What Australia's Under-16 Social Media Ban Fails to Address
And How it Might Affect You No Matter Where You Live
Details↓
On Black Friday, the Australian Parliament passed a law banning anyone under 16 from having a social media account. The law gives platforms at least 12 months to figure out age verification systems before penalties kick in. The law passed with a 34 to 19 vote in the Senate and 102 to 13 vote in the House of Representatives. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese released a statement saying:
The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 is a landmark measure that will deliver greater protections for young Australians during critical stages of their development.
To date it’s the strictest law in the world targeting “age-restricted social media platforms” (ARSMPs), a new term Michelle Rowland, Australian Minister for Communications, explained in a speech on November 21, 2024:
To be clear, the Government expects that this broader definition will capture services that are commonly accepted to be social media, and the services that are causing many parents the most concern.
This will, at a minimum, include TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), among others. These services will be required to take reasonable steps to prevent persons under 16 years of age from creating or holding an account.
The bill excludes messaging apps like Messenger and WhatsApp along with platforms like Google Classroom and YouTube which Rowland says, “can be shown to function like social media in their interactivity but operate with a significant purpose to enable young people to get the education and health support they need.”
While the bill does not allow parental consent exceptions, it states, “There is no civil penalty for parents or other people who provide access to ARSMPs for children under 16.” A recent poll suggests 77% of Australians support the ban.
Notably the bill does not include a “duty of care” mandate, but lawmakers are expected to draft a separate bill to address that. Lastly, Albanese confirmed the bill also “makes clear that no Australian will be compelled to use government identification (including Digital ID) for age assurance on social media. Platforms must offer reasonable alternatives to users.”
The Rundown↓
KNOW the Australian Parliament passed a social media ban to keep under 16s from “creating or holding a social media account.”
REALIZE the law does little to make platforms safer or prepare young people for social media when they reach sixteen.
EXPLORE an overview of the full bill that also addresses an open letter from opponents who say it’s “too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively.”
Commentary↓
So what does the ban fail to address? First, the ban doesn’t tackle the root problems (attention-driven strategies, surveillance capitalism) of the product. As we cover in “Driver’s Training for Social Media,” correlation studies inform us of the dangers of social media for young users, but researchers still lack definitive data on negative mental health outcomes. Amplification? Clearly. Causation? Debatable. The ban just kicks the can down the road and gives social media platforms no incentive to actually improve safety for younger users, or make it a better experience for adults.
Second, the ban focuses on keeping teens off of social media, but does nothing to prepare them for when they’re on it. No one hands a teenager the keys to a car as soon as they turn sixteen without education, training, or behind-the-wheel experience. Even then, we require safety features on vehicles and clarity on the rules of the road. This ban, as TikTok points out, has intentionally “broad and unclear” language. There’s no ambiguity with stop lights.
Lastly, the ban provides no resources for parents. In her speech, Rowland said, “The Bill puts the onus on social media platforms, not parents or young people, to take reasonable steps to ensure fundamental protections are in place.”
Yes, social media platforms should bear responsibility for their products, but parents still need to be informed to prepare teens for a lifetime of digital communication… not just simply handing them the keys at sixteen. Like driver’s training, there should be education and room for training, but this bill makes no exceptions for parental consent or on-ramps before teens reach sixteen. It’s not enough to just ban it and forget it. That why our online course on social media is so timely and necessary.
But what are your thoughts? Are you in favor of a ban or oppose it? What’s the role of a parent in all of this? Do you think it’s fair to ban TikTok and Instagram, but leave YouTube alone?
Postscript↓
During debate, lawmakers confirmed the bill’s age verification requirements mean that EVERY existing user must verify their age, not just new teen users. Just as the United States’ COPPA law (the reason social media platforms restrict users under 13) and the EU’s GDPR (the reason you see accept/reject cookies) affect all countries, it’s possible that platforms could find it easier to implement age verification universally instead of limiting the practice to Australia.
After publishing we updated the first paragraph to match the bill’s “at least” 12 months to figure out implementation.