Maybe. I got no idea really. But the post doesn’t say “first”, it says “only”.

Spotify isn’t the only tech company with a personalised yearly wrap-up. Not even close…

Whoops. Just cleaning up some old tabs and realised I never responded to this. Thanks! It was some really interesting info.

dual booting, as a concept, almost always exists in relation with Windows

Hard to dispute this, except perhaps for the really niche situation of someone dual booting Linux on a Mac. Not especially useful very often, since Macs are a UNIX system. And because of that, not very common compared to Windows on a Mac, or dual booting Windows & Linux.

The most rational explanation I can think of is that it’s a planted leak to figure out who’s leaking.

Either that or just extreme wishful thinking.

Yeah the speed with which the social media minimum age law was passed was astonishing. The public had just 24 hours to make submissions, and those submissions—thousands of them—were given just 4 hours of consideration by the parliamentary committee.

Not an invasive surveillance power, but an extremely untransparent piece of rushed legislation that’s already proving an abject failure as predicted by the many critics.

Ditto

The gambling industry, facing its own potential ban

Considering how key this part is to the point, it’s rather understated in this article.

In September 2022, Australia started a Parliamentary inquiry into online gambling. In June 2023 the inquiry handed down its full report, including 31 recommendations. 2 of those recommendations included a phased full ban of all advertising of online gambling.

Parliamentary rules require a response to inquiries within 6 months. 30 months later there still has not been any official response.

@non_burglar@lemmy.world is correct, but is perhaps not explaining it perfectly for the practical questions you seem to be asking.

If you have, say, two Docker containers for two different web servers (maybe one’s for your Wiki, and the other is for your portfolio site), you can have both listening on ports 80 and 443 of their container, but a third Docker container running a reverse proxy which has access to your machine’s ports 80 and 443. It then looks at the incoming request and decides which container to route the request to (e.g., http://192.168.1.2/wiki/%s requests go to the Wiki container, and all other requests go to portfolio site).

Now, reverse proxies can be run without Docker, but the isolation Docker adds makes it all a lot easier to manage, in part because you don’t need to configure loads of different ports.

Sorry mate, but you’ve got it wrong. The Prime Minister has specifically come out and said that this law is aimed only at companies, and that children or the parents of children who are able to get onto social media anyway will not be punished. Only the companies that let them slip through.

And you only need to read the legislation to see that that’s true. There are no penalties associated with accessing social media under the age of 16. Only with “a provider of an age-restricted social media platform…failing to take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts”. Or less closely related, “a provider of an age-restricted social media platform must not collect information…for the purpose of complying with [the above requirement] if the information is of a kind specified in the legislative rules”, and another similar “a provider of an age-restricted social media platform must not…collect government-issued identification material…for the purpose of complying with section [the above requirement]”, but this last clause “does not apply if…the provider provides alternative means…for an individual to assure the provider that the individual is not an age-restricted user”. It is also the case that a person who provides an age-restricted social media platform “must comply with a requirement…to give to the Commissioner, within the period and in the manner and form specified by the notice [about that person’s compliance with the law]…to the extent that the person is capable of doing so.”

That’s it. That’s all the new penalties that can be applied.

Here’s a page from the eSafety Commissioner that also confirms it.

Are there be penalties for under-16s if they get around the age restrictions?

There are no penalties for under-16s who access an age-restricted social media platform, or for their parents or carers.

Omg that is amazing. What a consummate gentleman.

The fact is, right now we know that Facebook has at times made a deliberate, conscious choice to leave in aspects of their algorithm that were causing harm. Their own studies have shown this. Making that practice illegal—knowingly causing harm with your algorithm—would be a good place to start with regulation.

no age can go on the internet.

I don’t think anyone had ever suggested anything like that.

it’s way too obvious that this law ain’t gonna achieve its stated aim

Absolutely. See my much longer comment elsewhere in the thread for all the real problems with this bill. We don’t need conspiracy theories. Hanlon’s razor very much applies here. It’s incompetence, not malice.

However, I think we can look at the worst part of this Bill—the nature of its passage through Parliament—for a clue as to its underlying purpose. It passed in just a week, right before Christmas last year, but didn’t actually come into effect until yesterday. The goal was good PR. I suspect not rattling cages with the big social media companies was part of it too. They wanted to look like they were doing something to protect kids, and hopefully win the election off the back of it (not that they needed much help with that, with how incompetent the LNP were), but they didn’t want to put up the fight that would be necessary to force the social media companies into actually making their algorithms less harmful…to children and adults. It’s lazy, it’s cowardly, it won’t work. But it’s not a secret ploy to spy on you.

with Labor getting over half the lower house seats from about a third of the votes

Yikes. This is some really dangerous misinformation. Labor received 55% of the votes. Because we use an actual democratic system, not the FPTP farce that America and the UK have. You cannot compare first preferences in IRV to votes in FPTP.

Step one is stuff like this, require id to verify your age

Right, but the law doesn’t do that. In fact it was specifically forbidden from doing that. Here’s the full text of the Bill. Section 63DB specifically says:

(1) A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must not:
(a) collect government-issued identification material; …

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) the provider provides alternative means…for an individual to assure the provider that the individual is not an age-restricted user

In plain language: you can only accept ID to verify age if you also have some other method of verifying age instead.

So far, it looks like most sites are relying on data they already have. The age of your account, the type of content you post, etc. Because I have not heard of a single adult being hit with a request to verify their age anywhere other than Discord, and even on Discord, it’s only when trying to view NSFW-tagged channels. (Which is an 18+ thing, and completely unrelated to this law, which is 16+ for all social media. Despite Discord having been officially classified as not social media, but a chat app, which does not apply.)

It also says, in 63F:

(1) If an entity:
(a) holds personal information about an individual that was collected for the purpose of, or for purposes including the purpose of, taking reasonable steps to prevent age - restricted users having accounts with an age - restricted social media platform; and
(b) uses or discloses the information otherwise than:
(i) for the purpose of determining whether or not the individual is an age - restricted user; or …
(iii) with the consent of the individual, which must be in accordance with subsection (2);
the use or disclosure of the information is taken to be:
(c) an interference with the privacy of the individual for the purposes of the Privacy Act 1988 ; …

(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(iii): (a) the consent must be:
[(i–v) voluntary, informed, current, specific, and unambiguous]; and
(b) the individual must be able to withdraw the consent in a manner that is easily accessible to the individual.

(3) If an entity holds personal information about an individual that was collected for the purpose of, or for purposes including the purpose of, taking reasonable steps to prevent age - restricted users having accounts with an age - restricted social media platform, then:

(a) the entity must destroy the information after using or disclosing it for the purposes for which it was collected

In other words, whatever information you collect to do the age verification, unless you already have it, with the user’s consent, for some other purpose, you must not store their information.

It would not have been hard to just not include that part of the law. Some privacy advocates would have spoken up about it, but the general public would have probably brushed it off. No, they included that because this isn’t about information harvesting. It’s a misguided but genuine attempt to protect kids. And, if you’re looking for a more cynical spin on it, it’s to win some good PR with people for being able to say they’re protecting kids, while also not doing anything that would substantially hurt big tech’s bottom line…like regulating the algorithms themselves.

But again, you mentioned the US government. What does that have to do with this? This is a law passed in Australia, but the Australian government. An entirely different country, and one with an actually functioning government and legislature.

First of all, what does the US government have to do with this?

Second, I made quite a detailed comment. Which bits do you disagree with and why?

Software very rarely has an individual’s vision behind it in the same way movies do. At least publicly. There are a small handful of game developers you could say that about, but outside of games the only time a single creator’s vision is relevant in that way is when they also do have creative control over it, and so the need for such a pseudonym doesn’t exist.

Most people are viewing this as a good way to prevent misinformation brainwashing

If only the government had actually made that the law. Crack down on the harmful algorithms that commercial social media use, instead of this shit.

My server just took a vote and changed our one NSFW channel to no longer be marked NSFW. All we used that channel for was posting slightly sex-themed memes anyway.