Australian lawmakers enacted one of the strictest social media bans in the world on Thursday, banning youngsters under the age of sixteen.
Although YouTube is exempt, the ban, which attempts to address the negative effects of excessive social media use on kids’ physical and mental health, applies to X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and Reddit.
The age limit is the highest established by any nation, and the platforms, who are solely responsible for enforcing it, have a year to find out how to apply it. The platforms face fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) if there are systematic failures to prevent children from obtaining accounts.
The law, which Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s center-left Labor government had set as the deadline for its passage, was the subject of late-night debate among senators on the final day of their parliamentary session. By a vote of 102 to 13, the bill, which is also overwhelmingly backed by the opposition Liberal party, cleared the Australian House of Representatives on Wednesday.
The impact of negative body image representations on females and the impact of misogynistic content on boys have been mentioned by proponents of the ban. It was passed following a string of teen suicides in Australia that were attributed by their families to cyberbullying.
According to Rob Nicholls, a senior research associate in the University of Sydney’s Department of Media and Communication, the reason for this is that most Australians believe social media causes more harm than good.
77% of Australians support the ban, up from 61% in August, according to a YouGov poll released Tuesday.
Other nations have attempted to restrict children’s access to social media, such as the US, which mandates that digital companies get parental approval before collecting data from children under the age of 13. However, the Australian proposal goes one step further and does not allow for pre-existing accounts or parental authorization.
The Australian prohibition has drawn criticism for being an overly harsh tool and for being passed in a hasty manner.
Opinions on the bill, which was proposed in Parliament last week, could only be submitted for one day. The bill’s opponent, Sen. Matt Canavan, claimed that members had only been able to examine a small portion of the 15,000 submissions that were made within the one-day timeframe.
Given how emotionally charged this topic is, there is a legitimate need for politicians to appear to be taking action. However, he added in a dissenting opinion published Tuesday as part of a Senate committee report that it is also a very complicated topic that has to be carefully explored rather than in the hurried manner that has plagued this process.
On Tuesday, Google and Meta, the companies that operate Facebook and Instagram, requested Australia to postpone the legislation’s adoption, arguing that additional time was required to evaluate the ban’s possible effects. More consultation was also required, according to ByteDance, the Chinese business that controls TikTok.
The owner of X, Elon Musk, criticized the restriction last week, calling it a backdoor attempt to restrict all Australians’ access to the Internet.
Concerns about privacy are raised by officials’ plans to implement the age cut-off by testing an age-verification system that may involve government identification or biometrics, something no other nation has attempted.
The bill was approved by an Australian Senate committee late Tuesday, although the committee recommended that social media companies look for other ways to verify users’ age instead of requiring them to provide personal data like passports or other kinds of digital identity.
According to Nicholls, the social media companies will also pay fines for their failure to delete user data promptly after confirming their age.
Parents and academics have criticized the prohibition outside of the legislature, arguing that social media may be an important source of support for young people, particularly those who feel excluded.
Christopher Stone, executive director of Suicide Prevention Australia, stated on Wednesday that social media gives many young Australians access to peer support networks, mental health services, and a feeling of community. Removing this access runs the risk of making loneliness and isolation worse.
According to the Australian government, it will guarantee that youths will always have access to messaging apps like WhatsApp, online gaming platforms like Roblox, and vital health and educational services.
Sen. Karen Grogan, chair of the Senate committee on environment and communications legislation, stated in its report that when an age restriction is put into place, young people—and especially diverse cohorts—must be at the forefront of the discussion to guarantee that there are positive avenues for connection.
Leo Puglisi, 17, claimed that the government has not done enough to consult with young people, who use social media on a regular basis.
The founder and chief anchor of 6 News Australia, a Melbourne-based streaming news channel primarily run by high school students, Puglisi said, “This government is obviously not made up of teenagers, but it’s making laws about social media when they didn’t grow up in the social media age.”
He claimed that even if he is older than the legal age limit, the prohibition will still have an impact on his viewership and some of the journalists on his staff.
Furthermore, he stated that there is a chance that all Australians may need to provide identification in order to access social media. In actuality, it would impact not only myself but also everyone.
According to Daniel Angus, a professor of digital communication at the Queensland University of Technology, the law lacks important specifics regarding its implementation and is illogical and ignorant.
Angus told NBC News in an email that the government’s cited potential harms from social media are not adequately backed by high-quality research, pointing out that children from minority groups, those living in rural areas, and those from disadvantaged backgrounds depend on social media for advocacy, education, and community.
He claimed that by enforcing a complete ban, the government ignores these important and varied experiences, worsening already-existing disparities.
Additionally, he pointed out that young people are paradoxically left exposed to some of the most dangerous online environments since anonymous or web-based sites like 4chan are exempt from the prohibition.
The measure received a D+ from the Heads Up Alliance, a grassroots group of Australian parents who want to see greater limits placed on their kids’ use of social media.
According to the group, bullying on messaging apps—which also have extremely addictive features—would not be addressed by the prohibition.
According to the organization’s statement, these characteristics are likely to lead to the very negative outcomes we are attempting to prevent for our kids: excessive gadget use, lack of sleep, less time spent in nature or sports, fewer in-person friendships, less focus, and exposure to sexualized content.
According to the group, “Our children will be jumping from the frypan into the fire.” Sexual predator exposure will also continue to be a serious risk on messaging applications and online gaming platforms, where many kids who are banned from other social media are likely to relocate.
Note: Every piece of content is rigorously reviewed by our team of experienced writers and editors to ensure its accuracy. Our writers use credible sources and adhere to strict fact-checking protocols to verify all claims and data before publication. If an error is identified, we promptly correct it and strive for transparency in all updates, feel free to reach out to us via email. We appreciate your trust and support!