> Nobody in Australia wants this

G'day, Australian here, and I want this legislation.

I'm not sure how much weight I would give to the comments you reference. The large number of responses, to me, points more to the interference of an influential third party who clearly has a conflict of interest, rather than an organic uprising of the Australian population.

Asking for people to verify their age when signing up for a social media account is no more Orwellian than doing the same when buying alcohol, tobacco, or pornography, entering an 18+ venue, etc.

I do have concerns about the implementation- for example, I would prefer that the government provided some kind of age verification platform whereby a site can redirect users for age verification without needing to give a copy of my ID to social media sites directly. In principal though, I'm very in favor of age verification to sign up for social media.

G'day mate - Australian here too, but I have to strongly disagree with equating social media age verification to buying alcohol or tobacco.

There's a fundamental difference between regulated privileges that can physically harm/kill people (drinking, smoking, driving) and basic rights of communication and information access that democracies depend on.

Your government ID verification example actually highlights the key problem - whether it's platforms or government holding the data, you're creating a permanent link between real identity and every comment, like, share and interaction. That's not at all like showing ID at a bottle shop - it's more like having to show ID before every conversation you have at the pub, with someone keeping a permanent record. This verification applies to everyone, not just kids. In any case, they should not have their access to information restricted. Currently, X is the most legitimate source of real news with Community notes, where legacy media has completed failed - WMD, Lab Leak, etc. Etc.

Think about what that means for: - Whistleblowers exposing corruption - People discussing sensitive health issues - Anyone criticizing powerful institutions - Workers organizing or discussing workplace issues - People exploring political views different from their family/employer - Activists trying to create positive change

The "conflict of interest" argument cuts both ways - governments have a clear interest in expanding surveillance capabilities. Many of us opposing this genuinely care about preserving democratic freedoms, not corporate profits.

I get the desire to protect kids (I'm a parent too), but this is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We can push for better parental controls, algorithmic transparency, and targeting of specific harmful behaviors without compromising the anonymous speech that democracies need to function.

Surveillance creep has real effects on public discourse, and this is classic authoritarianism wrapped in “think of the children”.

The fact that an overwhelming amount of the 15,000 responses in 24hr oppose this makes your humble opinion that you want it in a tiny minority.