That is by no means the only solution. A lot of work is happening in the area of cryptographically verified assertions; for example, a government API could provide the simple assertion "at least 16 years of age" without the social media platform ever seeing your ID, and the government never able to tie you to the service requiring the assertion.

Yes, it could, but we don't have that, do we? They launched the ban without implementing a zero-knowledge proof scheme as you described. In a very short amount of time the providers will have associated millions of people's accounts to their biometric information and/or their government issued IDs.

It will always be cheaper to go with a vendor that forces you to scan your face and ID, because they will either be packaging that data for targeted advertising, selling the data to brokers, or making bank off of using it as population-wide training datasets.

Governments will want the data and cost savings, as well.

Both corporations and governments will want to use the platforms to tie online activity to real human beings.

Arguments like these end up like arguments for PGP in email: yes, in a perfect world we'd be using it, and platforms would make it easy, but the incentives aren't aligned for that perfect world to exist.

If the API asks for a users minimum age at a certain time, how can the government not know which data set it has to check?

Some worthwhile reading on the topic if you're interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-knowledge_proof#Zero-Know...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_signature

It should even possible to construct a protocol where you can prove that you're over 18 without revealing your birthdate.

Zero-Knowledge Range Proofs: https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/430

"Zero-knowledge range proofs (ZKRPs) allow a prover to convince a verifier that a secret value lies in a given interval."

Umm, no. That is not how a scheme like this would work.

When implemented correctly, yes. I've edited my wording slightly to indicate that.

I just don't have faith in most countries, including Australia, to implement it with protecting the privacy of their residents in mind.

I disagree. I can't think of an implementation mistake that would allow just the government to see what services you sign up for.

You could of course screw it up so everybody could see. If the government put a keylogger on your device then they could see. However broadly speaking this is not something that can be screwed up in such a way that just the government would be able to see.

The protocol wouldn't even involve any communication with the government.

Not just theoretically posdible, people have done it: https://zkpassport.id/

"This is experimental software. While it has undergone external review, it has not yet received a formal security audit. Please use with caution and at your own risk in production environments."

Until these controls on American tech companies Trump (via all the tech CEOs fawning over him) had more control over Australian society than your own government.

The rest of the world needs similar restrictions on American tech and social media unless we all want to have American bonkers (and increasingly authoritarian) politics fully exported to us.

Yes, it does but don't kid yourself, all of Big Tech will cooperate with governments for mutual benefit. Big Tech collects data that governments would otherwise have difficulty collecting, if Big Tech is refrained from collecting data because of regulation and privacy laws then both lose out.

We should never expect governments to maintain our privacy or protect us from Big Tech leaching our data. In short, we're fighting different enemies on two fronts and that's a difficult and invidious position to be in.

In other words: this legislation is useless, and entirely stupid, and kids will bypass it trivially. Teenagers are exceptionally good at bypassing that which they find stupid, or gets in their way of what they consider to be fun, or a right.

Which tweets do you have in mind? Because it not does not describe any of the high-profile tweet-related arrests I have heard of.

Decades ago when the Australia Card—an ID system for Australians—was first proposed there was an almighty outcry from the citizenry and the project was seemingly shelved. What's happened since is that our Governments quietly ramped up their computer systems and collected the data anyway, this Law will only enhance that collection further. Moreover, recently Government introduced what at the moment are voluntary digital IDs which it sold under the guise that having a single ID will make it easier to deal with government services, etc. Unfortunately, most will unquestioningly swallow the official line and miss the fine minutiae.

I've never heard any politician or Government official come out and say "We'll never introduce an Australia Card because we're free people" or such and I'd bet that I never will. Fact is, we Australians already have had an 'Australia Card' for years, it's just that we don't carry it around in our wallets as we do with our credit cards.

Our democracy would be vastly improved if those whose governance we're under would actually tell us the truth.

Edit: Despite my comment about this new law, I agree kids need protection—so we're damned either way. I see no easy solution.

Also, I'm really struggling to think of examples where people have been arrested for "tweets against the government". The Linehan case? Most of the ones I can think of are like that — so basically culture war bullshit and overzealous policing of incitement laws.