Australia is the first country to set the minimum age of social media access to 16, after a landmark bill passed in the Senate late into the evening on the final sitting day of the year.
Backed by both major parties, the ground-breaking legislation “seeks to set a new normative value in society that accessing social media is not the defining feature of growing up in Australia”, said Communications Minister Michelle Rowland.
TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram are among the platforms that will face fines of up to $50 million (USD $33 million) for systemic failures to prevent under-16s from holding accounts when the laws come into effect, 12 months from now.
Exemptions will allow teens under-16s to still access health and education related services – Headspace, YouTube, Google Classroom – as well as messaging services and online games.
“It’s about making sure children have a childhood and parents have peace of mind,” said Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, assuring Australian parents, “We’ve got your back.”
New laws welcomed in Australia and abroad
Australia’s move to keep kids and teens off social media has been lauded internationally, including by prominent author Jonathan Haidt, whose book The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness raised the alarm over the harms of excessive smartphone and social media use to young people’s mental health, particularly in girls.
“Australia is correcting two of the most consequential blunders in the creation of the early global internet: the setting of the ‘age of internet adulthood’ to 13, combined with the stipulation that companies have no responsibility at all to verify that anyone actually is 13,” wrote Haidt on Substack this week.
“We applaud Australia for stepping up and doing the right thing.”
Several U.S. states – Louisiana, Texas, Florida, and Utah – have legislated to limit access to social media for teens, but the Australian Government is the first to take this step at a national level.
In Australia, the reception has been mostly positive. Just over three quarters of Australians (77%) support the social media ban, according to polling by YouGov – up from 61% in August.
The Senate inquiry into the bill particularly noted overwhelming parental support for the bill, as parents grapple with the collective action problem of how to limit teens’ time on social media without being the only grinch on the block.
Why the rush-job?
However, much of the media commentary in Australia this week has centered on the breakneck speed at which the Government rammed the legislation through Parliament in a single week, leaving many wondering, why the rush?
After tabling the bill last Thursday, the Government allowed only two business days for the Senate to review it. This meant the public was given only one day for submissions, with just a three-hour hearing on Monday before the Senate had to bang out its report, due 9am Tuesday.
All in all, a process with as much consideration as “a 15-year-old making a Black Friday impulse buy at Shein.com”, quipped ABC journalist Annabel Crabb. Or, as Nationals Senator Matt Canavan put it, the rush-job appeared to be “a knee-jerk reaction to a complex problem”.
Despite the short timeframe, the inquiry into the bill attracted 15,000 public responses – a staggering number which was likely boosted by Elon Musk’s viral post on X suggesting that the new laws seemed like “a backdoor way to control access to the Internet by all Australians”.
Tech giant Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, called yesterday for the bill to be delayed over concerns that “the Government is rushing this legislation without adequate consultation or evidence and there are still many unknowns with respect to its implementation”.
Nevertheless, the bill was passed in the House of Representatives on Wednesday (101 Ayes to 13 Noes), and passed in the Senate late on Thursday (34 Ayes to 19 Noes) as one of the last orders of the last sitting day of the year, with truncated debate time due to there being some 30 other bills to be pushed through before the end of the session.
The bill was opposed by the Greens, some Teals and independents, and a handful of dissenters from the Coalition (conservative National and Liberal Parties), who crossed the floor to vote against it.
Broad political support despite criticisms
The bill, which amends the Online Safety Act (2021), had bipartisan support from the get-go, as the push for legislating a minimum age for social media access was initiated by the conservative Opposition leader Peter Dutton in June.
The state Governments of Victoria and South Australia soon announced plans to limit social media use for kids under 14, and the federal Labour Government jumped on the bandwagon, announcing its intention to follow through with legislation in September.
The Federal Government had already committed $6.5 million in the May Budget to conduct a pilot of age assurance technology, as recommended in the eSafety Commissioner’s Age Verification Roadmap in 2023.
Mobile phones have been successfully banned in most Australian schools under state and territory laws, but proponents of the bill said this did not go far enough.
On the other hand, the bill “could have far-reaching consequences for privacy, mental health, silencing young peoples’ voices and online safety for everyone in the long-run ‒ and may even be unconstitutional”, said Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, noting that experts consulted in both this inquiry and the related social media inquiry had recommended a more nuanced approach.
Privacy concerns were raised from Left and Right alike. Young Labour Left NSW expressed “deep reservations should the legislation require the provision of Government ID documents to platforms to social media companies, given how prone these companies are to leaks and data misuse”.
PM Albanese countered in Parliament that there will be “very strong and strict privacy requirements to protect people’s personal information, including an obligation to destroy information provided once age has been verified”. The Government is also progressing privacy reforms separate to this bill.
Another point of controversy was that the social media ban does not include porn sites, but the Government is reportedly considering separate legislation to restrict Australians under the age of 18 from accessing porn.
Almost half of the young people surveyed in research by eSafety had encountered pornography before the age of 16 – over a third of this group came across it via social media feeds, ads, messages and group chats.
A Trojan horse for Digital ID?
A key concern from critics of the bill was that the social media age limit is a Trojan horse for Government Digital ID, as the new laws will require all Australians to verify their age.
However, a last–minute amendment was adopted before the bill was passed to ensure that Australians will not be forced to present a Digital ID or other form of Government ID to use social media.
Platforms and third-party age assurance services can take Government ID for age verification, but only if other methods of age assurance are offered to the user. Platforms found in breach of these terms can be fined up to $50 million (USD $33 million).
The new bill does not prescribe how platforms must monitor and enforce the age ban – it will be up to the eSafety Commissioner to decide what “reasonable steps” social media platforms should take to stop Australians under 16 from creating accounts.
Informing the Commissioner’s decision on how platforms will ensure that Australian users are of legal age to use their services will be the outcome of the Government’s age assurance technology trial, which is not expected to report to Parliament until later next year.
The Government announced earlier this month that a consortium led by British company Age Check Certification Scheme had been contracted to explore technologies to estimate and verify ages, including biometric markers or digital usage patterns.
eSafety Commissioner calls for holistic approach
Despite having previously compared a blanket age ban to banning kids from the water rather than putting up pool fences and teaching them to swim, the regulator, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, has welcomed the new laws.
“eSafety has long stated that while age assurance is an important step, it is one part of a holistic approach to protect children and young people from harm online,” said the Commissioner in a statement after the bill was tabled.
“We must also continue working to ensure online services are safe by design, and to build children’s digital literacy, resilience and critical reasoning skills so that when they are of age to use these services, or use services not captured by restrictions, they are equipped for the online world.”
In addition to the social media age limit laws, the Government committed earlier this month to legislating a Digital Duty of Care, which will put the legal responsibility for keeping Australians safe on tech companies.
The Digital Duty of Care will require that platforms incorporate Safety by Design principles – an initiative of the eSafety Commissioner – and take risk assessment and risk mitigation steps.
Australia was considered a world leader in online safety in 2015 with the establishment of eSafety (originally the Children’s eSafety Commissioner) under the centre-Right Turnbull Government.
With the passing of the social media age limit bill, the Albanese Government hopes to continue this legacy.
Politically, the passing of this bill is a much-needed win for Labour after its misinformation bill went down in flames over the weekend, and backlash for its failure to move forward on plans to rein in gambling advertising.
This article was originally published on Dystopian Down Under, Rebekah Barnett’s Substack newsletter. You can subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Prevent under 16s accessing social media? Good luck with that.
I have an idea – let’s make drug taking illegal, and fine/imprison people who sell them.
Lol. Try making alcohol illegal.
It’s a well-known fact that to prevent a bad thing from ever happening again, one need only declare it illegal.
\sarc
Very true. Once Tony the Liar banned handguns in the UK, nobody has ever been shot…..oh, wait.
If true believers in their ability to fix all of mankind’s perceived problems by outlawing stuff they’d never want to do themselves could be deterred by the fact that their plans have no chance in hell of ever working, nobody would know about climate change.
The problem is always collateral damage caused, including the typically enormous cost, by the attempt to force lead balloons to fly.
Absolutely right.
Don’t give them ideas, it was either Australia or New Zealand that started the smoking ban set at a particular date. It never stops, bit by bit these leftist zealots will ban everything that gives people meaning. Here in UK they have Log Burners in their sites despite the high energy and clod snap.
“seeks to set a new normative value in society that accessing social media is not the defining feature of growing up in Australia”
The unlimited arrogance of these people who think they can have any influence on “the defining feature of growing up” or indeed that any such “defining feature” could be determined.
“… a new normative value…” to replace the old values of freedom of speech, freedom of Human agency, freedom of parents to make decisions about their children?
The essence of Mussolini’s Fascism was, inter alia, that the State would determine values and morals and be a spiritual guide for the people.
The State: everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.
The vote in the Senate was carried with the support of “The Liberal Party of Australia” which Wikipedia describes as “Conservative” and “Liberal” and “Liberal Conservative”.
Or “call it what you like just don’t disagree with them”.
Two words which no longer convey any credible meaning.
Social media is definitely a toxic cesspit that warps minds and turns kids into sullen drones with poor communication and poor (real) social skills, that is undeniable.
My only concern is the digital ID Trojan Horse. Other than that, I have no complaints, although I do think it is the place of parents and not the State to specify what is suitable for youngsters. I financially incentivise my daughter not to have TikTok, for example.
With many parents having to work longer hours/multiple jobs and the breakup of relationships however, that is often easier said than done.
“Other than that, I have no complaints, although I do think it is the place of parents and not the State to specify what is suitable for youngsters.”
Sorry but have you not just contradicted yourself there? Either it should be up to the parents, or it should be up to the state. If you think it should be up to the parents then surely you must oppose this legislation, even if you agree with its objectives.
Fair point – to clarify, I agree with its objectives.
Thanks
I think mobile phones and social media of certain types are on balance doing more harm than good, but that’s just my opinion which I certainly don’t want imposed on anyone else
Ultimately it’s up to each of us to deal with the world as it is in the best way we can, and to try and equip our children to do the same
I therefore disagree strongly not only with the legislation but with its objectives
Coming soon to a cinema near you – Starmer bans minors from accessing the Daily Sceptic
Attached is a picture I published on Facebook earlier today. Could you please elaborate on the harms this may cause? Because if the problem is inherent to certain people (ie, nobodys like me) being able to publish stuff others may then access, it must exist regardless of the content that’s actually published.
[That’s high water on Christchurch Meadows and swans swimming on the footpath, yesterday around midnight, BTW.]
Lovely picture and this would go in the “good” column.
My main issue with social media is the deliberately addictive nature of it which leads people with a propensity to addiction to spend time on doing things that are probably not going to make them truly happy – but as I have said, that’s very much my personal opinion which I would not want to impose on anyone else
Thanks.
It’s an addiction! is, just like We must save the children! (unsurprisingly, they’re both involved here) a marker that something nefarious is afoot the people pushing it try to camouflage by triggering a Bad! Bad! Bad! reflex which has been drilled into the population via unrelenting repetition.
As far as I know, the term has a medical definition which roughly is that consumption of some drug, eg, alcohol, cannot be stopped because the metabolism of the body has adjusted to it always being present and possibly lethal malfunctions, eg, delirium tremens, will otherwise occur.
It also has a metaphysical definition (involved here), namely, Someone keeps doing something despite we’re really convinced he shouldn’t !!1
Prominent example of the past was the German hard-left rag Der Spiegel inventing a milk addiction (didn’t gain any traction, though). It’s then often claimed that this someone must be addicted to doing something, ie, basically forced to do it against his own will and that it’s thus justified (or should be jusitifed) to force him to stop doing something for his own benefit.
Well addiction looks like something real to me, and in my personal experience and from what I read and hear, it’s not always helpful or what the person involved would ideally like for themselves. But that’s something for individuals to sort out, with help from others should they want it. But I’m not a do-gooder – I believe in leaving people alone to go to hell (or not) their own way.
If it’s real, it must be measurable in some way. Otherwise, it’s an opinion.
Social media is definitely a toxic cesspit that warps minds…
Logical fallacy – there’s a lot of it about. Begging the question: the conclusion rests on the initial assertion being correct.
One of many examples where conclusions are delivered as “fact” without even the slightest corroborating evidence.
I think this is a courageous step by the Australians, which could save thousands of young lives by preventing suicides and “death challenge games”.
Kids should be playing outside, or chatting with their real friends face-to-face, not being deceived by adult pervs masquerading as children on the internet, or viewing porn.
Lead on, bold Aussies— lead on !!!
To make up for the thousands of lives destroyed – still being destroyed – by the courageous Australians’ COVID policies?
It wasn’t the courageous Australian People who approved their government’s Stalinist Covidhoax policies. They were the ones who suffered from those policies, and bravely protested against those policies.
How did we all manage to survive through our entire childhood and teenage years before computers, mobile phones or the internet were ever invented?
Yes, nothing suggests courage like people clamouring for the state to help them protect their chikdren. Courage all around. Courageous lawmakers giving themselves and the state more power over others. Courageous citizens begging for the coercive power of the state to take away their freedom to decide for themselves.
What courage.
This is – bluntly put – horseshit. Social media is a misnomer as this suggests something similar to conventional ‘media’ organisations. But that’s not the case. What’s referred to as social media is – broadly – web sites/ services which enable everybody to publish stuff on the internet anybody else is free to access plus associated services like enabling people to communicate with each other both 1:1 in form of so-called chats and many-to-many in form of comments associated to stuff which was published.
The essence of this bill is thus – at best, ignoring the general surveillance aspect – to ban people under 16 from accessing news sources not vetted by the government and from talking to others, including their friends, utilizing open, ie, browser access web services. They’re supposed to be stuffed full of climate change scare stories, glorification of same sex sex relationships and a general denial of human nature (transanything) in school and at the same time, they may encounter climate and covaxx deniers, tradwifes and people who claim that biology is real online? Can’t have that! This could ruin all our plans!
Of course – what the ruling elite tell is the reason, is just camouflage for the real intent.
Dimwits and suckers believe them.
that was my first thought too censorship! dont let them find out anything aside from bbc the guardian cnn and other such approved ‘news ‘
They don’t need social media sites at all in order to read alternative news websites such as the Daily Sceptic.
This web site has an editorial team and some political guidelines about content it will or won’t publish. It’s not just a place were anybody can publish whatever he wants. It’s also principally possible to shut it down by decapitation, eg, by declaring that Steven Tucker is a dangerous hate criminal and send him and his associates behind bars for some years. Or at least attempt to do so. This makes it a lot less dangerous than X whose present owner doesn’t bow to (at least certain) censorship requests anymore.
To consider: The German AfD has gained a lot of young voters by engaging with them via so-called social media in a suitable way, something the lackeys of the establishment simply can’t do because their material, even if it isn’t outright offensive to the supposed audience (“white guilt”) doesn’t lend itself to a becoming presentation.
Banning people from “social media” until they have reached voting age, generally gravitating towards 16, is certainly just for their own protection.
If anyone is going to control the minds of our young, it’s going to be the state. The state won’t tolerate losing control of the indoctrination of its citizens, especially the young in their formative years..
I keep hearing about Boom Radio, where is it, is it on the DAB? Are they a challenge to the BBC?
Apparently yes. Boom Radio is aimed at people born between 1946 to 1964 with music from back then with older DJs who were on the pop stations which were playing when those children were growing up and into young adulthood.
It is taking listeners from Radio 2 which fired its older DJs replacing them with cool, younger kids to appeal to younger audiences. Surprisingly some of the older audiences lost interest and stopped listening,, a gap in the market was created, Boom Radio filled it.
BBC Radio 2 is to launch an offshoot station to appeal to this their lost audience and win them back.
Competition? Yes except the BBC is using public money to do this and doesn’t have to worry about advertising revenue which follows good audience ratings. So not fair competition.
It is on DAB+, on the Internet via TuneIn or on your smart speaker.
This is, quite honestly, a farce. Do we really think that kids will be prevented from accessing what they want, when they want? How many older siblings or parents will happily sign them up? How will age be proved? Will sites such as this excellent one be included? They do know that many kids have been trapped by in game messenger services don’t they? Regulation should be a parental responsibility not the state and, like with alcohol, gentle introduction and well monitored exposure from a young age will lead to better and safer adult outcomes. Do they think that a 16 year old, prevented from involvement on such sites will cope with the tidal wave of exposure when they become old enough any better than a 14 year old?
How will age be proved? Likely some form of ID – passport, drivers licence, etc will be required – scanned into the app by every user – so in fact everyone will have to prove they are 16+.
What a good way to collect everybody’s identity on social media so nobody can escape the Thought Gestapo when they make intemperate Tweets or express a non-crime opinion.
You shouldn’t let a child have any access to the internet in my view. Easier said than done obviously but the sale or distriubution of mobile phones to children could be regualated. I have seen children as young as twelve with a mobile phone. Perhaps I should say portable phone because to say that it is mobile suggests that it contains its own method of locomotion This is disgusting. As an adult I would only ever use a smartphone in an emergency and it grates with me when I do I feel dirty afterwards.
That is a very good point you made about the mistaken label “mobile phone”!
Maybe we should all do a bit of “language evolving” ourselves, and start calling them “Portable Phones”, as you rightly suggest. It’s a much better term.
VPN would surely defeat this?
They conducted a study in America, asking children which invention they hated most and they said that it was the smartphone because it meant that their parents were so absorbed in their phones that they didn’t bother with the kids. You see this everywhere to the point where basic spatial awareness has gone. A phone zombie will bump into you on the street or in the supermarket and only awaken when you give them a bit of a knock. They are like that with their children. You can’t wake them up. If you did manage to to so then they would just become your slave rather than their slave. Our times tell us that the selection process will be very ruthless.
Good, but still no acknowledgment that wireless radiation emitted by smarphones and Wifi actually causes health damage, both short term and long term. Why are we not hearing about this? More here: https://dailysceptic.org/2024/10/29/other-countries-are-taking-the-health-risks-of-5g-and-wireless-radiation-seriously-why-isnt-the-u-k/
This definitely is a Trojan horse using the lie it’s for the best for children. Everybody will now have to register, verify their identity and get approval to use the social media on the internet. “Two weeks to flatten the curve”, remember that? Australia has demonstrated exceptional authoritarianism over the last few years.
I guess parental responsibility has been relegated to the dustbin.