On Thursday, Australia enacted a law banning children under 16 from accessing social media, a decision following intense national debate. This new regulation establishes one of the most stringent frameworks globally aimed at curbing the influence of major technology companies.
The legislation requires platforms such as Meta’s Instagram and Facebook, along with TikTok, to prevent minors from signing up or face significant penalties reaching A$49.5 million (approximately $32 million or Rs. 270 crore). Enforcement trials are scheduled to commence in January, with the full ban poised to take effect in one year.
The Social Media Minimum Age bill positions Australia as a case study for other nations considering similar age restrictions on social media, driven by concerns over the mental health effects on youth.
While countries like France and several U.S. states have instituted laws that limit minor access to social media without parental consent, Australia’s prohibition is outright. This law differs significantly from a currently contested total ban on under-14s in Florida, which is being challenged on constitutional grounds related to free speech.
The passage of this law marks a significant political achievement for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, whose center-left government faces declining popularity ahead of the 2025 elections. Public support for the ban is strong, with a recent poll indicating 77 percent of Australians are in favor, despite opposition from some privacy advocates and child rights organizations.
Amid ongoing parliamentary inquiries in 2024, evidence presented by parents of children affected by social media bullying fueled enthusiasm for the ban. Domestic media, particularly Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, promoted the initiative through a campaign dubbed “Let Them Be Kids.”
However, the new law could complicate diplomatic relations with the United States, particularly given comments from tech figures such as Elon Musk, who expressed concerns over it being a “backdoor” approach to controlling internet access for Australians.
The legislation continues a trend of tension between Australia and major tech companies primarily based in the U.S. Australia previously introduced a requirement for social media platforms to pay local media for content shared on their sites and is now looking to impose additional fines for not combating online scams effectively.
Meta acknowledged Australia’s legal framework but expressed apprehensions about how the legislation was expedited without thorough consideration of its implications, existing industry practices for age verification, and the perspectives of young users.
A spokesperson for Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, stated that while they comply with Australian regulations, the firm has significant reservations regarding the legislation. They will actively collaborate with the government and the eSafety Commissioner to create a balanced approach during the implementation phase.
Representatives from TikTok and X, both mentioned in the government’s discussion about the ban’s impact, were unavailable for comments at the time of reporting.
Tech firms, including Google’s subsidiary YouTube, which is exempt from the new law given its educational use, have called for the legislation to be postponed until adequate age verification methods are tested.
“It’s placing the cart before the horse,” remarked Sunita Bose, managing director of the Digital Industry Group, an organization representing many social media companies. Bose highlighted the absence of government guidelines on implementing the law effectively.
Divided Opinions Among Stakeholders
Some youth advocacy organizations and experts voiced concerns that the ban might exclude vulnerable youth, particularly LGBTQIA and migrant teenagers, from essential support networks. The Australian Human Rights Commission stated that the legislation could violate minors’ rights by limiting their societal engagement.
Privacy advocates cautioned that the law could lead to increased data collection and pave the way for state surveillance systems based on digital identification. To address such concerns, the final version of the bill required platforms to provide alternatives to user identification uploads.
Critics of the law included Australian senator Sarah Hanson-Young, representing the left-leaning Greens, who characterized the ban as an outdated attempt by older generations to dictate internet experiences to youth for their own comfort.
Conversely, parent advocacy groups supported the law, referencing comments from U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who suggested social media exacerbated the youth mental health crisis to the extent that it may warrant health warnings.
Australian anti-bullying advocate Ali Halkic, whose son tragically died by suicide following online bullying, stated that establishing an age limit represents a positive first step in empowering parents.
Enie Lam, a 16-year-old student from Sydney, argued that while social media does contribute to issues like body image and cyberbullying, a complete ban might push young people toward the lesser-known, potentially dangerous areas of the internet. “It will only create a generation of young people who will be more technologically literate in bypassing these walls,” she asserted, acknowledging the widespread recognition of social media’s negative implications while noting significant resistance among youth to the proposed ban.
© Thomson Reuters 2024
(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
