Tech Companies Chide Australia’s Under 16 Social Media Ban
Social media companies say they want to work with the government to promote teen safety.
Big Tech corporations on Friday hit out at a landmark Australian law that bans youths under the age of 16 from accessing social media, saying the law was “rushed” through parliament.
Australia approved the social media ban for children late on Thursday. The law forces tech giants from Instagram and Facebook owner Meta to TikTok to stop minors logging in or face fines of up to A$49.5 million ($32 million).
TikTok, the hugely popular platform where teen users upload and share videos, said in a statement to Reuters on Friday that it was likely the ban could see young people pushed to darker corners of the internet.
“Moving forward, it’s critical that the Australian government works closely with industry to fix issues created by this rushed process. We want to work together to keep teens safe and reduce the unintended consequences of this law for all Australians,” it said.
The government had warned Big Tech of its plans for months, and first announced the ban after a parliamentary inquiry earlier this year that heard testimony from parents of children who had self-harmed due to cyber bullying.
Albanese’s Labor party, which does not control the Senate, won crucial support from the opposition conservatives for the bill, allowing it to progress quickly.
The bill was introduced into parliament last Thursday and sent to a select committee on Friday where interested parties had 24 hours to make a submission. The legislation was passed on Thursday as part of 31 bills that were pushed through in a chaotic final day of parliament for the year.
Meta criticised the law saying it was a “predetermined process”.
“Last week, the parliament’s own committee said the ‘causal link with social media appears unclear,’ with respect to the mental health of young Australians, whereas this week the rushed Senate Committee report pronounced that social media caused harm,” it said in a statement in the early hours of Friday.
Snapchat parent Snap said it leaves many questions unanswered.
Australia has been at loggerheads with the mostly U.S.-domiciled tech giants for years. It was the first country to make social media platforms pay media outlets royalties for sharing their content and earlier this year said it plans to threaten them with fines for failing to stamp out scams.
Sunita Bose, managing director of Digital Industry Group, which has most social media companies as members, said no one can confidently explain how the law will work in practice.
“The community and platforms are in the dark about what exactly is required of them,” she said.
A trial of methods to enforce it will start in January with the ban to take effect by Nov. 2025.
Цитата:
Big tech says Australia “rushed” social media ban for youths under 16
The bill was introduced into parliament last Thursday and sent to a select committee on Friday where interested parties had 24 hours to make a submission. The legislation was passed on Thursday as part of 31 bills that were pushed through in a chaotic final day of parliament for the year.
Big Tech corporations on Friday hit out at a landmark Australian law that bans youths under the age of 16 from accessing social media, saying the law was “rushed” through parliament.
Australia approved the social media ban for children late on Thursday. The law forces tech giants from Instagram and Facebook owner Meta to TikTok to stop minors logging in or face fines of up to A$49.5 million ($32 million).
TikTok, the hugely popular platform where teen users upload and share videos, said in a statement to Reuters on Friday that it was likely the ban could see young people pushed to darker corners of the internet.
“Moving forward, it’s critical that the Australian government works closely with industry to fix issues created by this rushed process. We want to work together to keep teens safe and reduce the unintended consequences of this law for all Australians,” it said.
The government had warned Big Tech of its plans for months, and first announced the ban after a parliamentary inquiry earlier this year that heard testimony from parents of children who had self-harmed due to cyber bullying.
Albanese’s Labor party, which does not control the Senate, won crucial support from the opposition conservatives for the bill, allowing it to progress quickly.
The bill was introduced into parliament last Thursday and sent to a select committee on Friday where interested parties had 24 hours to make a submission. The legislation was passed on Thursday as part of 31 bills that were pushed through in a chaotic final day of parliament for the year.
Meta criticised the law saying it was a “predetermined process”.
“Last week, the parliament’s own committee said the ‘causal link with social media appears unclear,’ with respect to the mental health of young Australians, whereas this week the rushed Senate Committee report pronounced that social media caused harm,” it said in a statement in the early hours of Friday.
Snapchat parent Snap said it leaves many questions unanswered.
Australia has been at loggerheads with the mostly U.S.-domiciled tech giants for years. It was the first country to make social media platforms pay media outlets royalties for sharing their content and earlier this year said it plans to threaten them with fines for failing to stamp out scams.
Sunita Bose, managing director of Digital Industry Group, which has most social media companies as members, said no one can confidently explain how the law will work in practice.
“The community and platforms are in the dark about what exactly is required of them,” she said.
...
Цитата:
Tech companies put on notice as Australia passes world-first social media ban for under-16s
…
It’s the world’s toughest response yet to a problem that has seen other countries impose restrictions but not hold companies accountable for breaches of a nationwide ban. The ban is expected to apply to Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit and X, but that list could expand.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese praised the new law on Friday, saying it sent a message to parents that “we’ve got your back.”
“Platforms now have a social responsibility to ensure the safety of our kids is a priority for them,” he said.
Albanese had previously told parliament there was no time to waste.
“We know that social media can be a weapon for bullies, a platform for peer pressure, a driver of anxiety, a vehicle for scammers. And worst of all, a tool for online predators,” he said.
The bill was backed by most members of Australia’s main opposition party, the Liberal Party, with Liberal Sen. Maria Kovacic describing it as a “pivotal moment in our country.”
“We have drawn a line in the sand. The enormous power of big tech can no longer remain unchecked in Australia,” she said Thursday before the vote.
But it met fierce opposition from some independents and smaller parties, including Greens Sen. Sarah Hanson-Young, who accused the major parties of trying to “fool” Australian parents.
“This is a disaster unfolding before our eyes,” she said. “You couldn’t make this stuff up. The prime minister says he’s worried about social media. The leader of the opposition says, ‘Let’s ban it.’
“It’s a race to the bottom to try and pretend who can be the toughest, and all they end up with is pushing young people into further isolation and giving the platforms the opportunity to continue the free-for-all, because now there’s no social responsibility required.
“We need to make social media safer for everybody.”
A rushed process
The government has faced considerable criticism for the speed of the legislation.
Submissions to a Senate committee inquiry into the bill were open for just 24 hours before a three-hour hearing on Monday. The inquiry report was released Tuesday, and the bill passed the lower house on Wednesday – 102 votes to 13 – before progressing to the Senate.
More than 100 submissions were made and “almost all submitters and witnesses expressed grave concerns that a bill of such import was not afforded sufficient time for thorough inquiry and report,” the committee said in its report.
However, the committee recommended that the bill be passed with some changes, including prohibiting the use of government documents, such as passports, to verify users’ age.
Tech companies Meta – the owner of Facebook and Instagram – and TikTok said in statements Friday that they shared the government’s goal of making social media safer for young users but the law had been “rushed.”
“The task now turns to ensuring there is productive consultation on all rules associated with the Bill to ensure a technically feasible outcome that does not place an onerous burden on parents and teens and a commitment that rules will be consistently applied across all social apps used by teens,” a Meta spokesperson said.
Snap Inc., whose messaging app Snapchat is popular with children, said there are still “many unanswered” questions about how the law will be implemented. It had advocated for “device-level age verification … to simplify the process.”
X, owned by billionaire Elon Musk, said in its submission to the inquiry that the platform was “not widely used by minors” but expressed concern about the law’s impact on their freedom of expression.
Some experts had argued the legislation could expose children who evade the ban to unrestricted content and deter them from reporting any problems to an adult.
Despite those objections, surveys suggest Australians back the law.
A poll by YouGov conducted this month showed that 77% of Australians support the under-16 ban. The survey was conducted in the second half of this month and sought the views of 1,515 people with a margin of error of 3.2%.
Dany Elachi, co-founder of parent group the Heads Up Alliance, which pushed for the ban, said it didn’t go far enough. “Discord and YouTube Shorts for example are not subject to it – but I look forward to working with lawmakers in the months ahead to ensure the law is as effective as we can possibly make it,” he said.
The government will now engage in broad consultation before setting a switch-off date, when all children under 16 with accounts on social media platforms subject to the ban will have them deactivated.
Parents and children won’t be penalized for flouting the ban, but companies will need to show that they’ve taken reasonable steps to keep under-age users off.
Цитата:
Children and teenagers under 16 to be banned from social media after parliament passes world-first laws
…
Tech companies also agitated for the debate to be delayed until the government's age-verification trial is finalised.
Under the laws, which won't 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.
Mixed views from mental health experts
The bill was introduced to parliament last Thursday and was referred for a Senate inquiry the same day. Submissions to the inquiry closed on Friday, a three-hour hearing was held on Monday, and the report was tabled on Tuesday.
Almost all the submissions raised concerns about the "extremely short" consultation period, the committee report noted.
"Legislation is a necessary tool, but it is not a panacea," Labor senator Karen Grogan wrote.
"Young people, and in particular diverse cohorts, must be at the centre of the conversation as an age restriction is implemented to ensure there are constructive pathways for connection."
During the public hearing, witnesses with experience working with young people on their mental health offered a mix of views on the ban.
Danielle Einstein, a clinical psychologist who has supported the campaign to raise the age at which kids can access social media, said social media offered no mental health benefits for young people as far as she could see.
But Nicole Palfrey from mental health organisation Headspace was more circumspect, telling the inquiry there was a need to balance any harms from social media with the benefits of connection and "help-seeking" online — especially for kids who live in remote or rural areas.
"When we hear from psychologists and parents they are very much confronted with [the] pointy end, they only see the harms and I think that's incredibly valid," Lucy Thomas from anti-bullying organisation Project Rockit said.
"But as people working with young people every day, we also see the benefits.
"We need to tread very carefully or we risk dialling back young peoples' rights and pushing them into more isolated, less supported places."
Цитата:
Australian Parliament bans social media for under-16s with world-first law
…
MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — A social media ban for children under 16 passed the Australian Parliament on Friday in a world-first law.
The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts.
The Senate passed the bill on Thursday 34 votes to 19. The House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved the legislation by 102 votes to 13.
The House on Friday endorsed opposition amendments made in the Senate, making the bill law.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the law supported parents concerned by online harms to their children.
“Platforms now have a social responsibility to ensure the safety of our kids is a priority for them,” Albanese told reporters.
The platforms have one year to work out how they could implement the ban before penalties are enforced.
Meta Platforms, which owns Facebook and Instagram, said the legislation had been “rushed.”
Digital Industry Group Inc., an advocate for the platforms in Australia, said questions remain about the law’s impact on children, its technical foundations and scope.
Related Stories
“The social media ban legislation has been released and passed within a week and, as a result, no one can confidently explain how it will work in practice – the community and platforms are in the dark about what exactly is required of them,” DIGI managing director Sunita Bose said.
The amendments passed on Friday bolster privacy protections. Platforms would not be allowed to compel users to provide government-issued identity documents including passports or driver’s licenses, nor could they demand digital identification through a government system.
Critics of the legislation fear that banning young children from social media will impact the privacy of all users who must establish they are older than 16.
While the major parties support the ban, many child welfare and mental health advocates are concerned about unintended consequences.
Sen. David Shoebridge, from the minority Greens party, said mental health experts agreed that the ban could dangerously isolate many children who used social media to find support.
“This policy will hurt vulnerable young people the most, especially in regional communities and especially the LGBTQI community, by cutting them off,” Shoebridge told the Senate.
Exemptions will apply for health and education services including YouTube, Messenger Kids, WhatsApp, Kids Helpline and Google Classroom.
Opposition Sen. Maria Kovacic said the bill was not radical but necessary. “The core focus of this legislation is simple: It demands that social media companies take reasonable steps to identify and remove underage users from their platforms,” Kovacic told the Senate.
“This is a responsibility these companies should have been fulfilling long ago, but for too long they have shirked these responsibilities in favor of profit,” she added.
Online safety campaigner Sonya Ryan, whose 15-year-old daughter Carly was murdered by a 50-year-old pedophile who pretended to be a teenager online, described the Senate vote as a “monumental moment in protecting our children from horrendous harms online.”
“It’s too late for my daughter, Carly, and the many other children who have suffered terribly and those who have lost their lives in Australia, but let us stand together on their behalf and embrace this together,” she said.
Wayne Holdsworth, whose teenage son Mac took his own life after falling victim to an online sextortion scam, had advocated for the age restriction and took pride in its passage.
“I have always been a proud Australian, but for me subsequent to today’s Senate decision, I am bursting with pride,” Holdsworth said.
Christopher Stone, executive director of Suicide Prevention Australia, the governing body for the suicide prevention sector, said the legislation failed to consider positive aspects of social media in supporting young people’s mental health and sense of connection.
“The government is running blindfolded into a brick wall by rushing this legislation. Young Australians deserve evidence-based policies, not decisions made in haste,” Stone said.
The platforms had complained that the law would be unworkable and had urged the Senate to delay the vote until at least June 2025 when a government-commissioned evaluation of age assurance technologies will report on how young children could be excluded.
“Naturally, we respect the laws decided by the Australian Parliament,” Facebook and Instagram owner Meta Platforms said. “However, we are concerned about the process which rushed the legislation through while failing to properly consider the evidence, what industry already does to ensure age-appropriate experiences, and the voices of young people.”
Snapchat said it was also concerned by the law and would cooperate with the government regulator, the eSafety Commissioner.
“While there are many unanswered questions about how this law will be implemented in practice, we will engage closely with the Government and the eSafety Commissioner during the 12-month implementation period to help develop an approach that balances privacy, safety and practicality. As always, Snap will comply with any applicable laws and regulations in Australia,” Snapchat said in a statement.
Critics argue the government is attempting to convince parents it is protecting their children ahead of a general election due by May. The government hopes that voters will reward it for responding to parents’ concerns about their children’s addiction to social media. Some argue the legislation could cause more harm than it prevents.
Criticisms include that the legislation was rushed through Parliament without adequate scrutiny, is ineffective, poses privacy risks for all users, and undermines the authority of parents to make decisions for their children.
Opponents also argue the ban would isolate children, deprive them of the positive aspects of social media, drive them to the dark web, discourage children too young for social media to report harm, and reduce incentives for platforms to improve online safety.
____________________________________________________
С завистью и понятными ожиданиями, Dimitriy.
