Australia’s controversial new law banning minors under 16 from using social media is one of the toughest measures taken so far against platforms like Facebook and TikTok, as governments around the world look for ways to protect children from harmful content.
The blanket ban, approved Thursday night, places some of the strictest restrictions on Internet use outside China and other non-democratic regimes and could provide impetus for other governments to act. From Florida and Texas to France and the United Kingdom, authorities have tried (or are considering) raising age limits for social media or tightening content oversight.
Behind the debate and as the engine of change hide the dark corners of social networks that continue to exact a tragic toll. Like the 16-year-old boy, with a social media account full of videos about hopelessness and death, who stood in front of a train in Bayport, New York. Or the 15-year-old Australian schoolgirl who hanged herself from a tree in her home in February 2022 after suffering years of bullying on social media.
While Australia’s ban is very popular with voters (77% support the measure, according to a YouGov poll), it has unleashed a maelstrom of criticism from Big Tech. Major operators such as Meta Platforms Inc. say the rules are ineffective or flawed, while X, owned by self-proclaimed free speech absolutist Elon Musk, questioned whether the ban is legal, announcing a possible court challenge. Academics worry about the unintended consequences of a forceful ban.
Under the new law, which will come into effect in about 12 months, digital platforms such as Snapchat, Instagram and X will be responsible for enforcing the age limit, with penalties of up to 50 million Australian dollars (US$32 million) in case of non-compliance. However, it is still unclear how the platforms will verify ages, as the government already rules out the use of official documents, such as a passport, due to privacy concerns. Children who find a way to circumvent the verification checks will not be fined, nor will their parents.
The law also threatens to upend the business model of some of the world’s most valuable companies, which are facing a global backlash against problems attributed to their services, such as rising mental health problems, online scams, line, lower academic performance and bullying. A successful ban would deprive them of a key group of users: millions of teenagers coveted by advertisers and whom companies want to attract from a young age.
In a statement, Meta said that while she will respect the law, she was “concerned about the process that rushed the legislation through without adequately considering the evidence, which the industry already does to ensure age-appropriate experiences and the voices of children.” youths”.
In September, the World Health Organization issued one of the clearest warnings after studying social media use among nearly 280,000 schoolchildren in 44 countries and regions, one of the largest surveys of its kind. The WHO warned of the far-reaching consequences for adolescent development and long-term health from the rise in problematic social media use.
The Geneva-based organization called for “immediate and sustained action.”
This week’s response from Australia, which imposes age thresholds regardless of whether the child has parental permission, sets a new precedent.
“We want Australian children to have a childhood,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said as he introduced the legislation last week. Social media platforms generally require account holders to be at least 13 years old.
However, the simplicity of the Australian solution has highlighted the complexity of the problem.
YouTube, considered by the Australian government to be a health and education-related platform, is exempt from the ban, even though the comments section under videos can be as toxic as other corners of the internet. Online gaming and messaging services such as WhatsApp and Discord are also exempt, although they can also be used for harassment and psychological manipulation.
One of the biggest weaknesses of the youth ban is that it does not curb the production of harmful content, said Lisa Given, a professor of information sciences at RMIT University in Melbourne. He said platform owners should focus on turning off negative algorithms, which can overwhelm social media users with content whether they like it or not. At the same time, there should be more investment in digital literacy for children and parents, Given said.
“This legislation is really ill-conceived,” he said. “It is a simple proposed solution for something that is actually very complicated. And where did 16 come from? It seems like it was taken out of nowhere.”
It is perhaps inevitable that nearly all of the biggest social media companies, including TikTok, X and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, raised concerns about the law in filings. in the face of a truncated Senate investigation before the bill was passed.
TikTok, owned by Chinese company ByteDance Ltd., said the legislation was “hasty” and “unworkable,” and was riddled with “unanswered questions and unresolved concerns.”
Snap Inc., which owns Snapchat, said previous international attempts at broad, mandatory age verification had failed. X, known as Twitter before Musk bought it, said it had “serious concerns about the legality of the bill.”
Unicef, the United Nations children’s agency, said Australia’s ban would push young people into darker, unregulated places on the internet. The law also risks compromising children’s rights and cutting off their access to information that is vital to their well-being, Unicef said.
“Instead of banning children, we should hold social media companies accountable for providing safe, supportive and age-appropriate online environments,” said Katie Maskiell, director of policy and advocacy. of the child at Unicef Australia, in a presentation to parliament.
Elected officials around the world charged with overseeing social media find themselves in an awkward position. Many parents feel helpless and angry, and want their children to spend less time online. Their demands for governments to intervene are amplified by the tragedies of youth suicides caused by bullying or sextortion on social media. But it’s difficult to isolate the obvious dangers of social media without destroying its benefits.
“It is impossible to be a teenager in most of the world without social media,” said Stephen Scheeler.former head of Facebook in Australia and New Zealand, in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “Controlling that access from a parent or government perspective is not as easy as it seems.”
Several other countries and US states have attempted to restrict children’s access to social media, with limited success.
A Florida bill banning children under 14 from having social media accounts has faced legal challenges, as have measures from states such as Arkansas and Ohio that would require minors to get parental approval to use social media accounts. social networks.
Norway wants to impose a minimum age of 15 for social media use after data showed that many children under 13, ehe current age limit, they still use popular platforms, the Guardian and other publications reported last month.
