Australia’s recent actions are a response to worries about social media’s detrimental effects. However, there has been a lot of discussion about the difficulties in implementing age-based limitations and the objections to outright prohibitions.
Why Australia Is Banning Social Media for Children Under 16 and the Backlash It Faces
The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, which was passed by Australia on Thursday, November 28, is a “world-first” law that limits minors under 16 from using social media. The law requires social media companies to prevent minors from using their platforms, and noncompliance can result in fines of up to $32 million.
Here is a summary of the Bill’s provisions and the reasons why tech corporations and several campaigners, including organizations that support teen mental health, have criticized it.
What’s in the Bill?
Social media companies must implement age restrictions under the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, which requires them to take “reasonable steps” to stop children under the minimum age from opening accounts.
The Bill is expected to take effect within a year after clearing both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Australian government is conducting a trial to assess age verification technologies in advance of its deployment.
“We’ll work closely with industry and experts over the next 12 months to ensure the minimum age is implemented effectively, informed by the findings of the Age Assurance Technology Trial currently underway,” said Michelle Rowland, Minister of Communications.
The Difficulties of Age Verification
Ensuring efficient age verification is one of the Bill’s main obstacles. Nowadays, in order to register for an account on sites like Instagram, users must enter their birthdate. Enforcement is challenging, though, because there are no trustworthy systems in place to confirm the veracity of the information supplied.
Resolving Privacy Issues
Social media companies must verify users’ ages using government-issued identification in certain nations, which raises serious privacy issues about the gathering and use of private information. However, this problem is intended to be avoided by Australia’s Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024.
“The bill also makes clear that no Australian will be compelled to use government identification (including Digital ID) for age assurance on social media,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed in a statement. Platforms must provide users with realistic options.
This strategy aims to strike a compromise between protecting user privacy and enforcing age limitations, making sure that alternate techniques for age verification are accessible to reduce the risks associated with data gathering.
Privacy and Access Provisions in Australia’s Social Media Age Bill
Under Australia’s Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, facial recognition technology might be taken into consideration as an option for confirming users’ ages; however, questions have been raised over its accuracy and potential to gather private information from children.
According to the Bill, all personal data gathered in order to impose age limitations must be deleted once its intended purpose has been fulfilled. The government’s emphasis on data protection will be strengthened by the fact that noncompliance will be seen as a privacy violation under Australian law.
Crucially, the law will not impose restrictions on online gaming or educational and health support sites like YouTube and Google Classroom, guaranteeing that children will always have access to these vital digital resources.
Reasons for Australia’s Under-16 Social Media Ban
The Australian government has used worries about the detrimental effects of online platforms on young people’s mental and emotional development to support its ban on social media for kids under the age of sixteen. The reforms are intended to give “greater protections for young Australians during critical stages of their development,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stressed.
This justification reflects the growing concern around the world regarding the effects of social media on kids. American psychologist Jonathan Haidt made the case in his 2024 best-seller The Anxious Generation that the Internet and cell phones have destroyed traditional childhood activities like unstructured play and replaced them with a digital world full of stressors and worries. Similar principles are followed by Australian law, which attempts to limit these negative impacts by imposing more stringent age-based restrictions on social media use.
According to Jonathan Haidt’s book The Anxious Generation, play has influenced human youth for millions of years and is essential to brain development. Because we are animals and all mammals play, we have basically had a play-based childhood for 200 million years,” he said. We wired our brains that way. However, Haidt contends that the emergence of cellphones and social media supplanted this crucial developmental stage, which started to wane in the 1990s and ended completely by 2010.
He goes on to discuss the dangers of this change, stating that “you are at much, much higher risk of being anxious and depressed if you went through puberty on a smartphone with a front-facing camera, Instagram, and social media, and five hours a day of social media, nine hours a day of screen time.” Haidt’s findings highlight the major mental health issues, especially for kids and teenagers, associated with excessive screen time and social media use.
Although Jonathan Haidt supports phasing out phones and enforcing stringent age restrictions on social media, his opinions have not been accepted without opposition. In a piece for Nature, psychology professor Candice Odgers challenges this viewpoint, emphasizing that studies on the effects of social media are more diverse than Haidt implies. Odgers notes that although there are legitimate worries regarding the dangers of information that is determined by algorithms, research has also shown that social media has beneficial benefits on youth.
“The telephone, rock ‘n’ roll, comic books, and romance novels all evoked panic,” she says. As a father, I understand. Children make up one in three Internet users globally, and the proliferation of algorithmically chosen content in particular raises valid questions around agency and responsibility. However, in order to create a digital environment that is secure, welcoming, engaging, and supportive for everyone, we must fight against fear-based responses. Rather, the data must be used to comprehend the wildly disparate internet experiences of young people from a variety of backgrounds.
In order to ensure that solutions are inclusive and take into account the unique needs of children and teens, Odgers advocates for a balanced approach, pushing society to move past fear-based reactions and use data to understand the diverse experiences of these groups online.
Why has criticism been leveled at the Australian law?
Big Tech companies have been one group of detractors. “We are concerned about the process which rushed the legislation through while failing to properly consider the evidence, what industry already does to ensure age-appropriate experiences, and the voices of young people,” stated Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram.
The majority of social media businesses are members of the Digital Industry Group, whose managing director, Sunita Bose, told Reuters that it is unclear what the practical repercussions will be. She claimed that the platforms and community are unaware of the precise requirements placed on them.
Activists also mentioned how social media gives young people a sense of belonging, especially those from vulnerable circumstances, who are bullied, who identify as LGBTQ, etc. A complete prohibition might therefore be harmful to their health.
Concerns were raised regarding the effectiveness of the ban as well as solutions like VPNs, which can demonstrate that the Internet is being accessed from a different place, even among those who supported it.
FAQ
1. What is the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024?
The Australian government passed the Bill on November 28, 2024, with the intention of limiting minors under 16’s access to social media. It puts the onus of preventing the creation of accounts by minors on social media corporations. If businesses disregard these limitations, they risk fines of up to $32 million.
2. What are the key provisions of the Bill?
According to the Bill, social media companies must take “reasonable steps” to keep kids off their sites. This entails putting age verification procedures in place and enforcing age restrictions. The Bill also mandates the destruction of any personal data gathered for the purpose of age verification. Apps for teaching and online gaming sites like YouTube and Google Classroom will be exempt.
3. How will age verification be handled under the Bill?
The Bill emphasizes the need for social media companies to put in place mechanisms to confirm users’ ages. Platforms currently rely on users to self-report their age, although this data is rarely checked. Although this creates privacy and data security concerns, the Bill recommends using facial recognition technology as an alternative to official identification.
4. Why has the Australian government introduced this Bill?
The government’s justification is around shielding kids from social media’s harmful impacts. Prime Minister Albanese claims that the Bill intends to give young Australians more protection during crucial developmental phases that are impacted by excessive usage of social media.
5. What are the concerns surrounding the Bill?
The Bill’s detractors, who include campaigners and Big Tech businesses, contend that it ignores the evidence and the effects of such limitations on youth. The Bill’s ability to keep minors off platforms, the uncertainty surrounding the implementation of age verification, and the potential to alienate vulnerable young users who depend on social media for community and support are among the issues raised.
6. How has the Bill been received by tech companies?
Large tech firms, like Meta (the parent company of Facebook and Instagram), have expressed displeasure with the legislation’s hasty passage and the absence of industry participation. They contend that the Bill ignores the current initiatives to offer experiences that are suitable for the age of the users and does not take into account the possible effects on the internet experiences of young people.
7. Why do some activists oppose the Bill?
Social media, according to activists, gives vulnerable youth—such as those who are being bullied or identify as LGBTQ+—a vital feeling of community. They are concerned that a complete ban may isolate these people from internet support systems, which could be detrimental to their wellbeing.
8. Will the Bill completely ban social media for children under 16?
No, access to social media is not completely prohibited by the bill. Rather, it establishes a minimum age and makes platforms responsible for making sure that users under 16 are unable to register. Additionally, the Bill permits ongoing access to specific online services and educational platforms.
9. How will the government ensure the Bill is implemented?
Age verification technology is presently being tested. To guarantee the successful implementation of the minimum age standards, the government intends to collaborate closely with industry professionals and experts throughout the course of the upcoming year. It is anticipated that this trial will yield important information about how age verification might be included without infringing on privacy rights.
10. What is the expected impact of the Bill on social media platforms?
Social media businesses that don’t comply will be subject to heavy fines and forced to adopt more stringent age verification procedures. This might result in major adjustments to the way platforms handle user accounts and gather information, especially with regard to privacy and age verification. Additionally, certain platforms might need to reconsider how they handle user interaction and material with minors.
11. How will this Bill affect children’s mental health?
Experts disagree on the Bill’s efficacy, despite the fact that it attempts to shield kids from social media’s possible negative effects, such as its connections to anxiety and sadness. While some, like psychologist Jonathan Haidt, contend that age restrictions and phone bans could help with these mental health problems, others, like Candice Odgers, stress the need for a well-rounded strategy based on a variety of data that takes into account social media‘s advantages and disadvantages.
