Talk:Online Safety Amendment: Difference between revisions

 

Line 95: Line 95:

::None of the comments citing WP:PRECISE have actually proposed moving it to the official title of the legislation – ”Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024”. The current title is neither the common name nor the official name, but rather a truncation of the official name apparently for convenience. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>[[User:ITBF|<span style=”background-color:wheat;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black”><span style=color:olivedrab>I</span> <span style=color:indianred>T</span> <span style=color:darkgoldenrod>B</span> <span style=color:darksalmon>F</span></span>]] <span style=”background-color:mistyrose;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black”>[[User talk:ITBF|📢]]</span></span> 10:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

::None of the comments citing WP:PRECISE have actually proposed moving it to the official title of the legislation – ”Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024”. The current title is neither the common name nor the official name, but rather a truncation of the official name apparently for convenience. <span style=white-space:nowrap;>[[User:ITBF|<span style=”background-color:wheat;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black”><span style=color:olivedrab>I</span> <span style=color:indianred>T</span> <span style=color:darkgoldenrod>B</span> <span style=color:darksalmon>F</span></span>]] <span style=”background-color:mistyrose;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black”>[[User talk:ITBF|📢]]</span></span> 10:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

:”’Support:”’ For a topic with such a tangible impact on many peoples’ lives, it should go by the common name, as that name is more relevant in the context most people will view it. I don’t think this name would be a conflict between [[WP:COMMONNAME]] and [[WP:PRECISE]], as the name, even if it is not official, still informs the reader on the exact topic. (Edit: I think Australian Youth Social Media Ban would be better) [[User:Mitchsavl|Mitchsavl]] ([[User talk:Mitchsavl|talk]]) 08:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

:”’Support:”’ For a topic with such a tangible impact on many peoples’ lives, it should go by the common name, as that name is more relevant in the context most people will view it. I don’t think this name would be a conflict between [[WP:COMMONNAME]] and [[WP:PRECISE]], as the name, even if it is not official, still informs the reader on the exact topic. (Edit: I think Australian Youth Social Media Ban would be better) [[User:Mitchsavl|Mitchsavl]] ([[User talk:Mitchsavl|talk]]) 08:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

*”’Oppose”’. We have to be [[WP:PRECISE]]. Plain reading of “Australian social media ban” would infer that Australia banned all kinds of social media, while in fact, only minors are banned from social media. We can do “Under-16 Australian social media ban” or similar to be precise. However, a redirect from “Australia social media ban” would be good. One example would be [[U.S. Muslim travel ban]] that is redirected to [[Executive Order 13769]]. While U.S Muslim travel ban is the common name in the media and sources, the article title is the precise order, the Executive Order 13769.[[User:SunDawn|<span style=”color:orange; background-color:black;”>&maltese; ”’SunDawn”’ &maltese;</span>]] [[User talk:SunDawn|<span style=”color:white; background-color:#2a3f7a;”>Contact me!</span>]] 10:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

== Good Article nomination ==

== Good Article nomination ==

Online Safety Amendment is currently a Law good article nominee. Nominated by Qwerty123M (talk) at 00:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria and will decide whether or not to list it as a good article. Comments are welcome from any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article. This review will be closed by the first reviewer. To add comments to this review, click here and then edit the page. Short description: Australian legislation

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don’t take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject TikTok, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of TikTok on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TikTokWikipedia:WikiProject TikTokTemplate:WikiProject TikTokTikTok

I expect this article’s title to change as more details emerge. Perhaps in a few weeks it should eventually be moved to the name of the Australian Parliament bill, once the bill is introduced and properly named, similar to an article like Online News Act. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should probably be retitled to Online Safety Act 2021, which is the act it amends. Some additional text can be incorporated around the original act. I T B F 📢 12:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been covered in RS since at least June. It is on the front page of apnews.com today. And is going to get a huge flurry of coverage in a few weeks once the bill is properly presented in Parliament. This meets WP:SUSTAINED. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Social media ban has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 2 § Social media ban until a consensus is reached. Absolutiva 02:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Online Safety Amendment → Australian social media banAustralian social media ban – The current title is unsatisfactory for several reasons – it is not the common name or the official name, and I can find very few sources that talk about the “Online Safety Amendment” without mentioning the full name of the act. The article is also now about much more than just the enabling legislation but about the wider implementation of the ban through regulations and the resulting reaction. I think “[Australian] social media ban” is pretty clearly the common name, domestic [1][2][3] and international sources [4][5] don’t seem to refer to it as anything else. I T B F 📢 23:37, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — The current title has stuck for a very long time but that’s because no one has proposed to change it to anything better, I simply used an abbreviation of the legislation’s short title while maintaining some similarity to the original name. Just realised that I didn’t originally change the title boldly, rather I should give credit to Masem, that action just seemed like something I would do, sorry for overlooking that in my original message. I think WP:SUCCINT takes precedence here, in addition this is the most WP:COMMONTITLE for this topic especially with all this media attention given the looming start date for the ban. In addition, the proposed title is a lot more simple and recognisable, emphasising my point on better compliance with WP:COMMONTITLE. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2025 (UTC). Updated at 00:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – However I believe the title Social media restrictions on children in Australia is much more descriptive and would fit better. (Not that it matters, but calling it a “social media ban” implies that social media as a whole is banned in Australia.) TwitchingMovie (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your proposed title is a bit strange because we were using that exact title before the article became as detailed as it is now.
  I prefer something that is shorter and easier to read at a quick glance, titles are never the main focus of a Wikipedia article or any other document like this, that title did also use up a lot of valuable screen space. I feel like your proposed title would be best suited to an article that covers more than just one piece of legislation. We definitely need a professional and readable title considering this major legislation is coming into effect in two days as of writing this comment.
  The detail in your proposed title is better than this one though, but what was originally proposed seems like the most common title (WP:COMMONTITLE).
  In a similar vein to this proposal, I would suggest using the title “Social media in Australia”, which is much more concise but has the risk of sounding more generic like it should cover more than just this legislation. Qwerty123M (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC). Updated at 10:44, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: A more recognisable name which will make this article easier to find. Newbzy (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: But I would instead suggest the title Australian social media ban for under-16s for clarity. The term “ban” is not inflammatory as it is widely referred to as such (as User:ITBF demonstrated), even by the PM himself. This would be a clearer and more recognisable title than the current one. StewdioMACK (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Australian Youth Social Media Ban? Mitchsavl (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Either as proposed or with slight variation. Current title is far too ambiguous and non-specific. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This new title is confusing as the “social media ban” implies that access to social media is completely prohibited; it is actually only restricted to minors. Cutlass^Ciera 19:23, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:BIAS and move to Online Safety Amendment Act 2024 per WP:PRECISE. Absolutiva 00:29, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you elaborate a bit on how the title “Australian social media ban” would be a systemic bias? –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Novem Linguae There is a push by those who support the Online Safety Amendment to not refer to the law as a “ban” but as a “delay” which is just another, frankly more biased way of framing the law. Most people call it a ban, even many who support the ban (I know I know weasel words but just dig through any pro-ban comments on videos by the Associated Press on the topic) call it a ban. As such, I think, frankly, we should support renaming this article to a ban. Just because calling it a ban remains uncontroversial except for the lobby groups that support it such as the Heads Up Alliance, 36months, and Wait Mate. ReymunNobleJacinto (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @ITBF Support – It is what it’s commonly referred to. We don’t call the [Dima Yakovlev Law] by its full name of “On Sanctions for Individuals Violating Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms of the Citizens of the Russian Federation”. So why is this law different? ReymunNobleJacinto (talk) 03:43, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – I see no reason not to use the official name of the legislation. ‘Online Safety Amendment’ is specific, whereas the title ‘Australian social media ban’ is very ambiguous and quite an arbitrary classification, since that implies the amendment extends beyond under-18s. It can also be argued that not all social media platforms have, strictly speaking, been banned by the bill, since several messaging and internet platforms remain unaffected. Besides, if this move were to pass, the title would have to be amended later if any additional pieces of legislation were to be passed following along a similar trajectory. IdaDactyl (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Upon further consideration, I believe ‘Online Safety Amendment’ to be an equally ambiguous title, but moving it to something along the lines of ‘Online Safety Amendment Act 2024 (Australia)’ would certainly work fine. IdaDactyl (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME SnowyRiver28 (talk) 21:38, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If it’s going to be a descriptive title then “age restriction” should be in there. The proposed title sounds like Internet censorship in Australia but with a slightly narrower scope. ^Falling_Gravity 00:21, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: The current name (or perhaps something more precise, like Online Safety Amendment Act 2024 as it is in the lead) is consistent with articles in Category:Child online safety laws, such as Kids Online Safety Act, SAFE For Kids Act, Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, etc. Also, as others have mentioned, “Australian social media ban” may imply that the act covers social media as a whole, regardless of age, and may sound like a broader topic than what is actually discussed. Jude Halley (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Unsure about the proposal but the current title is not right. At the very least it should have the word “Act” at the end of the title. That is common Australian practice for all legislation. Landpin‘s justification a few months ago to not use the Act name, simply doesn’t make sense to me when so many Wikipedia pages are titled that way. Superegz (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: WP:COMMONNAME applies here. TheInevitables (talk) 01:30, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME VitorFriboquen :] (Talk) 02:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – WP:PRECISE. Could easily be construed as a complete ban on social media in Australia rather than just for under–16s. estar8806 (talk) ★ 03:36, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – WP:PRECISE Its not a complete social media ban, I believe the new name would be confusing. Trey Wainman (talk) 04:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – the new proposed title, “Australian social media ban” is im-WP:PRECISE. As many other oppose votes have said, the new title implies that the ban on social media is broad and covers ‘everyone’, rather than under 16s. If we then amend to the title something like “for under 16s”, it becomes too long. The current title, even if it’s a very unpopular name to go by, meets the precision and conciseness criteria. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I would instead move it to Online Safety Amendment Act per WP:PRECISE. Saying social media ban wrongly implies that it is for all Australians, not just minors. ChaoticVermillion (converse, contribs) 05:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this article is about the law, and a ban would imply total prohibition X4VIER.OneTap (talk) 05:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – This ban can be discussed in a very wide context that precludes this amendment itself. The amendment is its implementation in Australia, but the rationale for and against are very general topics.

A similar vein, already implemented is illicit and/or recreational drug use. Wikipedia has articles on Recreational drug use and Drug prohibition that both discuss general rationale. Illicit drug use in Australia discusses national, Australia-specific justification and legislation. Specific legislation have their own articles, such as the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Medicines and Poisons.

I find this hierarchy clean and well-meaning (my opinion of course) but it is nevertheless expandable. As of now (to my knowledge), Australia is the only country to implement a social media ban for under-16s (barring countries that directly/indirectly ban social media) but other countries should follow suit, and a hierarchy of: [Social media use] -> [Prohibition of social media] -> [Prohibition of social media in Australia] -> [Online Safety Amendment] (or something similar) would probably be better than merging the act/amendment and the action of banning social media into one article.

Hence, we should keep this article to refer purely to the legislation, and create articles that discuss social media restrictions in Australia and generally.

Wikipedia’s articles on the effects of social media probably need to be streamlined as well, there are quite a few. Jre273 (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a great example of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE clashing with each other, as common names are often not as precise as their proper scientific name. I feel as long as redirects are in place, it should be fine keeping the article with the current name. CrushedAsian255 (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the comments citing WP:PRECISE have actually proposed moving it to the official title of the legislation – Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024. The current title is neither the common name nor the official name, but rather a truncation of the official name apparently for convenience. I T B F 📢 10:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: For a topic with such a tangible impact on many peoples’ lives, it should go by the common name, as that name is more relevant in the context most people will view it. I don’t think this name would be a conflict between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRECISE, as the name, even if it is not official, still informs the reader on the exact topic. (Edit: I think Australian Youth Social Media Ban would be better) Mitchsavl (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. We have to be WP:PRECISE. Plain reading of “Australian social media ban” would infer that Australia banned all kinds of social media, while in fact, only minors are banned from social media. We can do “Under-16 Australian social media ban” or similar to be precise. However, a redirect from “Australia social media ban” would be good. One example would be U.S. Muslim travel ban that is redirected to Executive Order 13769. While U.S Muslim travel ban is the common name in the media and sources, the article title is the precise order, the Executive Order 13769.✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 10:39, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all,

I have nominated this page to become achieve Good Article status as I think it is very well-sourced and the prose is written professionally in an encyclopaedic way. I’m glad that the article has been correspondingly updated for every change that has been reliably reported upon before the ban takes effect. Anyone that wants to improve this article to help achieve Good Article status is more than welcome. I’m not confident that I have nominated this article correctly! I am especially looking to upgrade the classification of this article because the social media ban this article is referring to is coming into force very soon on 10 December.

I look forward to see what the review process can do to help this article! Qwerty123M (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article might a bit too unstable to qualify for GA. 1) It has an active maintenance tag (the requested move tag). 2) When the ban takes effect, that’ll probably add a bunch of content to it. However feel free to keep the nomination open in case I am mistaken. Good luck. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel the article won’t be considered stable enough for GA1, and it would stand a better chance once the ban has been in place for a while and new developments/reporting on the ban has slowed. Feel free to keep the nom open though as it might be stable enough by the time it gets picked up by a reviewer! SnowyRiver28 (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In general I would avoid nomming for GA ongoing news events. By definition they will not be stable and often fail other criteria. Chorchapu (talk | edits) 23:27, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Online Safety Amendment/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Qwerty123M (talk · contribs) 00:35, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: ElijahPepe (talk · contribs) 05:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this soon. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:12, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It says:

“A poll conducted by YouGov in November 2024 revealed that 77 percent of Australians surveyed were in favour of the age limit, with a further 87 percent agreeing that social media companies that failed to comply should face stronger penalties.”

This means that in all, 164 percent of those surveyed were in favour of stronger penalties. There is no other way to read this. Probably it just needs the wording changed, but I don’t know for sure. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it reads plainly that, of the people taking the poll, 77 percent approve X, and 87 percent approve Y. A single poll can ask multiple questions, and those two options are not mutually exclusive. Though “further” is a tad confusing and sounds like Y could be a stronger measure than X, so I will remove that. 9³ (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In fact you didn’t find it to read plainly as what you said, because it was impossible to do that. But without “further” – which was not in the least confusing, and absolutely without a doubt meant 164 percent – without that, it all works fine. Thanks for fixing it. TooManyFingers (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The way the article is written states implicitly and explicitly that the legislation is to ban social media for under 16’s, whereas in other sections it states that it is for blocking accounts of under 16’s. I have heard numerous outlets use these definitions interchangeably even though they are distinct, as an account is not required to access some of these platforms. According to an Australian government official factsheet, the purpose is to “Australian under 16s from having accounts”. Mitchsavl (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]