While the notion of “advice” is certainly broad, in practice I think that only fairly clear-cut cases would be caught in the net. My own blog frequently touches on matters financial, but I doubt that ASIC would ever consider it close enough to advice to be very interested in my. If I am right in this assumption, I think it is reasonable for ASIC to keep internet sites within their purview, otherwise financial advisers could simply switch all their communications to a web-site to avoid AFSL requirements.

the main problem here is that up until now ASIC hasn't been enforcing the law on average ordinary people who give casual financial advice all the time

up until now it appears that they only enforce the law against people who actually make money from giving financial advice (for example, employees of businesses that don't personally have an AFSL yet give "advice" while on the job). When I worked for a bank and didn't have a license, it made it extremely inconvenient on what information I could give customers and how the information had to be presented.

I think it's fair enough that people who don't have an AFSL should include a disclaimer along with their advice. It's even more inconvenient than it is already if ASIC tries to stop everyone who gives financial advice without an AFSL (which is almost all of us). And what about the mums, singletons and entrepreneurs on news.com.au blogs who give financial advice all the time (and get paid for blogging about financial issues)?

But right now, yes everyone is technically breaking the law because we all give financial advice, and especially it is almost impossible to not give implied financial advice. Only up until now no one cared because we didn't directly financially benefit from it so it hasn't been enforced.

Prepare to feel inconvenienced by a law that doesn't have the protective loopholes and exceptions it needs to make sure that the average joe doesn't come under fire for giving his opinion.