The way the law is drafted…
…is shit. FIFY.
If the provider is serious about it, you won’t get their service anymore because they will outright geo-block it as a policy. I.e. any access by VPN is unlawfully accessing their service, and they are not liable.
Quote me an exclusion in the bill (not a press release, the bill) that includes online games because currently this is it
“ (b) an electronic service specified in the legislative rules;
but does not include a service mentioned in subsection (6).
Note 1: Online social interaction does not include (for example) online business interaction.
Note 2: An age-restricted social media platform may be, but is not necessarily, a social media service under section 13.
Note 3: For specification by class, see subsection 13(3) of the Legislation Act 2003 .”
And that does not exclude online games, it actually explicitly includes them.
ok if you say so
RemindMe!18 months
I agree it’s shit but it’s also drafted in a way that encourages social media companies to actively block circumventions.
But it’s not. If anything it just makes the legislation too broad in scope and more likely to get struck down or overturned after the election (as it should be). Nothing in here is practicable and is unlikely to be enforceable in court.
I will be messaging you in 1 year on 2026-05-22 23:21:28 UTC to remind you of this link
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) ^(delete this message to hide from others.)
Because you know that currently the bill includes online games…
no because i don’t wanna sit here pointing out how most of the condition’s don’t suit online gaming…
(i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users;
like the very first definition, already excludes gaming… the sole or significant purpose of an online game is to play the game, social interaction comes second. (and games already have communications restrictions on kids 13 and under, they can easily up it to 16 if necessary)
and just like they have said that services that fall out of scope aren’t included, that already includes online games from this 1 criteria…
so we can argue semantics all day, but i have a reminder for 18 months so we can come back and revel in how no kids got banned from online gaming then! i’m actually heading out now, which is why i’m trying to cut this short, if you really wanna continue discussing it because i’m honestly more than willing.
Like, i don’t disagree that the legislation couldn’t be a bit more tighter, but they have to define this in a way that’s going to emcompass new services that will eventually open up trying to circumvent the rules…
That doesn’t automatically mean it’s a huge red flag slippery slope and they are gonna ban kids under 16 from everything… I don’t think they’ll touch gaming they keep saying they won’t and i’ll believe it, because they haven’t given me any reason to think otherwise.
anyway, i hope in the near future you see that it’s not as sinister as everyone is stressing it is and we’re all good life as normal… have a great day!!
Edit - also I noticed you said something about posting urls
They will still be able to post urls over sms and whats app and YouTube they aren’t trying to stop urls being shared.
That’s some conflationist nonsense.
You have some weird definition of social media in your head they have already pointed out which services they are targeting and which fall outside the scope of service. You’re adding your own fuel to the fire and getting angry about it
Your VPN wording is like having a law saying don’t sell milk to people with red hats at home, or you’ll get a fine. How the fuck am I, the grocery store, supposed to know what you have in your house?
the sole or significant purpose of an online game is to play the game, social interaction comes second
You’re assuming that playing a game with other people is not in itself considered a “social interaction”. I’m not sure that’s a safe assumption. If a group of people get together and kick a footy around, we’d consider that a social activity; if they’re playing WoW or CoD instead, it’s not clear that that makes it any less of a social activity.
Would any given communications minister or judge take the same view of it? We don’t know, and that’s a problem. A games platform is put in the position where they have to guess how the law might be interpreted, and if they can’t be sure that they’d be deemed out of scope, they may feel they have to play it safe by banning under-16s.
The government aren’t complete idiots
Could have fooled me.
They aren’t going to draft something that gets thrown out straight away.
Like their immigration/asylum laws?
Although they would have known that the immigration/asylum laws were highly vulnerable to attack and didn’t care because they just wanted took tough.
And we don’t think this applies here?
Saying it frankly:
Labor thinks they get to control the internet annd that parents will give them a gobby for their efforts.
The LNP thinks they get to control the internet and blame Labor for the fallout.
Everybody else thinks it’s time to burn down the fucking parliament.