From the actual bill:

63C Age-restricted social media platform (1) For the purposes of this Act, age-restricted social media platform means: (a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions: (i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users; (ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users; (iii) the service allows end-users to post material on the service;

I would say that HN is covered under that.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...

You are quite shortsighted if you can't see the possible outcomes of such a far-reaching and anti-democratic law.

▲

beardedwizard 7 months ago | parent [-]

I would argue it's short sighted to do nothing to prevent harm from social media, and we certainly won't find out what works or doesn't by doing nothing to chase a perfect solution that will never exist.

	▲	brokenmachine 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing. This has too many chilling effects. It's so far from perfect it's crazy. By the letter of the law any service even allowing only one-on-one conversations is covered. It's obvious to me that these secondary effects are by design. Open communication is the most important thing that democracy needs, and this is a clear attack on it. Also can we not recognise that social media can have good effects as well? https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-01/social-media-ban-unde... Murdoch media is losing it's power and fighting back. Why not restrict the algorithms they're permitted to use, to fight echo chambers? That might actually have a chance of helping every person, not only <16 year olds?