Prime Minister Anthony Albanese today announced the age limit for his government’s controversial social media ban: children under 16. He plans to take the proposal to a virtual meeting of national cabinet on Friday.
The proposal would not exempt young people under 16 already on social media. No child under 16 will be permitted to use social media platforms – such as Instagram and TikTok – even with parental consent.
Tech companies will be responsible for enforcing the ban. The government intends to introduce legislation to parliament by the end of the year. The ban would take effect 12 months after the law passes.
Announcing the proposal on Thursday, Albanese declared social media was “doing harm to our kids, and I’m calling time on it”. But the government’s proposed age limit is deeply flawed and raises far more questions than it answers.
No consensus
The government argues the ban is necessary because social media is harming young people’s mental health.
Some experts agree and support the ban, saying there has been a spike in mental health issues among young people since social media became ubiquitous over the last 12 years.
But debate is raging about whether such a ban is an effective remedy.
It is unclear why the government has chosen 16 as the age limit for its ban. Internationally, there is no clear agreement on an appropriate age limit for such bans.
For example, France last year passed a law requiring parental consent for social media users under 15. In the United States, Texas requires all social media users under 18 to first obtain parental consent.
There are many reasons youth under 16 might need independent access to social media.
Many teenagers hold down part-time jobs and have started thinking about future careers. Social media enables them to engage with educational institutions, potential employers and health services, as well as the personal networks of people with shared interests.
Many teens are also starting to figure out their identity and their place in wider society. They may be grappling with issues such as their sexuality, without access to appropriate supports at home or in their communities. Communities they find online can help them address such challenges and find appropriate support.
What social media will be included?
The term “social media” describes an incredibly diverse range of platforms. It includes X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, YouTube and LinkedIn, as well as online gaming platforms with a social element.
Exactly which platforms the ban will apply to is still unclear. Communications Minister Michelle Rowland today singled out Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and TikTok. But it appears other platforms could be included.
Albanese says his government would use the same definition of social media as that used in Australia’s Social Media Services Online Safety Code. The code defines social media as electronic services that meet the following conditions:
the sole or primary purpose of the service is to enable online social interaction between two or more end‑users
the service allows end‑users to link to, or interact with, some or all other end‑users
the service allows end‑users to post material on the service
such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules.
This definition would mean, for example, that people under 16 could be excluded from LinkedIn, where they might be following politicians or thought leaders to learn about current affairs. It could also mean they’re excluded from Messenger Kids, Meta’s instant messaging platform for young people, or WhatsApp.
But even those platforms singled out by Minister Rowland help young people learn about the world. In fact, a recent report by the Pew Research Centre found nearly 40% of people under 30 in the US regularly get their news from TikTok. Under the government’s ban, many of these people would also lose access to what has become a vital source of information.
Implications for existing users
The government’s plan will mean young people under 16 already using social media will have their accounts shut down.
But enforcing this ban will be extremely challenging.
To exclude all people under 16, technology companies will need to review all social media accounts to ensure that users provide some form of verification of their age to continue to access the service. That is a technological nightmare – and bound to cause a lot of frustration among adult users of social media.
The government’s decision not to exempt social media users under 16 years who have their parents’ consent will likely prove controversial.
Since the ban was flagged in September, many parents have expressed concern via talk radio and on social media platforms about government intervention in the way they raise their children.
Much of this concern stems from the intimate knowledge they have of their child’s state of development and readiness to use social media.
The government could have heeded these concerns (as well as others from multiple experts) and adapted its plan to give more individualised choice and parental control.
Instead, it has forged ahead with a blanket ban that won’t do anything to force social media companies to eliminate harmful content on their platforms. While young people will not be able to create accounts, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has warned they may find workarounds to continue to access social media content, such as by using an older person’s account on a home computer or using a VPN to create an account.
The legislation will not ask technology companies to provide other protections for users (such as being able to report or blocking content) to identify inappropriate content.
Because of all of this, the ban will ultimately give parents a false sense of security, while preventing young people from accessing important information.
Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. She is a Fellow of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australian and of the Association for Information Sciences and Technology.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
