Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says the legislation is needed to protect young people from the “harms” of social media, something many parent groups have echoed.
Critics, however, point to unanswered questions regarding the ban’s implementation, its impact on privacy, and its effect on young people’s social connections
Although other countries have attempted to limit children’s access to social media, Australia’s legislation is unique in its 16-year-old age restriction and its absence of exemptions based on existing usage or parental consent.
“This is a global problem and we want young Australians essentially to have a childhood,” Albanese said when introducing the bill to the lower house last week. “We want parents to have peace of mind.”
Having successfully navigated the Senate with a 34-19 vote on Thursday evening, the bill will proceed to the House of Representatives for consideration of amendments and subsequent enactment into law. The government’s majority ensures its passage.
Decisions regarding which platforms will be affected by the legislation will be made at a later date by the Australian communications minister, following consultation with the eSafety Commissioner, the body responsible for regulatory enforcement.
The legislation includes exemptions for gaming and messaging platforms, as well as websites that do not require user accounts; consequently, platforms such as YouTube are anticipated to remain unaffected.
The government intends to utilize age-verification technology for the enforcement of these restrictions, with trials of various technologies scheduled for the forthcoming months. The onus for implementation will rest with the social media platforms themselves.
Experts in the field of digital technology have expressed reservations regarding the efficacy and privacy implications of the proposed age-verification mechanisms, the specifics of which remain undisclosed. Assurances regarding the protection of user privacy have been sought by critics.
The potential for circumvention of the proposed restrictions through the utilization of technologies such as virtual private networks (VPNs), which obfuscate user location, has been highlighted by digital researchers.
It is important to note that the legislation does not stipulate any penalties for minors who circumvent the restrictions. Preliminary polling data, while limited in scope, suggests a preponderance of support among Australian parents and caregivers.
“For too long parents have had this impossible choice between giving in and getting their child an addictive device or seeing their child isolated and feeling left out,” Amy Friedlander, who was among those lobbying for the ban, recently told the BBC.
“We’ve been trapped in a norm that no one wants to be a part of.”
Many experts, however, describe the ban as “too blunt an instrument” in addressing social media risks, warning that it might push children into less regulated internet areas.
During a short pre-passage consultation, Google and Snap criticised the legislation’s lack of detail; Meta called the bill would be “ineffective” and not meet its stated aim of making kids safer.
In its submission, TikTok described the government’s social media platform definition as so “broad and unclear” that “almost every online service could fall within [it]”.
X questioned the “lawfulness” of the bill arguing incompatibility with international regulations and human rights treaties signed by Australia.
Some youth advocates accused the government of misunderstanding social media’s role in young people’s lives and excluding them from the debate. “We understand we are vulnerable to the risks and negative impacts of social media… but we need to be involved in developing solutions,” The eSafety Youth Council, advising the regulator, wrote
Despite acknowledging the complex debate, Albanese defended the bill. “We all know technology moves fast and some people will try to find ways around these new laws but that is not a reason to ignore the responsibility that we have,”
Last year, France blocked social media access for under-15s without parental consent, but research showed almost half of users circumvented the ban using VPNs.
A similar US law in Utah was overturned as unconstitutional by a federal judge.
Australia’s laws attract significant global attention.
Norway pledged to follow; the UK technology secretary said a similar ban was “on the table” – though he later added “not… at the moment”.
Thank you for reading
BUY from US