Getty Images
Australian government calls proposed ban 'world-leading'
“I was really scared, to be honest,” James says, describing an incident on Snapchat that left him wondering if it was safe to go to school.
The 12-year-old Australian boy had a disagreement with a friend, and one night before bed the boy added him to a group chat with two older teenagers.
Almost instantly, his phone “started blowing up” with a series of violent messages.
“One of them looked like he was probably 17,” James told the BBC. “He sent me videos of him with a machete… he was waving it. Then there were voicemails saying they were going to grab me and stab me.
James – not his real name – first joined Snapchat when he was 10, after a classmate suggested everyone in their friendship group get the application. But after speaking to his parents about his experience with cyberbullying, which was ultimately resolved by his school, James deleted his account.
Her experience is a cautionary tale that shows why the Australian government's proposal to ban social media for children under 16 is necessary, says her mother Emma, who also uses a pseudonym.
The laws, which were tabled in the lower house of Parliament on Thursday, were described by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as “among the best in the world”.
But while many parents applauded the move, some experts question whether children should — or even can — be blocked from accessing social media, and what the harmful effects of such a measure might be.
What does Australia offer?
Albanese says the ban – which will cover platforms including X, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram – aims to protect children from the “harms” of social media.
“This one is for moms and dads…They, like me, are worried about our children's safety online,” he said.
The new legislation provides a “framework” for the ban. But the 17-page document, which is expected to be submitted to the Senate next week, contains few details.
Instead, it will be up to the national internet regulator – the Electronic Safety Commissioner – to determine how to implement and enforce the rules, which will not come into force until at least 12 months after adoption of the legislation.
According to the bill, the ban will apply to all children under the age of 16 and there will be no exemptions for existing users or those with parental consent.
Tech companies will face penalties of up to A$50 million ($32.5 million; £25.7) if they fail to comply, but there will be exemptions for platforms capable of creating ” low-risk services” deemed child-friendly. the threshold has not yet been set.
Messaging services and gaming sites will not be restricted, however, raising questions about how regulators will determine what is or is not a social media platform in a rapidly changing landscape.
A group representing the interests of tech companies such as Meta, Snapchat and X in Australia called the ban “the 20th century answer to 21st century challenges.”
Such legislation could push children into “dangerous and unregulated parts of the internet,” says Digital Industry Group Inc – a fear also expressed by some experts.
EPA
Anthony Albanese says ban aims to show Australian families his government 'supports them'
Electronic Security Commissioner Julie Inman Grant acknowledged the mammoth task her office will face in enforcing the ban, given that “technological change is always going to outpace politics.”
“It will always be fluid, and that’s why regulators like eSafety need to be agile,” she told BBC Radio 5 Live.
But Ms Inman Grant also raised concerns about the central idea of the government's policy, which is that there is a causal link between social media and declining mental health.
“I would say the evidence base is not at all established,” she said, pointing to research from her own office that found that some of the most vulnerable groups, like LGBTQ+ adolescents or First Nations, “feel more like themselves online than they are.” to do in the real world.
It's a sentiment shared by 15-year-old Lucas Lane, who runs an online business selling nail polish to boys. “This (ban) is destroying… my friendships and my ability to make people feel seen,” the Perth teenager told the BBC.
Ms Inman Grant would prefer tech companies clean up their platforms and invest more in educational tools to help young people stay safe online. She uses the analogy of teaching children to swim, rather than banning them from the water.
“We are not fencing off the ocean… but we are creating protected swimming environments that provide safeguards and teach important lessons from an early age,” she told Parliament earlier this year.
Matthew Abbott
Julie Inman Grant, who heads Australia's internet regulator, will be responsible for determining how to implement the ban.
But parents like Emma see things differently.
“Should we really be wasting our time trying to help kids navigate these difficult systems when tech companies just want them to be available to them all the time?,” she says.
“Or should we just allow them to be kids and learn to be social with each other outside, and then start those discussions later?”
Amy Friedlander, a mother of three and member of the Wait Mate movement — which encourages parents to delay giving their children smartphones — agrees.
“We cannot ignore all the positive aspects that technology has brought to our lives. There are huge benefits, but what we haven't really considered is the impact it has on brains that aren't ready for it.
“A too brutal instrument”
More than 100 Australian academics criticized the ban as “too blunt an instrument” and argued it went against UN advice which calls on governments to ensure young people have “safe access” to digital environments.
It also failed to win support from a bipartisan House committee that examined the impact of social media on teenagers. Instead, the committee recommended that tech giants face tougher regulations.
To address some of these concerns, the government has announced that it will eventually introduce “digital duty of care” laws, which would require tech companies to prioritize user safety.
Joanne Orlando, a digital behavior researcher, says that while a ban “can be part of a strategy, it absolutely cannot be the strategy as a whole.”
She said “the biggest piece of the puzzle” should be educating children to think critically about the content they see on their feeds and how they use social media.
The government has already spent A$6 million since 2022 to develop free “digital literacy tools” for this purpose. However, research suggests that many young Australians are not receiving lessons regularly.
Ms Orlando and other experts warn there are also significant hurdles to making age verification technology – which is needed to enforce the ban – effective and safe, given the “enormous risks” associated with potentially hosting every Australian's identity documents online.
Getty Images
The government has said it is seeking to address the issue through age verification trials and hopes to file a report by the middle of next year. He promised that privacy concerns would be at the forefront, but gave few details about what kind of technology will actually be tested.
In his opinion, the e-security commissioner floated the idea of using a third-party service to anonymize a user's ID before it is passed to an age verification site, in order to ” preserve » one's private life.
However, Ms. Orlando remains skeptical. “I don't see any existing technology at this stage that can achieve this,” she told the BBC.
Will Australia succeed?
Australia is by no means the first country to attempt to restrict how young people access certain websites or online platforms.
In 2011, South Korea passed its “shutdown law” which banned children under 16 from playing internet games between 10:30 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., but the rules – which sparked backlash – were later enforced. abandoned citing the need to “respect the rights of young people”. “.
More recently, France introduced legislation requiring social media platforms to block access to children under 15 without parental consent. Research indicated that almost half of users were able to bypass the ban by using a simple VPN.
A law in the US state of Utah, similar to Australia's, ran into a different problem: it was blocked by a federal judge who ruled it unconstitutional.
Albanese admitted the Australian proposal may not be foolproof and if passed by Parliament it would be subject to review.
“We know that technology is evolving rapidly. No government will be able to protect all children from all threats, but we must do everything we can,” he said when announcing the measure .
But for parents like Emma and Ms Friedlander – who have pushed for the changes – it is the message sent by the ban that matters most.
“For too long, parents have had this impossible choice between giving in and giving their child an addictive device or seeing their child isolated and feeling socially excluded,” says Friedlander.
“We are stuck in a norm that no one wants to be a part of.”
James says that since leaving Snapchat, he's been spending more time outside with his friends.
And he hopes the new laws will allow more kids like him to “go out and do the things they love” instead of feeling like they have to be online.
