At least recently[1] most Australians and an overwhelming percentage of under-16s supported the ban. Similarly in the UK[2]. This is a topic in which it appears it is the online discourse that's wildly out of alignment with broader public opinion and I'd argue potentially one of the reasons may be that it will make it harder for bot-nets to mass-manipulate public discourse so easily.
I think people support a lot of things in theory. But in practice, less so. Probably because they're often implemented in ways prone to abuse or simply unfair to an average citizen.
I'll defend her on this one somewhat, Github has no exemption as written and she's doing her job.
It's just another layer in the stupidity of this all that GitHub would be blocked but steam, discord and Roblox are exempt because they're for gaming despite being infamous environments.
---[1]
(1) For the purposes of this Act, age‑restricted social media platform means:
(a) an electronic service that satisfies the following conditions:
(i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end‑users;
(ii) the service allows end‑users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end‑users;
(iii) the service allows end‑users to post material on the service;
(iv) such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules; or
(b) an electronic service specified in the legislative rules;
----[2]
For the purposes of paragraph 63C(6)(b) of the Act, electronic services in each of the following classes are specified:
(a) services that have the sole or primary purpose of enabling end‑users to communicate by means of messaging, email, voice calling or video calling;
(b) services that have the sole or primary purpose of enabling end‑users to play online games with other end‑users;
(c) 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;
(d) services that have the sole or primary purpose of enabling end‑users to engage in professional networking or professional development;
(e) services that have the sole or primary purpose of supporting the education of end‑users;
(f) services that have the sole or primary purpose of supporting the health of end‑users;
(g) services that have a significant purpose of facilitating communication between educational institutions and students or students’ families;
(h) services that have a significant purpose of facilitating communication between providers of health care and people using those providers’ services.
Except that the policy, in the vacuum it is in right now, is very popular in Australia.
It was one of the most agreed with policies at the most recent Federal election.
I hate it as a concept, but at the moment it is all "don't you want children to be protected?", and nothing of substance that people can meaningfully find objectionable (like imgur getting cut off).
I don't think it is particularly a policy of News Corp, although they're happy to run with populist ideas, and more just an issue the Labor party thought they could wedge the Liberals with.
My guess is that the common factor is News Corporation pushing an agenda on behalf of the very, very wealthy.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianPolitics/comments/1nu68je...