Theoretically they did. Lemmy not complying isn’t their problem. Lemmy does fit the definition they use.
According to the legal text, under Part 4A, Division 1, 63C, the requirements for a service to count as an age-restricted social media service are:
the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end‑users
the service allows end‑users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end‑users
the service allows end‑users to post material on the service
Additionally, it’s specified that additional legislative rules can be defined by the minister. So there seems to be exceptions for certain types of services added here:
services that have the sole or primary purpose of enabling end‑users to communicate by means of messaging, email, voice calling or video calling
services that have the sole or primary purpose of enabling end‑users to play online games with other end‑users
services that have the sole or primary purpose of enabling end‑users to share information (such as reviews, technical support or advice) about products or services
services that have the sole or primary purpose of enabling end‑users to engage in professional networking or professional development
services that have the sole or primary purpose of supporting the education of end‑users
services that have the sole or primary purpose of supporting the health of end‑users
services that have a significant purpose of facilitating communication between educational institutions and students or students’ families
services that have a significant purpose of facilitating communication between providers of health care and people using those providers’ services
I don’t see an exclusion for small platforms or requirement for the platform to be major. So Lemmy definitely is affected by this too. Australia just can’t enforce it outside their country, so they can only go after Lemmy admins operating out of Australia. And they probably won’t unless someone reports the instance.
If every websites requires a age verification process then would that not affect average people that run their own blogs for example or any other type of website.
What about people that run a wedding photo business and use a website to post and share wedding pictures with clients. Do they now need to implement and manage a age verification process, and what does a person like this do with all this personal data?
This would make the barrier of entry for a random individual way to high yo even start a publicly facing website.
Theoretically they did. Lemmy not complying isn’t their problem. Lemmy does fit the definition they use.
According to the legal text, under Part 4A, Division 1, 63C, the requirements for a service to count as an age-restricted social media service are:
Additionally, it’s specified that additional legislative rules can be defined by the minister. So there seems to be exceptions for certain types of services added here:
I don’t see an exclusion for small platforms or requirement for the platform to be major. So Lemmy definitely is affected by this too. Australia just can’t enforce it outside their country, so they can only go after Lemmy admins operating out of Australia. And they probably won’t unless someone reports the instance.
This is what’s also does not make sense to me.
If every websites requires a age verification process then would that not affect average people that run their own blogs for example or any other type of website.
What about people that run a wedding photo business and use a website to post and share wedding pictures with clients. Do they now need to implement and manage a age verification process, and what does a person like this do with all this personal data?
This would make the barrier of entry for a random individual way to high yo even start a publicly facing website.