Commentary: Australia’s under-16 social media ban - a flawed ultimatum to Big Tech is better than nothing
Australia's blanket age ban has its imperfections, but forcing conversations to safeguard the next generation may be better than doing nothing, says Catherine Thorbecke for Bloomberg Opinion.
TOKYO: Australia’s social media ban for teens will not keep young people safe online. It may prevent some 15-year-olds from entering a burning building, but leaves the doors to the inferno open as soon as they turn 16. It would make more sense for policymakers to focus on putting out the fires inside.
But this far-reaching new law, which restricts anyone under the age of 16 from social media and fines companies up to A$49.5 million (US$32 million) for systemic breaches, is delivering Big Tech an ultimatum that the status quo is no longer acceptable. The rest of the world is watching closely.
It’s spurring a much-needed global debate among lawmakers, companies, parents and researchers on how best to safeguard the next generation as they come of age in the digital era. The last time the United States passed federal law aimed at protecting children online was in 1998, and by the time lawmakers figured out there were issues, an entire generation had already grown up on the internet.
Australia’s ban has its own imperfections, but forcing these conversations to find solutions may be better than doing nothing.
SOCIAL MEDIA AGE BAN IS WELL-MEANING BUT FLAWED
Moreover, 77 per cent of Australians back the age limits, some of the most extensive restrictions on social platforms outside of China, even though so far the government has offered few answers on how they will work.
I’ve written about this new law before, and I still think it is well-meaning but flawed, grasping for a soundbite-y solution to complex problems.
Research shows that blanket age bans aren’t effective at preventing online harms to developing minds, as they ignore adolescents’ different maturity levels. While they may seem appealing to parents, they disregard the glaring realities of growing up in the modern world, especially after the pandemic forced more online education, work and socialising.
Completely shutting out young people from digital communities can sever lifelines for marginalised groups in Australia, and more broadly distracts from the harder policy work of coming up with comprehensive solutions to make these platforms safer.
Tech-savvy teens also tend to be very good at bypassing age limits, and Australia has said that it won’t penalise parents or young people for doing so. Norway, for example, currently has restrictions barring children under 13 from social media, but found that 72 per cent of 11-year-olds still log on.
Australia’s law gives platforms one year to figure out how to implement age-verification technology that doesn’t require IDs to be uploaded due to privacy concerns. There are some exceptions, including for messaging services.
DEMAND MORE TRANSPARENCY FROM SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANIES
But while the policy is overwhelmingly popular, it’s not just Elon Musk and Big Tech interests coming out against it. Australia’s Human Rights Council, the United Nations’ children’s agency, and dozens of academics and researchers are arguing for a different approach. There are valid concerns that these measures could push teens to even more dangerous and unregulated online spaces.
More comprehensive laws are needed to force companies to roll out digital safeguards, rather than just defer access to online communities entirely by a couple of years. Yet as broken as Australia’s ban may be, it has ushered these and myriad other policy recommendations that the rest of the world can learn from as this debate picks up.
Global lawmakers should also demand that social media companies offer more transparency; giving outside researchers the ability to look under the hood and better identify potential harms for developing minds and youth mental health.
This would allow experts to understand the opaque ways algorithms work to keep teens hooked on these sites, or drive them down unsafe rabbit holes, and recommend targeted remedies.
GLOBAL COORDINATION TO REIN IN BIG TECH
Pressure from regulators is already linked to change. Roughly a week after Australia first announced its plans to introduce the minimum age for social media, Facebook parent Meta unveiled sweeping new privacy settings for teens on Instagram. The company said the restrictions were in the works for a while and not the result of mounting scrutiny.
It's not the first time Canberra has taken on Silicon Valley. Australia has raged a years-long battle to try and force tech platforms to pay news publishers, and celebrated an initial win when Meta and Alphabet’s Google were forced to negotiate contracts with news organisations. (Meta earlier this year said it has no plans to renew those deals.)
When Canada followed suit, however, Meta barred news in the country entirely on its platforms. This move revealed some painful realities about unintended consequences when taking on the world’s most powerful tech companies, and why global coordination to rein in Big Tech is important.
Australia has managed to do what no other democratic jurisdiction has, but the litmus test will be how it enforces the new regulation and whether it even can.
Canberra hasn’t solved the bigger issues regarding how to keep teens safe from online harms, but it has elicited a much-needed debate from stakeholders who are now sharing more creative and effective solutions. Parents around the globe should hope that their lawmakers are paying close attention.
