The Australian under 16 social media ban

Written By: - Date published: 9:22 am, November 29th, 2024 - 23 comments
Categories: social media - Tags: ,

Throwing up a quick post so we can discuss this in context. The bill has passed and will take effect in 12 months time.

From RNZ,

Children and teenagers will be banned from using social media from the end of next year after the Australian government’s world-first legislation passed the parliament with bipartisan support.

That means anyone under the age of 16 will be blocked from using platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook, a move the government and the Coalition argue is necessary to protect their mental health and wellbeing.

…

Under the laws, which will not come into force for another 12 months, social media companies could be fined up to $50 million for failing to take “reasonable steps” to keep under 16s off their platforms.

There are no penalties for young people or parents who flout the rules.

Social media companies also won’t be able to force users to provide government identification, including the Digital ID, to assess their age.

“Messaging apps”, “online gaming services” and “services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users” will not fall under the ban, as well as sites like YouTube that do not require users to log in to access the platform.

A few thoughts. One is that the legal obligation is being placed on social media companies. This is good, because it’s the social media giants that are intentionally using internet technology including algorithms to do some heavy duty manipulation of basically everyone on the internet, and this is especially problematic for people under 16 (for reasons I hope I don’t have to explain).

It also appears to not be an actual ban, because most social media allows pseudonymous accounts. So I see this as a step by regulators to tell the social media giants to pull their fucking heads in. Again, good.

However, trying to ban kids from stuff means they just find other ways. The problems with social media companies are that society lets the tech bros have lots of money and even more power with very little control. No sane society does that, and it’s pretty easy to make the case to take the toys from the boys rather than trying to protect kids and younger teens when they will access in other ways. Social media harms adults too, and the whole of society.

The Centre for Humane Technology, founded by people that used to work for the social media giants, have an overview of the the issues,

  • Today’s youth face unprecedented physical, mental, and social challenges exacerbated by fast-changing tech.
  • Technology is extracting our attention, weakening our memory, and driving addiction, loneliness, and depression.
  • Synthetic media, misinformation, sensationalism, bad actors, and coordinated bots are destroying our information ecosystem.
  • Maximizing engagement amplifies outrage, deepens divisions, and reduces empathy, which is eroding shared consensus.
  • Our data is exploited by an industry that extracts our attention, shapes our thoughts and behaviors, and makes us vulnerable to risks – all for profit.

They also have a set of pathways to solutions here.


I haven’t seen the definition of social media in the Australian law, please post if you find it. I consider The Standard to be SM, but I doubt site like this would be included because we don’t require a login. Lprent will hopefully write something on this.

Finally, the great Ozzy Man weighs in, with a 14 min video laying out some of the issues from his point of view as a parent, aging millennial, and someone with a social media degree and livelihood. He has a brief explanation of how social media tipped over into evil.

23 comments on “The Australian under 16 social media ban ”

  1. higherstandard 1
    29 November 2024 at 10:25 am

    Well done our Australian cousins. Youth in Australia will have to relearn how to communicate with each and hopefully spend less of their time glued to screens filled with vacuous nonsense or worse.

    Reply
    • weka 1.1
      29 November 2024 at 10:42 am

      it's possibly the end of pseudonyms for everyone.

      Reply
      • higherstandard 1.1.1
        29 November 2024 at 12:27 pm

        That'd be great

        Reply
        • weka 1.1.1.1
          29 November 2024 at 12:59 pm

          it would put online engagement in the hands of people who can afford to use their RL names. Very bad for politics.

          Reply
        • Anne 1.1.1.2
          29 November 2024 at 2:47 pm

          No higherstandard, its not great and I'll tell you why. Some of us have [or in my case had] valid reason to hide our identity. I was the target of a stalker and associated hostile behaviour. It happened a long time ago but in such a situation you have to be careful about revealing your identity in certain places. Other people have a duty by way of their profession or status to need to protect their identities including their ethnicities.

          Having said that I agree with your statement @ 1. Despite the negatives that go with such bans, it appalls me to see kids walking along the road or where-ever with their heads down glued to their bits of plastic. What kind of zombie generations are we creating in the years to come?

          Reply
          • weka 1.1.1.2.1
            29 November 2024 at 4:01 pm

            HS might not appreciate just how many restrictions there are on people in commenting on SM because of their jobs even with accounts completely separate from their jobs.

            Reply
        • Belladonna 1.1.1.3
          30 November 2024 at 11:19 am

          But, here you are commenting under a pseudonym….

          Reply
  2. gsays 2
    29 November 2024 at 10:52 am

    I had already put a comment on Open Mike expressing cynicism about bans/prohibition before reading this.

    The pressure coming on the largely unregulated internet giants is a subtle difference.

    I think of R16/R18 video games and the plethora of parents/guardians/ siblings that provide them to 'underagers'.

    A law is only as good as it's enforcement and acceptance. I think 14 was the minimum age for FB 8 or so years ago. Didn't stop a few parents I know getting accounts for their youngsters. Plus these big companies have resources that a lot of states can only dream about. They will do a lot to protect their business interests.

    Time will tell but it feels like this is the easy way to deal with problems that need complex and multi-faceted solutions.

    Reply
    • weka 2.1
      29 November 2024 at 11:24 am

      I tend to agree, and I see a couple of valuable things. One is the more power that government regain over social media regulation, the better. This might be a foot in the door. The other is that it shift perception in the general culture about the dangers of social media.

      FB is one of the few that require real life names to be used and actually enforce it (to an extent). I can't see the other companies wanting to follow suit. Hoping someone reads the actual legislation so we know what is meant by the law in regards to real life ID and the companies' responsibilities. RNZ say they can't require government ID, but there are plenty of other ways to do this. That's huge if it's true and it works, because it's effectively the end of easily made pseudonyms on the big platforms. I haven't read enough to know how strict this is from the Aussies.

      Reply
      • Karolyn_IS 2.1.1
        29 November 2024 at 12:08 pm

        I haven't noticed FB enforcing real life names. I don't really trust them, especially after reading Shoshana Zuboff 's The Age of Surveillance capitalism. Google pioneered a way to stay one step ahead of laws regarding privacy and use of people's online metadata with each new innovation. FB was a fast follower.

        They basically devised algorithms to use the metadata to learn a lot about individuals, and how to manipulate them. They then sell their findings to commercial enterprises, and political organisations. That's why they make their platforms and services free. It's all about the money that is gained from the use of our metadata.

        People of all ages should maybe be wary about using big social media platforms. They can develop metadata to analyse our emotions from audio and video we use online. FB can track everything we do online even when we aren’t logged into FB.

        Of course young people are the most easily manipulated, which is why advertisers often target them. Targeting the companies is a good idea, but they are very slippery legally.I think it's a good idea for parents and teachers to provide guidance to children in their use of online sources.

        I also am not keen of the politicisation of social media eg Musk supporting Trump, and now Zuckerberg trying to get onside with Trump.

        Reply
        • weka 2.1.1.1
          29 November 2024 at 12:17 pm

          I'm both horrified by Musk basically siding with the fascists, but also relieved that it's now finally out in the open. Zuckerberg is the same. I expect most of the big SM company heads are like this, we just don't hear about the others in the same way.

          Reply
      • Belladonna 2.1.2
        30 November 2024 at 11:01 am

        FB certainly don't enforce 'real' names for existing accounts. I have a relative who changed her FB name from her real one, due to some abuse and the potential of stalking (she has a fairly unusual name, which would make this a real risk).
        FB are (so far) entirely unbothered by this change.
        You can also set up a business account – with any name you please – and people are perfectly free to use this to comment, rather than a private one. I see this all the time.

        I have two FB accounts, myself. One personal (for my own friends) and one for my professional life (there are professional FB groups, that I need to participate in – but don't feel the need for these to see the cat pictures I share with my family and friends). All that is needed is a different email address (and gmail is your friend for multiple accounts)

        Reply
  3. adam 3
    29 November 2024 at 2:02 pm

    I worry about the haste of the bill, and the pressure that was generated by the Murdoch press for it's passing.

    Also we might be able to have the debate here in NZ – but Aussie?

    Reply
  4. Dennis Frank 4
    29 November 2024 at 3:45 pm

    Opponents were biodiverse:

    For a widely popular bill backed by both major parties, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 faced surprisingly fierce opposition. An unusual coalition of the crossbench, a few renegade Coalition MPs, the majority of experts on teen social media use, childrens’ and mental health advocacy groups, Elon Musk and thousands of people who made a submission to a snap inquiry all came together to voice their concerns — to no avail. In a press conference on Friday, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese highlighted the ban among the many bills passed by Parliament yesterday as one of his government’s key achievements.

    A major question that has already dogged the government pertains to the definition of “social media”. The bill’s definition is exceedingly broad — there’s a case to be made that the majority of apps and software that children use could qualify, considering pretty much everything has a social aspect these days – but the government has stressed it will exclude things like gaming, messaging services, and other platforms whose primary purpose is education. This opens up what will likely be an ongoing line of inquiry: what’s in and what’s out? The government’s own analysis estimates 100 social media companies will need to comply with the law.

    https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/11/29/teen-social-media-ban-age-verification-meta-tiktok/

    The thing about boundaries in nature is that they tend to be porous, such as semi-permeable membranes & quantum tunneling. Smart kids will figure out how to game the system (as usual). Still, seems like just the job for corporate AI to supervise. If a smart system programmed to use the national birth registry database filters participation accurately, the courts won't clog up with prosecutions.

    Reply
    • Belladonna 4.1
      30 November 2024 at 11:17 am

      exclude things like gaming,

      Given that online gaming is a gateway into social media use for many pre-teens (the Roblox platform has significant usage for kids from 7 up) – and that there are already significant risks in the social media aspects of these platforms (catfishing is rife) – the deliberate exclusion of gaming seems curious.

      Note, one of the specific ways that kids are educated into protecting themselves is never using their real name on these platforms – only their gaming identity.

      Reply
      • Dennis Frank 4.1.1
        30 November 2024 at 1:53 pm

        In contemporary society alt-identities have become normalised. Your point about gaming seems significant but I'm unable to be any more specific than that (last time I played a computer game was mid-'90s). People have a right to play an identity as a role so there's no ethical basis to object to them doing so.

        I presume both/and logic would apply: registry of real name + user id as separate option for covert play. Big Brother could then know the reality of usage whilst allowing players to remain anon to observers & other players. BB-AI would then allow parents to log on, get authenticated to monitor their kids.

        Reply
  5. Dennis Frank 5
    29 November 2024 at 3:56 pm

    Another interesting angle is whether Big Brother will look at applicants to assess legitimacy. Matching tech seems arbitrary:

    commercially available facial recognition systems have an error rate of 0.8 per cent for light-skinned men, compared to nearly 35 per cent for dark-skinned women. Even some of the best performing systems in use currently, such as Yoti (which Meta currently offers to Australian users ahead of a global rollout) has an average error of almost two years for people aged 13 to 16 years old. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-11-29/how-under-16-social-media-ban-will-work-remains-a-mystery/104662740

    Clearly unreliable! May have utility as a supporting function perhaps. Iris-matching would be a better way to go, but it necessitates volunteer close-up photos.

    Reply
    • Belladonna 5.1
      30 November 2024 at 11:10 am

      There's also the issue of a surveillance culture of bringing facial recognition systems (or any other biometric data recognition) into the home – and pretty much mandating exposure of children to them.
      I don't have significant levels of trust that social media companies will effectively protect this data – there are been so many security breaches in the past – why would things be different in the future.

      https://www.bu.edu/jostl/files/2020/08/1-Barrett.pdf

      Reply
      • Dennis Frank 5.1.1
        30 November 2024 at 1:45 pm

        Good point. I'm guessing a large minority (if not majority) is feasible along the line of that concern – enough to terminate the option perhaps.

        Reply

Leave a Comment

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.