The federal government is looking to take on big tech companies like Meta, owners of Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp, TikTok and Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter), and possibly YouTube, with a social media ban for children under 16.
Prime minister Anthony Albanese and communications minister Michelle Rowland today revealed plans for legislation to be introduced to parliament in the final session before it rises for the Christmas break. The platforms on the banned list have yet to be finalised – Snapchat, also popular with under 16s, could also be on the government’s radar – and the social media companies involved will have a year to respond in terms of implementing the bans, or face large fines, with the eSafety Commissioner as the regulatory cop.
The idea will got to state and territory leaders at a specially convened national cabinet meeting tomorrow.
“This one’s for the mums and dads. Social media is doing harm to our kids and I’m calling time on it,” Albanese said.
“I want Australian parents and families to know that the government has your back. I want parents to be able to say, ‘sorry mate, it’s against the law for me to get you to do this’.”
The government is not planning a “grandfather” clause for existing users under 16, meaning they too will be blocked.
Albanese previously announced a $6.5 million trial of age assurance technology in May, but the tender for the plan has yet to be awarded it will not begin until 2025.
The prime minister said he has “things popping up on my system that I don’t want to see” let alone children.
“These tech companies are incredibly powerful. These apps have algorithms that drive people towards certain behaviour,” he said.
“The fact is that young women see images of particular body shapes that impact, have a real impact, in the real world. And young men through some of the misogynistic material that they get sent to them, not because they asked for it, but if you’re a 14-year-old kid getting this stuff at a time where you’re going through life’s changes and maturing, it can be a really difficult time.”
Rowland said social media companies have been consulted about the government’s plans and the 12-month lead time is “to ensure that its implementation is capable of being done in a very practical way” after the legislation is passed.
“Social media companies have been put on notice that they need to ensure that the content that they are purveying, but also their practices need to be made safer. This is the issue of safety by design which needs to be embedded in these features,” the communications minister said.
“But we also know that the social media platforms have already announced in some cases versions of their services which are designed to be safer.”
Who’s banned – or not
Minister Rowland said the platforms they’re looking at include “Instagram, TikTok, Facebook and X. YouTube would likely fall within that definition as well”, with the e-Safety Commissioner to determine any platforms that are ‘low risk’ and granted an exemption from the ban.
But the onus is on the social media companies to stop young users signing on.
The maximum existing fines of up to $1 million will be reviewed with a view increasing them alongside giving the eSafety Commissioner greater powers to enforce the new laws.
“These platforms know their users better than anyone. These platforms understand their habits, their capabilities, what sort of content should be driven to them and what their behaviours are,” she said.
“So in this year that we will take in terms of implementation, that will be the key focus… it’s very important to have privacy protections in place here. This is a complex area, but it is one that we are determined to get right.”
But the government’s plans will no doubt attract the ire of X’s outspoken billionaire owner, Elon Musk, freshly emboldened by his backing of Donald Trump’s successful presidential campaign.
Musk has already been in a war of words with the Australian government and prime minister, labelling them “fascists” seeking to suppress free speech over plans tackle misinformation and disinformation on social media.
The billionaire also battled Australian eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant over removing footage of the stabbing of a bishop in a Sydney church.
The minister said global tech companies must abide by Australian law.
Tech sector reactions
Lisy Kane from Girl Geek Academy, the social enterprise helping high school girls improve their tech skills, is concerned that YouTube could be on the government’s hit list.
Girl Geek Academy cofounder Lisy Kane.
“Try telling a 15-year-old they can’t use YouTube to learn coding, or share their favourite bands with friends on Spotify, or Scratch to share their first game with classmates,” she said.
“As digital educators at Girl Geek Academy, we’re all for protecting kids online. But maybe before we start swinging the ban hammer, we should figure out what we’re actually banning. Because right now, this plan makes about as much sense as banning electricity to stop kids watching TV.”
Digital Industry Group Inc. (DIGI) MD Sunita Bose described the government’s ban plan as “a 20th Century response to 21st Century challenges”.
“Rather than blocking access through bans, we need to take a balanced approach to create age-appropriate spaces, build digital literacy and protect young people from online harm,” she said.
“Almost 100 experts, including mental health advocates and youth safety organisations, say that a ban risks preventing teenagers from accessing mental health support, making social connections, and finding communities, especially for vulnerable groups like First Nations, LGBTQI+, remote and regional youth and those with special needs.”
The danger, Bose argues, it the bans could push young people to darker, unregulated corners of the internet, along with privacy and security trade-offs.
“Rather than blocking access, we need to work together to keep young people safe online,” she said.
“Swimming has risks – but we don’t ban young people from the beach, we teach them to swim between the flags. Banning teenagers from social media risks pushing them to dangerous, unregulated parts of the internet and fails to equip them with the valuable digital literacy skills they’ll need for the future.”
Bose said DIGI was working with the eSafety Commissioner to develop legally-binding codes under the Online Safety Act, focused on protecting young people from exposure to online pornography and other harmful content.
RMIT Professor of Information Sciences Lisa Given said the choice of 16 is unclear when France opted for 14, and the state of Texas, 18, because many teens under 16 need access to critical information as they begin to mature.
“Social media tools play a critical role in how youth engage with educational institutions, potential employers and health services, as well as personal networks of people with shared interests,” she said. They may be grappling with many different issues in their lives, without access to appropriate supports at home or in their communities.
“Social media is also a very diverse term, which includes more than just platforms like TikTok, Instagram and Facebook. The government has chosen a broad definition for its ban, which is outlined in Australia’s Social Media Services Online Safety Code. This means people under 16 would be excluded from LinkedIn, where they might be following politicians or thought leaders to learn about current affairs, as well as educational platforms like YouTube.
“The fact that there is no exemption under the government’s plan for social media users under 16 years who have their parents’ consent will continue to fuel debate on whether a ban is the right approach. A social media ban will likely give parents a false sense of security, while excluding young people from sites providing critical information and potentially pushing young people to find workarounds to access social media content in secret.”
Trending
Daily startup news and insights, delivered to your inbox.