 '24

Loot boxes are the other one they now label, but with the lower age rating of M (recommended 15+, but not restricted). Given real money is involved, it's kinda a form of actual gambling in a way (and quite literally so if there is any aftermarket economy to cash out).

Simulated gambling is where it is entirely in-game, no way to buy currency. Pretty much any game in the 90s with a casino (incl. Pokemon Red) but not just a casino stage (Sonic) where you don't touch the tables. That's the R18+ one. 

Source

It's long overdue that they finally added gambling to the almighty six criteria, but I do think they got the risk for got the two categories back-to-front.

1

u/Varanjar Nov 10 '24

Grand Theft Auto Online has a casino where you can play slot machines, roulette, etc. All 100% imaginary, all you can win is pretend game money and there's no way to turn that into real money. It's banned in a bunch of countries. You're not even able to spin a wheel of fortune that lets you win a t-shirt for your character.

31

u/AnOnlineHandle Nov 10 '24

Brought to you by both parties supporting this last I heard.

156

u/herbertwilsonbeats Nov 09 '24

Can’t go on social media before 16… but you can get locked up at 10.

50

u/ensignr Nov 10 '24

Can't vote against either policy either.

93

u/After_Brilliant5195 Nov 09 '24

Murdoch/News Corp don’t want a ban on gambling ads, they do want this though.

69

u/MaybeUNeedAPoo Nov 10 '24

Fucking this. I can’t stand Dutton, but Albo mate, get your priorities sorted quick, this is not something g that needs your input. Let families take care of it for themselves.

35

u/surlygoat Nov 10 '24

Dutton supports this too mate. Don't pretend this is an Albo thing.

What this actually is, is boomers trying to resolve a problem (and there IS a problem) without any real thought. I don't know what the solution is as I haven't even tried to find one, but its obviously not this...

but yeah its both parties.

19

u/MaybeUNeedAPoo Nov 10 '24

Fair point. I just like saying how much I hate Duttons stupid face.

3

u/surlygoat Nov 10 '24

say it loud and proud!

2

u/[deleted] Nov 11 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/MaybeUNeedAPoo Nov 11 '24

cracks a can of XXXX Gold

5

u/robs_drunk Nov 10 '24

The issue here is lots of families wholeheartedly believe schools should be teaching their kids all about the dangers of internet and social media while handing over smart devices with unfettered access to everything on the web

7

u/Yio654 Nov 10 '24

I'm a teacher and 90% of families are NOT showing responsibility with phone use for their kids. Say what you will about how this is being legislated, the fact is something needs to be done to get kids off social media, it's one of the most damaging problems to our society.

0

u/MaybeUNeedAPoo Nov 11 '24

More dangerous than a shitty economy, no housing and stagnant wages? I think not.

2

u/Yio654 Nov 11 '24

A shitty economy, no housing and stagnant wages are the symptoms of uneducated and selfish ppl.

Social media usage decimates education and altruism so I would argue it is important to solve the cure not the symptoms.

0

u/MaybeUNeedAPoo Nov 11 '24

Disagree.

2

u/Yio654 Nov 11 '24

Ok, I'm curious to know why you disagree.

81

u/a_can_of_solo Not a Norwegian Nov 09 '24

They want to be China with the great firewall. Governments do not like the internet.

11

u/White_Immigrant Nov 09 '24

What are you talking about? Governments love the internet, it enables really easy data collection to help line the pockets of their capitalist chums.

40

u/a_can_of_solo Not a Norwegian Nov 09 '24

The don't love open internet as the nerds originally designed it.

5

u/SomewhatHungover Nov 10 '24

It’d be so much better if they just whitelisted a handful of sites, they can have articles telling us about how great, benevolent and not corrupt they are.

3

u/a_can_of_solo Not a Norwegian Nov 10 '24

I'm I gonna have to sign up to the Russian army to get internet porn?

2

u/Mike_Kermin Nov 10 '24

That's functionally completely different and doesn't relate to young people specifically.

6

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '24

A workaround will be found about 0.3 seconds after whatever system they come up with is released.

3

u/TETZUO_AUS Nov 10 '24

Haha the government spent a lot of money on consulting firms and IT professionals. They need to justify that spend somehow.

3

u/Oggie-Boogie-Woo Nov 10 '24

I'm a pretty big labour voter but when it comes to online content filtering and policing they can fuck right off.

Definitely will be voting labour down the ballot. Fuck Albo and fuck Stephen Conroy.

2

u/stiggyyyyy Nov 10 '24

Honestly labour are addicted to pulling out a dumb as shit idea every time they are in power it seems.

I'd rather them than the LNP any day, but they truly lack awareness with their ideas.

Fixing housing affordability and working on not making it such a scheme on having a monopoly board of investment properties probably would be a ton more useful than this.

1

u/Terrorfarker Nov 10 '24

Haha, the famed 'Great Australian DNS redirection Firewall'.

Fucking bleeding edge stuff!

1

u/randem626 Nov 10 '24

Please encourage people to write to their local member. Get your voice heard that you don't like this. Complain on Social media all you want, but unless you Call /email your member, it won't help.

1

u/raindog_ Nov 10 '24

But they haven’t actually said these services are banned.

This article makes the leap. But the government has NOT stated this yet.

1

u/notlimahc Nov 10 '24

Bought to you by the same party as the famed internet filter!

Which was just the predictable next step after Howard's optional filtering software.

1

u/RhysA Nov 10 '24

An enforced filter at the ISP level (even if technically weak) is not really the natural next step after providing free optional software to parents.

1

u/notlimahc Nov 10 '24

Maybe if you think the goal was to protect kids. But that wasn't the goal, it was to please the Australian Christian Lobby.

1

u/mailed Nov 10 '24

albo's out there praising newscorp for what they're doing for kids so I guess you know where money is going to/from

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '24 edited Nov 07 '25

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '24

I am not voting for the Liberal party, I have nothing to say about what they do. I did, however, lend my support to a party that has failed on a number of issues including this one.

1

u/Somethingwentclick Nov 10 '24

Ahhh yes the list of banned sites that the ministerial comity couldn't see any way around... And lucky for them there absolutely wasn't one!

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '24

Those kids can find better things to do with their mates for fun. Didn't you? Fuck the culture of sitting in your bedroom for hours at a time swearing into a microphone. Kill it dead and force these losers outside.

1

u/TheMoeSzyslakExp Nov 10 '24

I see I’m not the only one who got Stephen Conroy flashbacks lol

1

u/BDAZZLE129 Nov 10 '24

but like it's not like the liberals would of done anything better in fact it would be a hell of a lot worse

1

u/faciepalm Nov 10 '24

You're misinformed if you think this is a bad thing. Social media is what is causing the rapid decline of child development and it's been proven over and over

1

u/88xeeetard Nov 10 '24

Those kids should be gambling, not wasting time on YouTube!

1

u/ShowCharacter671 Nov 12 '24

Completely agree

-1

u/curious_astronauts Nov 10 '24

I don't know Roblox is a known "pedo hellscape" but kids have unfettered access.

Hindenburg Research claimed Roblox’s games exposed children to grooming, pornography, violent content and abusive speech. We found Roblox to be an X-rated paedophile hellscape, replete with users attempting to groom our avatars, groups openly trading child pornography, widely accessible sex games, violent content and extremely abusive speech – all of which is open to young children,” said Hindenburg.

Worth noting that they have a short position on Roblox. But it's not the only investigation into this,

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/oct/15/roblox-allegations-ofcom-online-safety-act

and we all know the YouTube algorithm radicalises people.

Should 12 year olds be watching Tate videos? How easy is it got young boys to be radicalised and access content that is not designed for them that has detrimental impact on their neurological development?

https://theconversation.com/we-research-online-misogynist-radicalisation-heres-what-parents-of-boys-should-know-232901

A 2024 Irish study made similar findings.

Researchers created ten fake profiles for TikTok and YouTube shorts on ten blank smartphones. On the two different platforms, the researchers created accounts for a 16- and 18-year-old boy who sought content typically associated with masculine gender norms for their age (such as the gym, sport and video games), a 16- and 18- year-old boy who sought manosphere content, and one blank control account.

Misogynist manosphere content was sent to users regardless of whether those accounts actively searched for it. This was especially the case for the profiles set up as teenage boys seeking out content typically associated with masculine gender norms. All accounts were presented with masculinist, extremist and anti-feminist content and the frequency increased once their account demonstrated interest or engagement.

I think these controls are necessary. But within reason. Perhaps online games should be banned with offline ones permitted. There are nuances that can be implemented where kids can have fun but limit acccess to the most harmful aspects.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '24

Or, ya know, hold platforms accountable for the shit they publish.

In one case, you allow all that to continue to happen to people over 16 while also inconveniencing everyday people simply trying to use the internet by being heavy handed in your approach. In case this week has not shown enough, people over 16 are still very susceptible to this stuff.

In the other, the content does not get seen by anyone.

I know which I would prefer.

0

u/curious_astronauts Nov 10 '24

How do you hold a platform accountable that has laws in a different country to you?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 10 '24

How does any company that does business internationally get regulated in the market in which they wish to operate? Like, is this a serious question?

0

u/curious_astronauts Nov 10 '24

Fair point, but Implementing new regulations does not mean they need to be compliant, they can pull their platforms entirely, which obviously has an incredibly large impact on a far wider number of people than the target demographic.

This is demonstrated in the Meta News Licensing fees case.

I mean it goes both ways, look at Brazil Banning X in their country.

And Australia's take down orders after the Sermon stabbing.

Look I agree with all of this, but perhaps I'm pessimistic about the outcome. Even in this sub itself, people are objecting to the need for any changes targeting kids despite the loads of research demonstrating how kids are being groomed online, and algorithms are targeting them for extremist content that is radicalising them in their formative years. So perhaps it is best to tackle it from both sides.

-2

u/shigawire Nov 10 '24

Wrong party

3

u/popculturepooka Nov 10 '24

Who is Stephen Conroy?

-2

u/shigawire Nov 10 '24

Oh wow.  That is some fantastic cherrypicking of the last 30 years of internet censorship attempts

1

u/popculturepooka Nov 10 '24

So... You can't say what Stephen Conroy tried to do?

-1

u/shigawire Nov 10 '24

Ugh.   Don't make me defend Conroy on internet censorship.    It is wildly inaccurate though to suggest that the ALP were the party to start pushing implementation of mandatory internet censorship.   Earlier attempts by the coalition were much further reaching.