=][= AUSTRALIAN SOCIAL MEDIA AGE RESTRICTIONS =][=

[Brother Tyler]

On 10 December, 2025, the Australian government will implement regulations forcing "age-restricted social media platforms ... to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under the age of 16 from creating or keeping an account." You can see information on this from Australia's eSafety Commission at https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions. In our initial review of the regulation, there was some question about whether or not these restrictions applied to the Bolter and Chainsword since some platforms will be considered age-restricted while others will not (https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions/which-platforms-are-age-restricted). When we inquired, we were informed that the Bolter and Chainsword would be considered age-restricted.

 

"Wait a minute! The Bolter and Chainsword is an American site (I am the site's owner and I live in the U.S. and the site's servers are also in the U.S.). Can this Australian regulation even be enforced on an American site?" Some of you may be wondering/asking. I'm not a legal expert, nor have I had the time to consult any legal experts (and our coffers can't afford that expense). For what it's worth, some of the major social media platforms that are explicitly identified as being subject to this law include Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat, Twitch, X, YouTube (all of these are also American), and TikTok (Chinese). If the law can be enforced upon them, it can be enforced upon us. Ultimately, we meet all three of the basic conditions for Australia's age restriction:

• the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between two or more end-users
• the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users
• the service allows end-users to post material on the service.

So yes, this regulation applies to us and can be enforced. One of the things that separates us from the other sites that I named is that we have very little capital whereas they are all large companies with lots of capital and paid resources (i.e., technical experts that can incorporate age-restriction measures quickly and at low cost to them). They can also afford to pay fines that Australia might impose upon them until they are able to comply whereas fines have the potential to shut us down.

 

Online safety measures in other countries/regions, notably the UK's Online Safety Act 2023 and the US's Kids Online Safety Act (2025) have been relatively easy to satisfy, largely due to the fact that our pre-existing family-friendly focus typically fulfilled the requirements of those laws and any necessary adjustments were minor. The upcoming Australian act, on the other hand, imposes some requirements that aren't easily implemented, and some of those may require capital. We're also going to have to look at the broad range of online safety laws (many are tracked here, but we'll have to expand the scope of our search to include other nations' laws).

 

We haven't imposed age restrictions for membership in the past, largely due to the fact that the Warhammer 40,000 hobby is meant for a variety of age ranges. The Warhammer 40,000 game, for example, is meant for ages 12 and up. The Warhammer Adventures series of books, meanwhile, is meant for ages 8-12. Since our site is intended to cover the entirety of the hobby, we avoided age restrictions that would restrict any aspects of the hobby. While some of the themes of the setting are decidedly mature, the content of the official material has generally been kept at a family-friendly level (mostly), and our site has mirrored that, with prohibitions on mature content and tools for reporting inappropriate content.

 

Australia's regulatory guidance, however, counters that. We are conducting a risk analysis and exploring our options for fulfilling Australia's regulatory guidance. Our goal is to continue providing service to as many hobbyists around the world as possible, including Australians [ages 16 and up]. This may require us to implement some additional measures, however. With the 10 December deadline fast approaching, we may be forced to implement some (hopefully temporary) measures to ensure that we don't violate the law.

 

Note that "reasonable steps" does not mean that we simply ask a question and allow [prospective] members to self-report. It's eminently easy to lie and failure to verify someone's claimed age would be dereliction on our part (i.e., not "reasonable"). Similarly, the uses of VPN are well-known and any method that doesn't account for the ability to "lie" about one's location through VPN would be derelict.

 

How will this impact you (whether or not you live in Australia)?

• In the likely event that we have to require proof of age in the account creation process, everyone will have to submit proof that includes both age and residency information. (Yes, all existing accounts will also be subject to this requirement.)
• Anyone residing in a country/region with age restrictions will only have their account approved (or preserved) if they meet those age restrictions.
• Anyone who is unable/unwilling to provide the age/residency proof, or who fails to meet the age restrictions for their country/region will not be approved for an account (i.e., new accounts won't be approved and existing accounts will be adjusted*).
• Until we are able to fully implement these measures, we may be forced to temporarily block access for users in Australia starting 10 December.

* We have several options here with regard to the existing accounts. One option is to simply delete the accounts, but that removes a lot of content and achievements. Another option is to place them in a holding status (some type of new group) where they are inaccessible until the member provides proof that they are of sufficient age. There may be other options after we conduct a more thorough analysis.

 

Does this suck? Absolutely. The stated goal ("protecting young [people] at a critical stage of their development") is perfectly understandable and supportable, so we're not here to gripe about the socio-political aspects of this (and any such commentary will be removed). At the very least, this requires some process where [prospective] members are required to submit sensitive personally identifiable information which we really don't want to collect. Part of our analysis, then, is to see if there's a way for the verification process to delete all such information after the account is approved.

 

Your thoughts on this are welcome. Note that we're not here to complain about the situation. It is what it is and complaints will be removed. At this point we're here to look for solutions.

[phandaal]

Any idea what sites like Facebook and YouTube are doing? It is hard to believe they will be requesting that everyone who creates an account provide proof of residency beforehand, or that all of their existing users do so.

[Brother Tyler]

That's something we're looking into.

 

Another option is to just apply the 16+ age requirement to everyone, which would then only require some form of age verification, which can also be performed via biometrics (facial recognition and age estimation). There are a variety of apps that perform this type of verification, so we would have to balance the regulatory requirements with collecting minimal (ideally no) personal data and cost.

[kabaakaba]

Doesn't most of services has formal verification like simple checkbox with text like "I confirm I'm older then 16"? 

[techsoldaten]

Seems like a massive overreach with long-tail consequences.

With regard to impact, I prefer my time spent talking about painted army men to be anonymous. I would probably not submit proof of age, thus I would no longer be able to post here.

Pretty sure this law is designed to curb online interaction, or at least to de-sensitize people to having interaction extremely curtailed. You might want to consider the direction this is headed and whether it's actually the best move for the site.


 

[Grotsmasha]

[Beaky Brigade]

I think automated age verification services would be a better option for the site than mods having to process ID documents manually as that's a whole can of worms to go though in terms of data protection, though at least if it leaks it just reveals the member is a big warhammer nerd, rather than anything more seedy! 

 

The site is heavily moderated and I'm not as free to post the type of content or say the type of things about the hobby I might on other platforms. 

 

As much as I want to show solidarity to my Australian brothers I don't think ID based age verification for all members is proportionate to the risks of under 16 aussie hobyists connecting via vpn. 

 

One thing I hope is a positive suggestion could be financial based verification for non Australian users. Could making a small donation to the B&C verify your local and age based on the requirements to have debit or credit cards? 

 

Overall it's somewhat unwelcome news and I'm not even directly affected! 

[Indy Techwisp]

8 hours ago, Brother Tyler said:

Similarly, the uses of VPN are well-known and any method that doesn't account for the ability to "lie" about one's location through VPN would be derelict.

 

While it is true that the use of a VPN to "lie" about one's location should be considered, I feel that the intended age bracket being excluded here should also be taken into consideration in regards to the restrictions applied to all users of the site.

The law is targeting people aged 15 and under, which is an age bracket that is unlikely to have access to a VPN with which to bypass the restriction.

 

It is also likely that applying the requirements for proof of age to all users regardless of location would do immense damage to the site's userbase as a whole, as I assume a lot of users would understandably prefer to not hand over personal identification to comply with a law that doesn't legally apply to them.

 

If it is possible to apply the proof of age requirements specifically to users from Australia, that should ideally be the course of action taken to limit the impact on the rest of the site.

[TheMawr]

8 hours ago, Brother Tyler said:

On 10 December, 2025, the Australian government will implement regulations forcing "age-restricted social media platforms ... to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under the age of 16 from creating or keeping an account." You can see information on this from Australia's eSafety Commission at https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions. In our initial review of the regulation, there was some question about whether or not these restrictions applied to the Bolter and Chainsword since some platforms will be considered age-restricted while others will not (https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions/which-platforms-are-age-restricted). When we inquired, we were informed that the Bolter and Chainsword would be considered age-restricted.

 

 

Thats weird they saying that.. because when I see the lists of wich are and wich arent, forums like BnC have more in common with those that arent.

While I didnt read the full law or articles.. all the restricted ones in the list are Algoritmic social media, wich BnC isnt ( just as Whatsapp, Discord and Steamchat.. the closest thing to a forum in the list arent.)

 

I know in europe there is the discussion to ban or restrict Algoritmic Social Media because of its suspected addictive/mental straining nature for children, but its not about banning/restricting non-algoritmic social media like forums, as these do not have that addictive element to them.

 

[TheMawr]

to copy those lists

 

Services that eSafety considers will be age-restricted social media platforms

• Facebook
• Instagram
• Kick
• Reddit
• Snapchat
• Threads
• TikTok
• Twitch
• X (formerly Twitter)
• YouTube

Services that eSafety considers will not be age-restricted social media platforms

• Discord
• GitHub
• Google Classroom
• LEGO Play
• Messenger
• Pinterest
• Roblox
• Steam and Steam Chat
• WhatsApp
• YouTube Kids

 

And I really think BnC, or any forum for that matters, should be in the same category as the bottom list.

[Felix Antipodes]

While I wouldn’t want my non-Aussie fraters to have to jump through hoops because of this legislation, I fear it will be only a matter of time before this becomes a wider problem.  Singapore (and I think Malaysia) has already announced they are planning their own law(s) to follow the Australian initiative, and there are several more closely following how this shakes out (including the EU).

 

It’s been a while since I joined, but didn’t we have to provide a birth date?  Or are we working on the principle that everything previously supplied is suspect unless re-verified?  What about we dinosaurs who have accrued 15+ years on the site and have the badges to prove it?  Do I have to prove it’s still me and not junior - or grand-junior in my case?