The federal government has introduced a bill to Parliament banning social media use for individuals under the age of 16.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland mentioned:
It’s crucial that we prioritize supporting the mental health and wellness of younger individuals, rather than stigmatizing or ostracizing them, and empowering parents to be advocates for their children’s well-being.
Until recently, details about the ban’s actual implementation had remained unclear. The Thursday’s invoice provides an additional, full-size image.
Despite efforts to clarify, numerous ambiguities and concerns persist.
What’s within the invoice?
This is a current invoice summary.
A pioneering concept redefines the notion of an “age-restricted social media platform”, solely focused on enabling users to share content online and engage in collaborative social interactions with others.
This encompasses various platforms akin to Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat, as well as numerous other lesser-known platforms and services. The platform’s exemption framework enables exclusions for messaging applications akin to WhatsApp, online gaming platforms, and services whose primary purpose is to promote the well-being and education of users – such as Google Classroom.
The social media platform is poised to urge homeowners of newly designated age-restricted communities to implement measures that prevent minors under the age of 16 from creating personal accounts, with a focus on reasonable and feasible precautions. This may encompass younger individuals who already possess a current account. Without grandfather clauses, it’s uncertain how platforms will be expected to manage the massive number of existing customers – tens of millions strong – who risk being excluded and deplatformed.
The invoice is ambiguous regarding the measures social media platforms must take to ensure minors under 16 cannot create accounts, only stating that “some type of age verification” will be included.
The new invoice is unlikely to prevent people under 16 from viewing content on YouTube or Facebook, as its primary objective is to prohibit them from creating accounts rather than restricting their access to existing content. This suggests that the consideration of anonymous online forums, including potentially troublesome platforms such as 4chan, appears to be overlooked in a broader ecological context.
Platforms failing to prevent under-16s from accessing their services may incur penalties of approximately AUD 49.5 million.
Despite this, the federal government recognizes that it is impossible to completely prevent children under 16 from accessing social media platforms like Instagram and Facebook.
Australians must confront the reality that a few individuals will attempt to undermine the system’s integrity, or exploit loopholes and vulnerabilities.
The laws will come into effect at least 12 months following their passage through parliament.
What led us to this moment of reckoning, I ask myself?
The federal government’s proposed ban on social media for users under 16, a move similar to that of countries like the UK, has been met with skepticism from Information Corp’s “Let Them Be Kids” campaign. This marketing campaign focused sensitively on the tragic stories of younger people who had taken their own lives after struggling with the pressures of social media.
The US federal government has faced significant pressure from various stakeholders, including lawmakers and advocacy groups, to pass this bill.
Last month, the New South Wales and South Australian governments convened a summit to examine the impact of social media on the mental health of young people. Notwithstanding the occasion’s deliberate design to generate momentum for the ban. Colleagues who attended the event were deeply impressed by the nature of the dialogue.
The announcement and tabling of the invoice are premature, coinciding with a parliamentary inquiry that is still investigating the impact of social media on Australian society. The inquiry presented its report and proposals to Parliament this week. Significantly, a campaign has been launched online specifically targeting young adults.
Alternative measures exist
Doesn’t allowing entry to social media at a minimal age of 16 overlook the fact that young individuals are most vulnerable during adolescence?
Regardless, there are already concerns about prohibiting younger individuals from social media platforms. More than 140 experts, including myself, penned a letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in October, expressing the view that imposing a straightforward “ban” on certain threats would be overly simplistic and ineffective in addressing the complexities of the issue at hand.
The Australian Human Rights Commission has joined the chorus of opposition to the proposed ban. In a recent announcement issued immediately,
Given the potential for these legal guidelines to significantly impact the rights of young people and youth, the Commission has significant concerns about the proposed social media ban.
The parliamentary inquiry’s report into the impact of social media on Australian society proposed numerous recommendations to mitigate online harm. The proposal involves imposing an “obligation of care” on digital platforms, a move that aligns with the government’s existing efforts to establish a high standard of accountability.
The inquiry also recommends that the federal government establish regulations ensuring consumers of social media platforms have greater control over the content they encounter. Customers could freely modify, reconfigure, or even disable their individualized algorithms at will.
One other advice is for the federal government to prioritize the establishment of a national database. This code aims to significantly enhance the protection of private online data for children.
Considering these measures in tandem effectively mitigates the benefits and risks associated with children’s digital media use. They build upon a robust evidence base, one that thoughtfully incorporates the perspectives and insights of individuals across generations. The paramount concern is how a ban can undermine such efforts, effectively providing platforms with a loophole to circumvent obligations under more robust media regulations.
