The_Greek86

You're not going to believe this. [@mattjcan] just got them to admit that Pornhub won't fall under the restrictions provided for by (63C) of the Social Media Minimum Age Bill: Senator Canavan: "If Youtube is covered [why isn't Pornhub] covered? [so] show me in the law where [Pornhub] is excluded" Senator Matt Canavan: If YouTube is categorized or covered by 63C, returning to Senator Roberts' question, is Pornhub covered? Why wouldn't it be? It's just explicit material, but yes, it's covered, isn't it? ACMA Representative, James Chrishold: No, the first thing of 63C, 1(a), is that the platform's sole or significant purpose is to enable online social interaction. Senator Canavan: But if YouTube's covered, as a video sharing service for non-explicit content, why wouldn't Pornhub be covered? Is Pornhub covered? I ACMA: I think they have very different purposes, yes. Can you explain that to me? ACMA "Sorry, I... I think this is under the definition; we wouldn't see Pornhub as falling within the scope. It's not seen as a social media platform. Senator Canavan: Just explain to me in simple terms how it would work if YouTube is covered: how would another video sharing service with mainly explicit material not be covered? ACMA: So again, Senator, it comes back to the commitment that the government's already made in relation to... Senator Canavan: No, no, I'm not asking for a commitment; I'm asking about the law. We've got to pass the law, not make government commitments. So, in the law, how are these two services different? ACMA: I think YouTube and Pornhub are completely different. Senator Canavan: I agree with that, but how are they differently defined in the law? Because well, Pornhub is a site for accessing pornography, which children are not permitted to access. Okay, show me in the law where that is excluded. ACMA: Well, yeah, it comes back to the evidence before about how Pornhub is subject to a suite of other rules and regulations, and also, it's not seen as a digital platform as part of this bill. The evidence is that we don't see it as having the characteristics of social interaction. It's a site for... I don't speak from any experience" Senator Canavan: I'm trying to understand here; it's very vague and unclear to any reasonable person about what's in and what's out. Not sure if Senator Canavan intended a pun there, but this is an astounding admission from ACMA. Especially when the purpose of the legislation is to supposedly protect children