Australian lawmakers on Thursday announced the passage of the law which now bans social media for children under 16 in what has been seen as one of the toughest controls for social media use in the world.
It was explained that the ban was gained to address the excessive use of social media on children’s physical and mental health. The ban extends to social media platforms such as X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and Reddit, but not YouTube.
The law has stated that the platforms have the sole responsibility of enforcing the law, they were given one year to figure out how to implement the age limit, which is the highest set by any country. If there are systemic failures to keep children from having accounts, the platforms are liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million).
The senators have argued the decision which took them late into the night on the last day of plenary. The day was the last target set by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s centre-left Labor government as the deadline for it to pass. The bill, which is also largely supported by the opposition Liberal party, passed the Australian House of Representatives on Wednesday by a vote of 102 to 13.
The supporters of the ban have stated the effect of the harmful depiction of images of girls and the effect of misogynistic content on boys. The passage of the bill has now come after a series of Australian teenagers died by suicide over what their families said was online bullying.
Rob Nicholls, a senior research associate in the Department of Media and Communication at the University of Sydney explained that the reason for the ban was based on the belief among the people that the harm caused by use was more than good.
A poll which was conducted by YouGov and released on Tuesday shows that 77% of Australians support the ban, up from 61% in August.
Some other countries have tried to limit the use of social media among children, such countries include the United States which has stated that parents’ consent must be sought by technology companies before any information is obtained from children that are under 13. But the legislation passed by Australia has left no exemption which makes the law more strict than what was passed elsewhere.
Some persons who have stood against the law have condemned the passage stating that it was rushed to passed into the law.
The bill, which was introduced in Parliament last week, allowed for only one day to submit opinions on it. Sen. Matt Canavan, who opposed the bill, said there had been 15,000 submissions on it during the one-day period and that lawmakers had been able to review only a fraction of them.
He stated on Tuesday in a dissent that was published as part of a Senate committee report. that the law was an emotional one which contained issues that affected the lawmakers and other politicians with the hope that they could do something about it. He further noted that the use of social media is a complex area that should be examined with caution but not with hasty decisions or passage of the law
Google and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, on Tuesday urged Australia to delay the legislation’s passage, saying more time was needed to assess the potential impact of the ban. ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok, also said more consultation was needed.
Meanwhile, Elon Musk, the owner of X, slammed the ban last week as a backdoor way to control access to the Internet by all Australians. It has been disclosed that the officials plan to enforce the age cut-off by trialling an age-verification system that could include biometrics or government identification, which no other country has tried, raising privacy concerns.
An Australian Senate committee signed off on the legislation late Tuesday but stated that the
An Australian Senate committee signed off on the legislation late Tuesday but said social media platforms should find “alternative methods for assuring age” rather than forcing users to submit personal information such as their passports or other digital identification.
Nicholls said the social media platforms would also be fined for failing to destroy personal information as soon as possible after verifying the age of users.
Parents and other stakeholders who spoke about the ban stated that social media has been critical to lives of the children below 16 stating that it has been a source of support, especially for those who feel marginalized.
Christopher Stone, executive director of Suicide Prevention Australia, on Wednesday stated that social media provides vital connections for many young Australians, allowing them to access mental health resources, peer support networks, and a sense of community. He noted that cutting off this access risks exacerbating feelings of loneliness and isolation.
The Australian government has said it will ensure that young people have continued access to messaging apps such as WhatsApp, online gaming platforms such as Roblox and essential services related to health and education.
Sen. Karen Grogan, chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Communications legislation in its report stated that young people, and in particular diverse cohorts, must be at the center of the conversation as an age restriction is implemented to ensure there are constructive pathways for connection
Leo a 17-year-old resident who spoke on the issue noted that so far the government has not done enough to consult with young people, for whom social media is part of their daily lives.
Puglisi, the founder and chief anchor of 6 News Australia, a streaming news channel based in Melbourne that is majority-run by high schoolers noted that the government which is not made up of teenagers have seen itself making laws for teenagers. He further noted that the lawmakers have little experience with the experience of social media which they didn’t grow up with.
He noted that while he is beyond the age cut-off, the ban would affect his audience as well as the ability of some of the journalists on his team to do their work.
He further added that there is certainly a possibility that every single Australian would need to use some form of ID to have social media which according to him indicated that the police will find a way of affecting everyone in the country.
Daniel Angus, a professor of digital communication at the Queensland University of Technology, criticized the bill and stated that it was illogical and uninformed and lacked critical details on how it would be implemented.
The potential harms of social media cited by the government are not sufficiently supported by high-quality research, Angus told NBC News in an email, noting that disadvantaged children, who live in rural areas or are from minority groups rely on social media for community, education and advocacy.
He noted that by imposing a blanket ban, the government overlooks the essential and diverse experiences, thereby exacerbating existing inequalities.
He further stated that the exclusion from the ban of anonymous or web-based platforms such as 4chan paradoxically leaves young people vulnerable to some of the most harmful digital environments.
The Heads Up Alliance, a grassroots collective of Australian parents seeking more restrictions on children’s use of social media, while reacting to the bill stated that the bill was inadequate, giving it a grade of D+.
The group noted that the ban would do nothing to address bullying on messaging apps, which also have highly addictive features.
The organisation statement stated that the features are on a likelihood to end up resulting in the very downsides we are trying to avoid for our children: preoccupation with devices, less sleep, less nature, less sport, less real-life friendships, less concentration, exposure to sexualized content.
It was stated that exposure to sexual predators will also remain a real risk on online gaming platforms and messaging apps, where many children banned from other social media are likely to migrate, the group further added that the children will be jumping from the frypan into the fire.
