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.
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
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.
deleted by creator
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
