Australia is set to implement the world’s strictest social media regulations, banning children under 16 from using social media platforms. The legislation, which passed the Senate with 34 votes to 19, aims to protect young people from the potential harms of social media and provide parents with peace of mind.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese championed the bill, emphasizing the need to preserve childhood and protect young Australians. If tech companies fail to comply, they could face fines up to A$50m ($32.5m). The law is unique in its comprehensive approach, with no exemptions for existing users or those with parental consent.
The specifics of the ban are still being developed. The communications minister will determine which platforms are covered, with guidance from the eSafety Commissioner. Gaming and messaging platforms, as well as sites accessible without an account like YouTube, are likely to be exempt.
Age verification technology will be crucial to implementing the restrictions, though the exact method remains undefined. Digital researchers have raised concerns about the effectiveness and privacy implications of potential verification methods, such as biometrics or identity information.
Critics argue that the ban could be easily circumvented using VPNs, and some tech companies have expressed significant reservations. Google, Snap, Meta, TikTok, and X have all criticized the legislation, questioning its practicality, definition of social media platforms, and potential legal challenges.
Youth advocates have also voiced concerns, arguing that they should be involved in developing solutions. The eSafety Youth Council emphasized that while they understand the risks of social media, they want to be part of the conversation.
Despite the criticisms, polling suggests the ban has support among Australian parents. Amy Friedlander, a supporter of the legislation, highlighted the challenging position parents face in managing their children’s social media access.
Internationally, the legislation is drawing significant attention. France has previously introduced similar (though less strict) regulations, while a comparable law in Utah was overturned by a federal judge. Norway has already indicated it may follow Australia’s lead, and the UK is considering similar measures.
Albanese has acknowledged the complexity of the issue but remains committed to the legislation. He argues that while technology evolves quickly and people may find ways to circumvent the law, this is not a reason to avoid taking responsibility for protecting young people.
The law will not take effect for at least 12 months, giving time for further refinement and preparation. Children who manage to access social media despite the restrictions will not face personal penalties.
As the world watches, Australia’s bold approach to social media regulation represents a significant attempt to address growing concerns about the impact of digital platforms on young people’s mental health, social development, and overall well-being.
