David Bridges
In light of extensive criticism surrounding the proposed legislation, the Australian government is advancing its plans for stringent restrictions on social media usage. These changes will prohibit users under the age of 16 from accessing social media platforms, a move that has raised numerous questions regarding its efficacy and potential benefits.
As of yesterday, the proposal reached a significant milestone with the official introduction of the “Online Safety Amendment” bill in Parliament. The upcoming step involves a parliamentary vote on the bill, anticipated to take place next week, which will determine its future.
The government appears resolute in its commitment to implement these measures, despite the concerns voiced by a diverse array of experts regarding the potential consequences and the realities of enforcing such a policy.
However, the government is determined to act on behalf of concerned parents, although there is skepticism about whether this proposal will achieve the desired outcomes.
Firstly, significant challenges lie ahead in the enforcement of these regulations.
According to the bill:
“The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 (the Bill) amends the Online Safety Act 2021 (Online Safety Act), with the aim of establishing a minimum age for social media use, placing responsibility on social media platforms for the safety of their users.”
Consequently, social media platforms will bear the responsibility for enforcement, necessitating that each application develop its own mechanisms to identify and restrict access for underage users.
Historically, these platforms have struggled to implement effective systems for detecting underage users. Each app currently employs its own age verification methods, yet even the most advanced processes are not foolproof. The Australian government acknowledges the reality that some younger individuals may still gain access to social media applications despite these regulations. Nonetheless, it believes that enacting this law will provide parents with a tool to counteract their children’s requests to join these platforms.
Moreover, the government has yet to establish a standardized framework for assessing whether apps are in violation of these laws. At this point, it seems each application will be evaluated based on its own procedures, resulting in a significantly inconsistent enforcement landscape.
For instance, Meta has implemented far more sophisticated age detection systems than other platforms like X, which lacks rigorous checks. This disparity in enforcement raises concerns about fairness, potentially rendering the bill largely unenforceable. Without agreed-upon standards, platforms with more resources will benefit, complicating the overall detection process.
This discrepancy is part of why Meta advocates for conducting age verification at the app store level, ensuring that all applications adhere to the same consistent standard. However, this approach may lack the political appeal of targeting major players like Facebook and TikTok, which aligns better with a government seeking to appear tough on big tech.
Discussions regarding an industry-standard age verification process are ongoing, which the government intends to implement during the rollout phase. However, the specifics of this process remain undisclosed, and those tasked with evaluating potential options express skepticism about their likely effectiveness.
With potential fines reaching up to $US32 million for non-compliance, this oversight could undermine the entire proposal from the outset. This concern is compounded by the broader question of whether banning young teenagers from social media platforms is the right approach.
Opinions on this issue vary widely; some researchers argue that social media serves a vital connective function for teenagers, while others emphasize the detrimental effects it can have on certain users.
The latter perspective is particularly relevant, as the impact of social media differs from user to user. A blanket prohibition on teenagers may not effectively address the perceived hazards associated with social media usage.
Indeed, even the research cited by the Australian government in support of its ban is inconclusive, with the author of one of the highlighted reports asserting that the government has misinterpreted his conclusions.
As such, the bill may be unenforceable depending on the mechanisms implemented, and may ultimately be ineffective based on academic insights.
Additionally, it is worth noting that messaging applications will be exempt from this legislation.
Currently, the bill applies to platforms like Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and X, while messaging services such as Messenger and WhatsApp are not included in the proposal. YouTube, often deemed equally concerning for teenagers, is also absent from this list.
Emerging platforms like Threads and Bluesky are similarly excluded, creating significant gaps in the proposed social media restrictions.
Even if teenagers are barred from these primary applications, they will likely migrate to alternative platforms. Many adolescents are already utilizing WhatsApp, and pushing them away from established apps may lead to greater popularity for lesser-known alternatives.
Without clear guidelines on which apps will be encompassed by the bill, based on user metrics and other criteria, the government may find itself needing to introduce amendments every time a new app gains traction among teenagers, further complicating the proposal’s viability.
In summary, the proposed ban on teenagers using social media platforms appears to be a poorly conceived, inadequately structured response to a problem that may not even exist.
However, the government is eager to demonstrate to parents that it is taking decisive action. The window for submitting amendments has been limited to just 24 hours, suggesting that the bill may soon become law. While the Australian Government aims to portray its leadership as “world-leading” in this matter, it is likely to reveal the opposite, showcasing policymakers’ disconnect from the realities of the contemporary online environment.
When 16-year-olds are using social applications, it is only a matter of time before 15 and 14-year-olds find ways to access them as they strive to keep pace with their peers in high school. Thus, while the fundamental principle of protecting teenagers from online risks is commendable, outright banning them is unlikely to provide a long-term solution to these issues.
Implementing restrictions at the app store level could prove more effective if that is the chosen route, while mandatory cybersecurity education would offer a more viable path forward, recognizing the complexities of today’s interactive landscape and the associated dangers.
