Social Media Ban for Under-16s Sparks Major Teen Screen Time Crackdown

On Thursday, Australia passed a groundbreaking law banning social media use for children under 16, following an intense national debate.

By Sheenu Gupta On Nov 29, 2024 Share with new partner:

On Thursday, Australia enacted a landmark law that bans children under the age of 16 from using social media platforms. The legislation, passed after an intense and highly emotional national debate, has drawn widespread attention and is seen as one of the strictest measures globally targeting Big Tech companies. It sets a new standard for other countries considering similar regulations to protect children online.

The new law requires major tech companies, including Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, as well as TikTok, to ensure that minors under 16 are unable to access their platforms. Companies that fail to comply with the regulation risk facing severe penalties, with fines reaching up to A$49.5 million (approximately $32 million USD).

To implement this sweeping policy effectively, a trial of enforcement methods is scheduled to begin in January, with the full ban expected to come into force within a year. This initiative marks a significant step in holding tech giants accountable while addressing growing concerns about the impact of social media on young users.

The recently passed Social Media Minimum Age bill positions Australia as a key test case for a rising global trend of governments considering or implementing age restrictions on social media due to concerns over its impact on young people’s mental health. As more nations address the potential harms of social media, Australia’s approach is particularly notable for its strictness.

While countries like France and certain U.S. states have introduced laws requiring parental consent for minors to access social media platforms, Australia’s new law goes a step further, implementing an outright ban on social media use for those under the age of 16. This makes Australia’s regulation one of the most stringent of its kind. In contrast, Florida’s proposed ban on social media access for children under 14 is currently being contested in court, with arguments focused on potential violations of free speech rights.

Australia’s bold move is closely watched by governments around the world as they grapple with how to protect young people online while balancing free expression and digital freedom.

The successful passage of the law at the end of Australia’s parliamentary year represents a significant political victory for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who leads a center-left government and is gearing up for an election in 2025 amid a challenging political climate marked by declining approval ratings. Despite facing opposition from privacy advocates and some child rights organizations, the law has strong public support, with recent polls showing that 77% of Australians favor the social media ban for children under 16.

This legislative win comes in the wake of a parliamentary inquiry set to run through 2024, which has heard distressing testimonies from parents whose children have been affected by social media bullying, with some even resorting to self-harm. The inquiry highlighted the growing concerns over the mental health risks posed by social media platforms.

In response to these concerns, the ban has received strong backing from domestic media, particularly Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which is Australia’s largest newspaper publisher. News Corp spearheaded a public campaign called “Let Them Be Kids,” rallying support for the ban and pushing the narrative of protecting young Australians from harmful online influences.

However, the new social media ban could potentially strain Australia’s relationship with one of its key allies, the United States. Elon Musk, the owner of X (formerly Twitter), who has been a prominent figure in the administration of President-elect Donald Trump, expressed concerns about the law in a recent post. He suggested that the ban appeared to be a “backdoor way” to restrict Australians’ access to the internet, signaling a possible clash with the Australian government’s approach to regulating digital platforms.

This move also adds to the growing tension between Australia and major tech companies, many of which are based in the United States. Australia has already established itself as a tough regulator in the digital space. It became the first country to require social media platforms to pay royalties to media outlets for using their content, a policy aimed at compensating news organizations for the value their stories bring to online platforms.

Now, with this new social media ban and additional plans to impose fines on tech companies that fail to address online scams, Australia is continuing to challenge the influence and practices of these largely U.S.-domiciled giants. This growing antagonism reflects Australia’s increasingly assertive stance on regulating the digital landscape.

A spokesperson for Meta, the parent company of Facebook, expressed respect for Australian law but voiced concerns about the rushed process behind the legislation. The company argued that the law was pushed through without adequately considering the evidence, the existing measures the industry has in place to ensure age-appropriate experiences, or the input from young people. The spokesperson emphasized the need for productive consultation on the rules related to the bill to ensure that its implementation is technically feasible and does not place unnecessary burdens on parents and teenagers. They also called for consistency in how the rules are applied across all social media platforms used by teens.

Snap, the parent company of Snapchat, also acknowledged that it would comply with Australian laws and regulations but raised significant concerns about the legislation. A spokesperson for Snap stated that while there were many unanswered questions about how the law would be enforced in practice, the company planned to work closely with the Australian government and the eSafety Commissioner during the 12-month implementation period to help shape an approach that balances privacy, safety, and practicality.

Representatives from TikTok and X (formerly Twitter), both of which are also impacted by the ban, were unavailable for comment at the time.

Several tech companies, including Alphabet’s Google (whose subsidiary YouTube is exempt from the law due to its widespread use in schools), have argued that the new legislation should be delayed until after a trial on age verification methods. Sunita Bose, managing director of the Digital Industry Group, which represents most social media companies, criticized the approach, stating that it was like putting the cart before the horse. She explained that while the bill has been passed, there is still a lack of clear guidance from the Australian government on the specific methods that various services affected by the law will need to adopt.

Some youth advocacy groups and academics have raised concerns that the new social media ban could isolate vulnerable young people, including LGBTQIA and migrant teenagers, from crucial support networks. The Australian Human Rights Commission warned that the law might violate young people’s human rights by restricting their ability to engage in society. Privacy advocates also cautioned that the law could lead to increased collection of personal data, potentially paving the way for state surveillance based on digital identification. In response to these concerns, a last-minute amendment to the bill required platforms to offer alternatives to uploading identification documents.

Sarah Hanson-Young, a senator from the left-leaning Greens, criticized the law, accusing older lawmakers of imposing their views on how the internet should work in order to make themselves feel more comfortable. She expressed her frustration during a late Senate debate, just before the bill passed with a vote of 34 to 19.

On the other side, parent groups strongly supported the law, citing a 2023 statement from U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who warned that social media was contributing to a youth mental health crisis severe enough to warrant health warnings. Ali Halkic, an Australian anti-bullying advocate whose 17-year-old son tragically took his life in 2009 after experiencing social media bullying, argued that the age limit was a necessary starting point in giving parents more control over their children’s online activities.

However, some young people, like Enie Lam, a Sydney student who recently turned 16, expressed concerns that a total social media ban might push young people into less visible and more dangerous parts of the internet. Lam noted that while social media can contribute to body image issues and cyberbullying, banning it entirely may only lead to a generation of young people who find ways to bypass the restrictions. She warned that such a ban might not achieve its intended goals, as many young people are strongly opposed to it.