Australia Has Barred Everyone Under 16 From Social Media.
- Thread starter JustDave
- Start date
dilettante
Well-known Member
- Location
- Michigan
I saw this story. But if you drill down into the details it is clear that age should not be the "sorting hat" to decide who should have access to social media.
Aunt Bea
SF VIP
- Location
- Near Mount Pilot
It seems that it would be better to teach kids how to manage their online life instead of selecting some arbitrary age.
The same with so many things that we assign some arbitrary age to just stand back and turn kids loose with little or no meaningful preparation/experience.
There must be a better way!
The same with so many things that we assign some arbitrary age to just stand back and turn kids loose with little or no meaningful preparation/experience.
There must be a better way!
Nathan
SF VIP
- Location
- High Desert- Calif.
Drinking age is typically 18~21 for alcohol, which is potentially harmful. Setting a minimum age for Social Media seems reasonable, considering it's detrimental effects.
Twostep
Well-known Member
- Location
- Tiny town Oklahoma, OK
How are these restrictions supposed to be enforced?
hollydolly
SF VIP
- Location
- London England
Australia will ban children under 16 from using social media, after its Senate approved the world's strictest laws.
The ban - which will not take effect for at least 12 months - could see tech companies fined up to A$50m ($32.5m; ÂŁ25.7m) if they don't comply.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says the legislation is needed to protect young people from the "harms" of social media, something many parent groups have echoed.
But critics say questions over how the ban will work - and its impact on privacy and social connection - have been left unanswered.
This is not the first attempt globally to limit children's social media use, but it involves the highest age limit set by any country, and does not include exemptions for existing users or those with parental consent.
"This is a global problem and we want young Australians essentially to have a childhood," Albanese said when introducing the bill to the lower house last week. "We want parents to have peace of mind."
Having passed the Senate by 34 votes to 19 late on Thursday, the bill will return to the House of Representatives - where the government has a majority meaning it is sure to pass - for it to approve amendments, before becoming law.
The legislation does not specify which platforms will be banned. Those decisions will be made later by Australia’s communications minister, who will seek advice from the eSafety Commissioner - an internet regulator that will enforce the rules.
Gaming and messaging platforms are exempt, as are sites that can be accessed without an account, meaning YouTube, for instance, is likely to be spared.
The government says will it rely on some form of age-verification technology to implement the restrictions, and options will be tested in the coming months. The onus will be on the social media platforms to add these processes themselves.
However digital researchers have warned there are no guarantees the unspecified technology - which could rely on biometrics or identity information - will work. Critics have also sought assurances that privacy will be protected.
They have also warned that restrictions could easily be circumvented through tools like a VPN - which can disguise a user’s location and make them appear to be logging on from another country.
Children who find ways to flout the rules will not face penalties, however.
Polling on the reforms, though limited, suggests it is supported by a majority of Australian parents and caregivers.
The ban - which will not take effect for at least 12 months - could see tech companies fined up to A$50m ($32.5m; ÂŁ25.7m) if they don't comply.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese says the legislation is needed to protect young people from the "harms" of social media, something many parent groups have echoed.
But critics say questions over how the ban will work - and its impact on privacy and social connection - have been left unanswered.
This is not the first attempt globally to limit children's social media use, but it involves the highest age limit set by any country, and does not include exemptions for existing users or those with parental consent.
"This is a global problem and we want young Australians essentially to have a childhood," Albanese said when introducing the bill to the lower house last week. "We want parents to have peace of mind."
Having passed the Senate by 34 votes to 19 late on Thursday, the bill will return to the House of Representatives - where the government has a majority meaning it is sure to pass - for it to approve amendments, before becoming law.
The legislation does not specify which platforms will be banned. Those decisions will be made later by Australia’s communications minister, who will seek advice from the eSafety Commissioner - an internet regulator that will enforce the rules.
Gaming and messaging platforms are exempt, as are sites that can be accessed without an account, meaning YouTube, for instance, is likely to be spared.
The government says will it rely on some form of age-verification technology to implement the restrictions, and options will be tested in the coming months. The onus will be on the social media platforms to add these processes themselves.
However digital researchers have warned there are no guarantees the unspecified technology - which could rely on biometrics or identity information - will work. Critics have also sought assurances that privacy will be protected.
They have also warned that restrictions could easily be circumvented through tools like a VPN - which can disguise a user’s location and make them appear to be logging on from another country.
Children who find ways to flout the rules will not face penalties, however.
Polling on the reforms, though limited, suggests it is supported by a majority of Australian parents and caregivers.
Paco Dennis
SF VIP
- Location
- Mid-Missouri
It will be interesting to see the results of the trials. I think the policy is a good idea to try. It will stop a bunch of kids from being exposed to very intense and confusing content.
KSav
Senior Member
- Location
- North Dakota
Thanks for sharing that article, @hollydolly. Here's another one I found:
A social media ban for children under 16 passed the Australian Senate Thursday and will soon become 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 34 votes to 19. The House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved the legislation by 102 votes to 13.
The House has yet to endorse opposition amendments made in the Senate. But that is a formality since the government has already agreed they will pass.
The platforms will 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.
“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 in a statement.
The amendments 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.
The House is scheduled to pass the amendments on Friday. Critics of the legislation fear that banning young children from social media will impact the privacy of 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.
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 told the AP in an email.
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 told the AP in an email.
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 in a statement.
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 in a statement. “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.”
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.
----------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I detest the influence of social media on young people; it never seems to lead to anything good. On the other hand, this smacks of government overreach to me. I think the parents should monitor their children's social media use more closely. My ex-husband let my three kids essentially lie to Facebook so they could sign up at age 11 (without my knowledge; I was furious), but we insisted they share their passwords with us so we could periodically check their accounts. We also installed parental controls. The PC was always kept in the kitchen, out in the open. Their cell phones had to be left on the kitchen counter overnight.
That said, I have no doubt they encountered inappropriate content despite all the precautions. So, I'm not completely sure how I feel about this.
This sentence jumped out at me: "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." So how are they supposed to verify someone's age? I'm not Australian, so I may be missing something, but here in the States the only acceptable proof of age is a government-issued document.
A social media ban for children under 16 passed the Australian Senate Thursday and will soon become 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 34 votes to 19. The House of Representatives on Wednesday overwhelmingly approved the legislation by 102 votes to 13.
The House has yet to endorse opposition amendments made in the Senate. But that is a formality since the government has already agreed they will pass.
The platforms will 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.
“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 in a statement.
The amendments 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.
The House is scheduled to pass the amendments on Friday. Critics of the legislation fear that banning young children from social media will impact the privacy of 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.
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 told the AP in an email.
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 told the AP in an email.
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 in a statement.
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 in a statement. “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.”
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.
----------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure how I feel about this. I detest the influence of social media on young people; it never seems to lead to anything good. On the other hand, this smacks of government overreach to me. I think the parents should monitor their children's social media use more closely. My ex-husband let my three kids essentially lie to Facebook so they could sign up at age 11 (without my knowledge; I was furious), but we insisted they share their passwords with us so we could periodically check their accounts. We also installed parental controls. The PC was always kept in the kitchen, out in the open. Their cell phones had to be left on the kitchen counter overnight.
That said, I have no doubt they encountered inappropriate content despite all the precautions. So, I'm not completely sure how I feel about this.
This sentence jumped out at me: "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." So how are they supposed to verify someone's age? I'm not Australian, so I may be missing something, but here in the States the only acceptable proof of age is a government-issued document.
Last edited:
fuzzybuddy
SF VIP
- Location
- The Sticks, Northeast PA.
I think the act barring youth from social media is more political expediency than actual legislation. The act specifically prevents social media companies from using any form of government ID to determine age. So companies will have to use a crystal ball to determine the ages of their users. And I'm quite sure some 14 year old kid with a computer will be able to get by age blocks, and tell all his friends about how to do it.