Australia bans children from social media – how wise is this?

Now that Australia has decided to ban social media for all children under the age of 16, it is not only the tech companies affected that are criticizing the development: child protection and human rights organizations also doubt whether This step promises really effective protection.

Advertisement

The proposal was passed through Parliament – ​​just weeks after the Australian Government submitted a draft. Important components of the law, such as strict requirements to protect users’ information, were only added at the last minute. This law is going to be implemented in one year. Short messaging services X, TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, and Instagram will be affected. YouTube, Discord or WhatsApp are excluded. The results should be evaluated in mid-2025.

Tech companies are not happy

Meta Group, which includes Facebook, WhatsApp and Instagram, expressed concerns about the process in a statement. A report in the Guardian quoted a spokesperson as saying that the law was hastily implemented without adequately taking into account the industry’s existing measures to ensure age-appropriate experiences and the voices of young people.

Tech billionaire and owner of Platform he wrote there,

TikTok is owned by Chinese company ByteDance Limited. According to a Bloomberg report, the legislation is “hasty” and “impractical.” It is full of “unanswered questions and unresolved concerns”. Snapchat owner Snap Inc. recalled that previous international attempts at widespread and mandatory age verification had failed.

Electronic Patient File 3.0: The insured don’t know what to expect

All of these services are often accused of: bullying, online fraud, or cyber grooming – attempts by potential sexual predators to establish relationships with minors online – to name just a few examples. There are also cases of suicide by young people whose psychological problems are caused by the consumption of social media. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described the impact of online networks on children as a “crisis”. He emphasized that he wanted her to have a childhood. On the other hand, social media “will keep them away from real friends and real experiences.”

UNICEF: Ban poses greater risk

On the other hand, UNICEF child protection workers think little of a general ban. There are good intentions behind this new proposed law, but a simple ban on access to social media does not eliminate the causes of online harm and in fact creates even greater risks, stresses Katie Maskiel from UNICEF Australia.

So children can quickly move to hidden and unregulated online areas or use social media without telling their parents. Open communication between parents and children is important to protect children from online risks.

Instead UNICEF sees the tech sector and governments as having a responsibility to change the way social media platforms are actually designed to protect the safety of children and reduce harm.

Amnesty International is also not enthusiastic about Australia’s curriculum. There is no doubt that the practices of social media platforms harm the rights of youth, but youth also have the right to express themselves and access information online. Social media provides children and young people with benefits such as inclusion, social interaction and a sense of belonging, which can also boost their mental health. Nikita White said By Amnesty International in Australia.

Initially, there will be a one-year testing phase in which the affected platforms will test age verification systems. The results should be evaluated in mid-2025. In no other democratic country in the world are the new requirements as stringent as in Australia. England is also planning to raise the age limit for social media use to 16. In France, a ban on children under 15 was passed in 2023, although this can be avoided with the consent of their legal guardians. Florida became the first US state to ban everyone under the age of 14 from social media. Some other US states allow use only with parental consent.

(No)