Reddit has taken its fight against Australia's under-16s social media ban to the high court, challenging a law that restricts access to platforms like itself. The company argued that while protecting minors is crucial, the legislation "has the unfortunate effect of forcing intrusive and potentially insecure verification processes on adults as well."
Critics of the ban claim it undermines freedom of speech and limits access to information for young people. Sarah Joseph, a law professor at Griffith University, believes there's a strong case against the ban, stating that it has cut off the main source of political information for minors.
The Australian Human Rights Commission notes that less restrictive alternatives could achieve protection goals without such significant negative impacts on human rights. Reddit emphasizes its platform is primarily for adults with features that don't align with the government's concerns.
In September, Reddit had argued to the eSafety commissioner that it should be excluded from the ban due to its pseudonymous nature and focus on knowledge-sharing. The company also maintains minimal personal information collection to preserve users' anonymity.
The digital freedom project group has already filed a challenge in the high court, set for late February.
Critics of the ban claim it undermines freedom of speech and limits access to information for young people. Sarah Joseph, a law professor at Griffith University, believes there's a strong case against the ban, stating that it has cut off the main source of political information for minors.
The Australian Human Rights Commission notes that less restrictive alternatives could achieve protection goals without such significant negative impacts on human rights. Reddit emphasizes its platform is primarily for adults with features that don't align with the government's concerns.
In September, Reddit had argued to the eSafety commissioner that it should be excluded from the ban due to its pseudonymous nature and focus on knowledge-sharing. The company also maintains minimal personal information collection to preserve users' anonymity.
The digital freedom project group has already filed a challenge in the high court, set for late February.
I mean, I get where they're coming from - they don't want to be forced into being super strict about who can use their platform and what info they share... but at the same time, you've got to protect those under 16s online. It's a tough one.
I guess what I want to know is: what's the point of excluding them from the ban in the first place? Can't they just be part of the solution instead of fighting it?
- I mean, they're not exactly some wild party platform, but their focus on knowledge-sharing and community building should be respected 
. The under-16s ban is already pretty restrictive, and now it's pushing them to add more verification hoops for adults? That's just extra 
.
? I think there are better ways to do that without limiting access to info and restricting free speech. It's all about balance, you know? 
- less restrictive alternatives, maybe? 
. Fingers crossed they can make a real difference! 
They're all like "hey, we don't want to restrict our platform" but really they're just using the under-16s as a scapegoat. I mean, come on, if you're so concerned about minors' online safety, maybe focus on implementing better parental controls or education rather than stifling free speech? 
The more I think about it, the more I'm like, "Can we just find a better way to regulate this stuff?" 
. Like what even is going on in Australia? Can't they just leave Reddit alone? 
I mean, aren't there like other ways to deal with minors online without totally restricting adult access?