Do they have any rule that says you need a minimum number of users on a site to fall under the law?
If servers of someinstance.co.au fine if they move to hosting in Finland?
It just feels like a nightmare.
Apparently aussie.zone is asking users to DM evidence of being over 16, and the implication is that of those who don’t - he’ll ban/delete their accounts.
But absurdly enough, 4chan is exempt from this because all activity on there is anonymous. Not through accounts. So if the Fediverse had anonymous, non-account posting on-top of regular account-based posting then people could post anonymously happily, but anyone with an account would have to verify.
Make it make sense.
4chan is exempt from this because all activity on there is anonymous
So, the politicians’ concern is that kids will say dumb stuff on the internet, and it will haunt them for the rest of their life?
Wow more fascists inviting themselves in places they are not invited.
But I can still access Aussie.zone communities from my pieced.ca account, right?
Yes
Oh, apparently their attempt at following the law is pretty ridiculous. https://aussie.zone/post/27246692
pretty ridiculous
In the good way, yes. Who was it the admin of a Lemmy instance, I think, who said he would receive alcohol as a form of ID verification because to even acquire it legally in the first place you have to be of age, anyway? That’s pretty much golden and incentivizes the local economy!
Local? They’d be getting alcohol from all around the world :D
Well, they’d be supporting their local businesses for that I’d hope!
I’d say their attempt is actually better than what the government came up with. I also thought the idea of chatting with a bot that guesses your age was pretty funny.
But absurdly enough, 4chan is exempt from this because all activity on there is anonymous.
Don’t think that’s it, it has no footprint in Australia. Meta, &Google, X etal all do, same as piefed.social, lemmy.world etal have no Australian base. aussie.socal users can just move to another server. I’m an Aussie.
Similarly UK has tried to get 4chan, kiwifarms etc but they have no UK footprint so they just ignore them.
Similarly UK has tried to get 4chan, kiwifarms etc but they have no UK footprint so they just ignore them.
No, that’s a matter of enforcement. UK is still trying to fine 4chan - but failing. Australia has just outright said the law doesn’t apply to them.
Don’t give them anything, that instance is run by the worst parts of r/australia. They cannot be trusted.
yes you should be very weary of sending someone a photo you took while driving a car that doesn’t inlcue your face /s
To my fellow Aussies:
The social media ban works through DNS, just change your DNS to either 8.8.8.8 or 1.1.1.1 in your router settings and browser setting. I’ve had no problems so far, but if that doesn’t work you can always use TOR or another VPN service.
Quad9 is also a great provider for privacy: 9.9.9.9 … In case you want to avoid google and cloudflare.
That’s also a good choice, there are others too. I would suggest to everyone look around for a good generic DNS provider.
wait, it actually works through dns?
Yeah.
So far, changing my DNS has worked fine for me. I’ve had no requests of ID from any of the socials.
No, it’s account based, in a lot of cases changing your DNS won’t change the server you end up with at Youtubes or whoever
Age-restricted platforms are expected to take reasonable steps to:
-
find existing accounts held by under-16s, and deactivate or remove those accounts
-
prevent under-16s from opening new accounts
-
prevent workarounds that may allow under-16s to bypass the restrictions
-
have processes to correct errors if someone is mistakenly missed by or included in the restrictions, so no one’s account is removed unfairly.
Does every Australian now have to prove their age to use social media?
For example, if someone has had an account since Facebook started in Australia in 2006, Meta could reasonably assume they are older than 16 so no further check is needed.
https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions/faqs
Platforms then use a variety of signal’s to detect if someone is under 16:
DNS has nothing to do with it
-
that is not how the social media ban works…
Then how am I still able to access youtube, facebook and all the others without needing to give them my ID?
Edit: Nice alt accounts, loser.
Then how am I still able to access youtube, facebook and all the others without needing to give them my ID?
DNS translates domains like youtube.com into IP’s like 1.1.1.1, this has no bearing when you make a social media account in Australia:
It’s not a ban, it’s a delay to having accounts.
This means there will be no penalties for under-16s who access an age-restricted social media platform, or for their parents or carers. However, age-restricted social media platforms may face penalties if they don’t take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from having accounts.
https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions
As of 10 December 2025, Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube are required to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from having accounts on their platforms.
If you have an australian account registered with those websites and they suspect you are under 16 you will have to verify your id
As explained here the platforms will need to check:
https://aussie.zone/post/27246692/20254931
How can under-16s be stopped from finding a way around the age restrictions?
Platforms may assess age-related signals which can help work out if someone is under 16. These signals can include:
how long an account has been active
whether the account holder interacts with content targeted at children under 16
analysis of the language level and style used by the account holder and the people they interact with
visual checks, such as facial age analysis of the account holder’s photos and videos
audio analysis, such as age estimation of the voice of the account holder
activity patterns consistent with school schedules
connections with other users who appear to be under 16
membership in youth-focused groups, forums or communities.
Platforms may also use location-based signals which can help work out if an account holder usually lives in Australia and could be using a VPN to pretend they don’t. These signals can include:
IP address(es)
GPS or other location services
device language and time settings
a device identifier
an Australian phone number
app store or operating system or account settings
photos, tags, connections, engagement or activity.
Evidence of these age and location signals is expected to trigger the age assurance process, or review of an account if it has already been checked.
https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions/faqs
On top of this there are plenty of services that block VPN’s, most famously Netflix.
So yeah, changing one aspect of your account while leaving all the others won’t get around the ban
Edit: Nice alt accounts, loser.
This is my primary account and always has been? What’s with the loser? Why so cranky?
That’s a lot of text just to say “I’m an idiot who loves bending over for the government”.
How are they going to enforce any of that on a company with no office in Australia? Answer: They can’t.
How are they going to enforce any of that on a company with no office in Australia? Answer: They can’t.
Then how am I still able to access youtube, facebook and all the others without needing to give them my ID?
You think youtube and facebook don’t have offices in Australia?
That’s a lot of text just to say “I’m an idiot who loves bending over for the government”.
I’m simply telling you what the government is telling social media companies that allow Australian users to create accounts on their websites
You can change your DNS all you want mate, I’m just saying it won’t make a difference
Doesn’t there have to be a certain number of users for this to apply to them? I could have sworn I saw it had to be over 50,000.
On reddthat, we got this notice in an announcement back in March 2025:
Age Restriction
Effective immediately everyone on Reddthat needs to be 18 years old and futher interaction on the platform confirms you are over the age of 18 and agree with these terms.
If you are under the age of 18 you will need to delete your account under Settings
This has also been outlined in our signup form that has been updated around the start of February.
March? Over 18?
Reddthat presumably was reacting to the Online Safety ACT UK there.
We discussed it in the community posts back in Dec 2024 when the law passed – February is when the sign up change happened and March was when the announcement went up. The UK’s bullshit may be what prompted the announcement happening then though.
Yeah, but what I mean is that wasn’t a reaction to Australia here. Since your threshold here is 18, not 16.
reddthat is an instance hosted in Australia; so the answer to “how will the ban affect it” is “we already have an age limit in place”. That’s my point.
Fair enough.
IIRC moving the instance won’t be helpful - the issue is the servicing of minors, not where the service is. And while the server being in a different country might be a bit of a roadblock for legalities, the general consensus is, like with GDPR - if you make your service available in Australia you must comply with Australian laws, therefore need to make your instance unavailable to children.
if you make your service available in Australia you must comply with Australian laws,
How does this even work? This is among the stupidest arguments I’ve ever heard on the internet, at about the same level of flat-earthism.
Are you saying if I am in Italy, selling Italian good on an Italian shop set in an Italian street, and an Australian tourist sends an agent to walk the Italian street and buy a thing for them from my Italian stand, I am somehow beholden to Australian law? This but “oN tHE iNtErNeT”?
This is a complex issue and both of the comments above are way oversimplifying it…
Lots of governments around the world are nowadays claiming that their laws apply to all or many websites that can be accessed in their borders. Whether they can enforce this if the website has no physical assets in the country is a very different question. They could arrest their operators when they enter their countries (as happened to Pavel Durov), or they could geoblock websites, or… here are some starting points for further research:
- https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/88635/can-the-uk-government-do-anything-about-a-foreign-media-platform-rooting-for-civ
- https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/20490/what-politically-can-be-done-to-compel-global-compliance-by-google
- https://www.techdirt.com/2025/09/05/when-trolls-take-on-tyrants-4chan-and-kiwi-farms-sue-the-uk-over-extraterritorial-censorship/
So how is Australia going to make other sites with no footprint in Australia do it then?
National level site blocking, suspension on any future operations, international courts… Corporations are much easier to persecute over borders than private persons.
Why do you think American companies, even ones with no legal presence in Europe, still went along with GDPR? Same principle applies here.
Australia blocking 4chan in Australia doesn’t compel 4chan to do anything.
Why do you think American companies, even ones with no legal presence in Europe, still went along with GDPR? Same principle applies here.
They didn’t want to lose custom in Europe.
They didn’t want to lose custom in Europe.
Yeah sure that’s why major news sites “complied” with GDPR by blocking European visitors…
Some didn’t mind the loss of service in Europe and just cut Europe off. Some did. Bottom line is that the EU wouldn’t have been able to sue them because they had no assets in Europe.
What is it you imagine Australia could do to 4chan, other than blocking 4chan in Australia?
My point is that the threat of legal action was enough that major sites decided not to risk it, and blocked Europe et al.
4chan is hardly a financial/corporate entity (though they do seem to profit off traffic with ads), therefore much harder to go against, but blocking the service is still effective. It will be up to 4chan to see if they want to comply with the law and get unblocked or if they can live without Australian traffic.
My point is that the threat of legal action was enough that major sites decided not to risk it, and blocked Europe et al.
And has 4chan done the same to UK after Ofcom sent them any messages? No, they haven’t. There’s no meaningful difference between being blocked by a country and blocking them yourself. If we eventually block 4chan, then we do that - but no way would the current US administration accept any attempted fines against them.
4chan is hardly a financial/corporate entity (though they do seem to profit off traffic with ads), therefore much harder to go against, but blocking the service is still effective. It will be up to 4chan to see if they want to comply with the law and get unblocked or if they can live without Australian traffic.
Right, but that’s all I mean. They can’t do anything to 4chan otherwise.
(And this law, comically enough - doesn’t really apply to them in the first place because they don’t have account signups).
National level site blocking, suspension on any future operations, international courts
Easily circumvented by changing your DNS settings or using TOR or other VPN services
Not when the specific IP addresses of services are blocked on IPS level - which would be mandated by the state.
VPN/Tor, sure, but at that point the service itself can’t confirm where the visitor is from, therefore Australian laws wouldn’t apply.
The second half of your comment is redundant. Not knowing where the user is from is THE WHOLE POINT of TOR and VPNs in general. It just proves that this whole internet censorship thing is doomed to fail. It just forces people to find a work-around that the government doesn’t control.
But hey, if the government wants to waste time and money pissing into the wind they can go for it, let’s see where that gets them.
Except they’re wasting tax payer money, which is shitty.
I hope at least it helps reduce pressure on kids that they need social media from their peers, it can be a pretty bad place to be (regardless of age really).
Thats about all the good from it, my fear is everything else that comes after. Mainly that they’ll force devices to be linked to a person, which means you’ll need a way to have approved devices that can access sites etc, which means you can only use a browser that has device attestation, which means no more free and open ecosystems of applications or operating systems (LineageOS, GrapheneOS, etc)…
Fuck all this.
That’s what I’m worried about, too. It’s a slippery sloop, one that I think we should all stay well away from.
