Entertainment
Australia to ban social media for kids under 16
Australia is set to ban social media for kids under 16, in a stated attempt to minimise “harms that are being caused to young people” through the platforms.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the measures on Thursday, after a decision by his government on Monday.
“Social media is doing harm to our kids and I’m calling time on it,” Albanese said in a press conference at Parliament House in Canberra. “I’ve spoken to thousands of parents, grandparents, aunties and uncles. They, like me, are worried sick about the safety of our kids online.”
“We don’t argue that the changes that we will be legislating will fix everything immediately,” he added. “We have laws such as people can’t buy alcohol if they’re under 18, and from time to time that can be broken. But those laws set what the parameters are for our society and they assist in ensuring the right outcomes.”
Albanese said the law will not allow exemptions for users under 16 who have parental consent, nor will it accept “grandfathering arrangements” for young people already on social media.
The government intends to put “the onus will be on social media platforms” instead of parents and teens. Big tech companies are making slow progress in this space — for example, Instagram recently added Teen Accounts, a more restricted way for teens under 16 to use the app.
Most social media platforms including TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat don’t let users under 13 make accounts, with varying levels of restriction for users under 16 and 18. However, in August, the U.S. Justice Department sued TikTok for allegedly violating the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), for allowing kids to create accounts without parental consent and collecting personal information from children under 13. It’s one of several lawsuits across the U.S. against TikTok on the grounds of child safety.
Mashable Light Speed
Studies around teens, mental health, and social media aren’t in short supply. In his address, the prime minister specifically called out campaigns run by Australian media organisations around the legislation, in particular the debated “Let Them Be Kids” campaign run by NewsCorp. Social change initiative 36Months, who have campaigned to ban social media for under-16s in Australia, were also present at Parliament House on Wednesday.
So, what’s the timeline on Australia’s social media ban?
The Australian government will determine the details of the law in a virtual national cabinet meeting on Friday, the legislation will be introduced to Parliament in two weeks time, and will come into force 12 months after passage. Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said “social media companies have been put on notice”, and emphasised there is a one-year lead time before the law would be implemented.
The law’s new definition of age restriction on social media will be adapted from Australia’s current Online Safety Act. Passed in 2021, it’s the country’s online harms protection law, much like the UK’s version. The eSafety Commissioner, Australia’s independent regulator for online safety, will “provide oversight and enforcement” by issuing regulatory guidance for social media platforms.
OK, which social media platforms will be covered under Australia’s ban?
When asked about specific social media platforms, Rowland clarified, “In terms of the services that will be covered, there will be a definition in the Act. But I think it is commonly understood that those definitions of what constitutes social media include ones such as Instagram, TikTok, Facebook and X. YouTube would likely fall within that definition as well.”
How will the social media ban be enforced in Australia?
In a nutshell, it’s currently unclear exactly how the social media ban will be regulated, as the prime minister said “there will be no penalties for users.” When asked about age restrictions and the practicalities around it (how identification will work etc), Rowland said an “age assurance trial” would happen over the next year, with the government examining the platforms’ individual measures and whether they’re enough.
“There will need to be measures put in place to ensure that reasonable steps are being taken by the platforms to ensure that that age limit is complied with,” she said.
“These platforms know their users better than anyone. These platforms understand their habits, their capabilities, what sort of content should be driven to them and what their behaviours are. So in this year that we will take in terms of implementation, that will be the key focus.”
For more on internet safety for kids, Mashable’s got you covered.
Topics
Social Media
Family & Parenting
Entertainment
This $43 bundle quietly upgrades your entire PC experience
TL;DR: This rare Microsoft bundle deal gives you a lifetime license to Microsoft Office Professional 2021 for Windows and Windows 11 Pro for only $42.97 (reg. $418.99) through May 17.
$42.97
$418.99
Save $376.02
Looking for an affordable way to make your old PC feel new again? If you don’t have the funds to buy a brand new computer, don’t worry. The Ultimate Microsoft Office Professional 2021 for Windows lifetime license and Windows 11 Pro Bundle is the next best thing, offering your computer a total upgrade for only $42.97 through May 17.
Don’t count out your dusty old PC. This Microsoft bundle is here to give it a total facelift for less than $50. It kicks off with a lifetime license to some of the brand’s most popular tools — Microsoft Office, which you’ll pay for once and enjoy without any subscription fees.
Mashable Deals
You’ll get permanent access to a suite of eight helpful apps with Microsoft Office Professional 2021 for Windows. It includes staples that have been around for decades, like Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Outlook. You’ll also get newer favorites like Teams, OneNote, Access, and Publisher.
Once you’ve loaded the apps onto your device, you can upgrade your OS to Windows 11 Pro. It’s an operating system made for modern professionals, with tools that support your workflow. Enjoy a more powerful search experience, improved voice typing, a seamless interface, snap layouts, and much more.
You can rest easy knowing Windows 11 Pro takes your cybersecurity seriously. You’ll have biometric logins, encrypted authentication, and advanced antivirus defenses to keep your data secure.
Mashable Deals
Show your PC some love with the Microsoft Office Professional 2021 for Windows and Windows 11 Pro bundle for only $42.97 (reg. $418.99) now until May 17.
StackSocial prices subject to change.
Entertainment
Star Trek’s First Broadcast Episode Was Very Carefully Chosen, Because It Was Boring
By Chris Snellgrove
| Published
These days, Star Trek is a bona fide pop culture phenomenon. But during the development of The Original Series, there was anxiety that the general public wouldn’t really understand Gene Roddenberry’s mashing up Western tropes with a sci-fi setting. Making matters worse was that the original pilot, “The Cage,” had been rejected by NBC for being too brainy. Fortunately, Roddenberry got a chance to shoot another pilot, one which impressed the network enough to order an entire season worth of episodes.
Several episodes of Star Trek: The Original Series had already been shot when the time came for this new show to make its broadcast premiere. The first episode that the general public saw was “The Man Trap,” which featured a shapeshifting monster that was revealed to be an alien salt vampire. This good-but-not-great episode was an odd choice, and it was one that the cast and crew hated. As it turns out, though, this episode was very carefully selected by executives because it served as an inoffensive, relatively straightforward encapsulation of everything Star Trek had to offer.
It’s A Trap!
Most of the information we have about why “The Man Trap” was selected as Star Trek’s first episode comes from the book Inside Star Trek: The Real Story. Within this impressive reference tome, Robert H. Justman and Herbert F. Solow revealed something surprising: NBC had several other episodes to choose from for the premiere, including “The Corbomite Maneuver,” “Charlie X,” “Mudd’s Women,” “Where No Man Has Gone Before,” and “The Naked Time.” All of them had already been shot and were mostly finished, so it was just a matter of figuring out which episode would serve as the best introduction to Star Trek, a heretofore unknown sci-fi series.
“The Man Trap” won out, mostly because the powers that be worried that other episodes would be off-putting to general audiences in some very specific ways. For example, they worried that audiences would find “Charlie X” a story that was “too gentle” because it focused on an adolescent with special powers. This was probably the right call, in retrospect: when Variety gave a negative review of “The Man Trap” (an episode chosen, in part, because of its relative maturity), they declared that Star Trek: The Original Series was “better suited to the Saturday morning kidvid bloc” (ouch!).
A Monster Hit Of An Episode
“The Corbomite Maneuver” was a great potential choice, but this episode’s impressive special effects were still in post-production, and almost all of its action took place on the ship. “Where No Man Has Gone Before” really outlined the premise of the new show, but it was deemed “expository” for general audiences expecting more action and danger. Justman thought “The Naked Time” was a killer introduction to the crew’s personalities, but the network passed, presumably because of how over-the-top (half-naked, swashbuckling Sulu? Oh, my!) that episode gets. “Mudd’s Women,” meanwhile, was deemed too offensive because the plot involved literally selling women to miners.
Through this process of elimination, executives decided that “The Man Trap” was the best intro to Star Trek. It had cool scenes on both the Enterprise and a distant outpost (a strange new world) and featured a straightforward action plot you didn’t have to be a sci-fi aficionado to understand. Finally, it was all about finding and defeating a creepy monster, which offered thrills to audiences of all ages. The network’s choice paid off, and Star Trek: The Original Series became the most popular sci-fi show in television history, even though the cast (including William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy) thought “The Man Trap” was the worst possible episode they could have chosen.
All of this is a keen reminder of how much thought and work went into putting Star Trek’s best foot forward. It might be a reminder that Paramount’s current upper leadership needs, as Starfleet Academy hit the ground running with the worst episodes of Season 1. The show got better after that, but it didn’t matter because the prospective audience had already been driven away. As it turns out, today’s execs need to learn something that the network execs of the ‘60s had learned very well: series succeed when you give the audience what they want to see and not what you want to show!
Entertainment
How A Fantasy Box Office Bomb Lost $200 Million In Theaters, And Suddenly Became A Streaming Hit
By Jonathan Klotz
| Published
For the last decade as streaming has taken off in homes around the world, it’s become possible for films that lost historical amounts of money in theaters to find success, even if it might be the post-Mystery Science Theater 3000 trend of “so bad it’s good.” That’s why a massive flop, for example say, Morbius, and films that slightly missed the mark like The Fall Guy can turn it around and become a streaming success.
What’s even more impressive is the amazing turnaround of 2013’s Jack the Giant Slayer, which lost Legendary Pictures an alleged $200 million, only to end up topping streaming charts in 2025.
The Classic Fairy Tale With A Twist
Everyone knows the story of Jack and the Beanstalk, the classic fairy tale about selling a horse for magic beans and climbing a beanstalk to find a giant living in the clouds. It’s simple, contains multiple morals, and can be easily adjusted to turn Jack into the villain, but Jack the Giant Slayer instead asks, “What if there was no moral, and instead of one giant, there was an entire army of evil giants?” The movie is the classic story, as you’ve never seen it before, and it almost works.
Nicholas Hoult plays Jack, the young man who finds himself trading his horse to a monk in exchange for beans that he can’t allow to get wet, ever. Like the rules in Gremlins, it’s not long before Jack accidentally gets the beans wet and a beanstalk grows under his house with the princess, Isabell (Eleanor Tomlinson), trapped inside as it grows into the sky. All the king’s men gather to rescue the princess, including Lord Roderick (Stanley Tucci), who, thankfully, Jack the Giant Slayer makes obvious is very evil, very quickly.
It’s up to Jack, Isabell, and the loyal Knight, Elmont (Ewan McGregor) to save the kingdom and stop the invasion of giants led by Roderick and the giant two-headed General Fallon (Bill Nighy). If there’s one thing Jack the Giant Slayer does better than every other adaptation, it’s the third act featuring a full-blown war between humans and giants, with a touch of humor and absurdity. Watching a giant toss a windmill like the glaive from Krull is the perfect amount of off-beat to distract from a surprising amount of body horror in both the giant’s designs and Fallon’s ultimate fate.
A Movie For No One
Jack the Giant Slayer looks too good, and the star-studded cast is having way too much fun for it to be a truly bad movie. The problem is that the pacing is off: it takes a little too long to get to the good stuff, then it feels a little too rushed, and though it is a fun adventure, it’s also, like the source material, simplistic. It’s not like the movie wasn’t watched in theaters; it made $197 million worldwide, which would be a great haul except it cost $185 million to make, and that’s not including the extensive marketing campaign.
The push and pull of director Bryan Singer’s vision of a dark take on the fable, complete with actual people-eating on screen, and the sanitized version that hit theaters, which was still too dark for children, since the film is surprisingly rated PG-13, meant it ended up being a film for no one. The Rotten Tomatoes ratings, of 52 percent from critics and 55 percent from the audience, are proof that the final product is not great, but not bad; it’s a movie that will keep you watching for a few hours and then leave no lasting impression. These days, Lionsgate and Sony wish they’d release a movie that is that well-received, as even Jack the Giant Slayer looks like a masterpiece compared to Borderlands or Kraven the Hunter.
Streaming is the perfect home for Jack the Giant Slayer, and 10 years later, it no longer matters that the movie lost hundreds of millions in theaters. It finally gets to stand on its own as a fun, if unremarkable, fantasy adventure.
Angels activate OF/DH Jorge Soler from four-game suspension
Flyers aim to take 2-0 lead over rival Penguins
