Australia wants to ban children from using social media Will it work?

“Honestly, I felt really scared,” James said, describing a Snapchat incident that made him question whether it was safe to go to school.

Australian boy, 12 years old, had a disagreement with a friend, and one night before bed, the boy added him to a group chat with two older teenagers.

Almost immediately, his phone “started blowing up” with a series of violent messages.

“One of them sounded about 17 years old,” James told the BBC. “He sent me a video of him holding a machete… he was swinging it around. Then there was a voice message saying they were going to arrest and stab me.”

James – not his real name – first joined Snapchat when he was 10 years old, after a classmate suggested everyone in their friend group download the app. But after telling his parents about his experience of cyberbullying, which was eventually resolved by the school, James deleted his account.

His experience is a cautionary tale that shows why the Australian government’s proposed social media ban for children under 16 is necessary, said his mother, Emma,​​​ is also using a pseudonym, said.

The laws presented to the House of Commons on Thursday were labeled “world-leading” by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

But while many parents welcomed the move, some experts questioned whether children should – or even could – be banned from social media and the detrimental effects of doing so. What could that be?

Albanese said the ban – which will include platforms such as X, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram – aims to protect children from the “harms” of social media.

“This is for moms and dads… They, like me, are very worried about the safety of our children online,” he said.

The new law provides a “framework” for the ban. But the 17-page document expected to be delivered to the Senate next week is scant on details.

Instead, the country’s internet regulator – the eSafety Commissioner – will have to figure out how to implement and enforce these rules. The rules will not take effect for at least 12 months after the law is passed.

Under the bill, the ban would apply to all children under 16 and there would be no exemptions for current users or those with parental consent.

Tech companies will face fines of up to A$50 million ($32.5 million) for non-compliance, but there will be exceptions for platforms that can create “services.” low risk” is considered appropriate for children. The threshold has not yet been established.

However, messaging services and gaming sites will not be restricted, which raises questions about how regulators will determine what is and is not a social media platform. social media in a rapidly moving context.

A group representing the interests of tech companies such as Meta, Snapchat and X in Australia rejected the ban as a “20th Century response to 21st Century challenges”.

Digital Industry Group Inc said such laws could push children into “dangerous, uncontrolled areas of the Internet,” with some experts also expressing concern.

Electronic Safety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has acknowledged the enormous task her office will face in implementing the ban, as “technological change always precedes policy”.

“It will always be fluid and this is why regulators like eSafety have to be agile,” she told BBC Radio 5 Live.

But Ms Inman Grant also raised concerns about the central idea behind the government’s policy, which is that there is a causal link between social media and decline in mental health.

“I would say the evidence base is not settled at all,” she said, pointing to research from her own office that shows some of the most vulnerable groups, such as LGBTQ+ youth or First Nations, “feel more online than they do in the real world.”

This is the view of Lucas Lane, 15, who runs an online business selling nail polish to boys. “This [ban] destroyed… my friendships and my ability to make people feel seen,” the Perth teenager told the BBC.

Ms. Inman Grant wants technology companies to clean up their platforms and invest more in educational tools to help young people stay safe online. She uses the analogy of teaching children to swim, rather than banning them from the water.

“We do not fence the sea… but we do create protected swimming environments that provide protection and teach important lessons from an early age,” she told parliament earlier this year.

But parents like Emma see it differently.

“Should we really be wasting our time helping kids navigate these difficult systems when tech companies want them all the time?” she said.

“Or should we just allow them to be kids and learn how to get along outside with each other, and then start these discussions later?”

Amy Friedlander, a mother of three who belongs to the Wait Mate movement – a movement that encourages parents to delay letting their children use smartphones – also agrees.

“We cannot ignore all the positive aspects that technology has brought to life. There are huge positives, but what we haven’t really looked at is the impact it has on brains that aren’t ready for it.”

More than 100 Australian academics have criticized the ban as “a blunt instrument” and said it goes against United Nations advice calling on governments to ensure young people are “secure access” to the digital environment.

It also failed to win the support of a bipartisan congressional committee examining the impact of social media on teens. Instead, the commission recommended that tech giants face tougher regulations.

To address some of those concerns, the government said it would eventually introduce “digital duty of care” legislation, which would make tech companies legally obliged to prioritize safety of users.

Joanne Orlando, a digital behavior researcher, argues that while a ban “may be part of the strategy, it is by no means the whole strategy.”

She said the “biggest piece of the puzzle” should be educating children to think critically about the content they see on their feeds and how they use social media.

The government has spent A$6 million since 2022 to develop free “digital literacy tools” to try and do just that. However, research shows that many young Australians are not receiving regular education.

Ms. Orlando and other experts warn that there are also significant obstacles to making age verification technology – which is needed to enforce the ban – effective and safe, due to “enormous risks ” regarding the ability to store every Australian’s identity documents online.

The government says it is aiming to address that challenge through age verification tests and hopes to produce a report by the middle of next year. They promised that privacy concerns would be front and center, but provided little detail on what kind of technology would actually be tested.

Following his advice, the eSafety Commissioner has floated the idea of ​​using a third-party service to anonymize the user ID before it is passed to any age verification site, in order to “secure protect” their privacy.

However, Ms. Orlando remains skeptical. “I can’t think of any technology that exists at the moment that could do this,” she told the BBC.

Australia is by no means the first country to try to restrict how young people access certain websites or online platforms.

In 2011, South Korea passed a “ban law” banning children under 16 from playing games on the Internet between 10:30 p.m. and 6 a.m., but the regulations – which faced backlash – later that was abolished on the grounds of the need to “respect the rights of young people”. ”.

More recently, France introduced a law requiring social media platforms to block access by children under 15 without parental consent. Research shows that nearly half of users can circumvent the ban by using a simple VPN.

A law in the US state of Utah – similar to Australia’s – ran into another problem: it was blocked by a federal judge as unconstitutional.

Albanese has acknowledged that Australia’s proposal may not be perfect and that if passed by parliament, it would be considered.

“We know that technology is moving very quickly,” he said when announcing the measure. No government can protect every child from every threat – but we must do all we can.”

But for parents like Emma and Friedlander – who have been campaigning for changes – that is the most important message the ban sends.

“For too long, parents have faced the impossible choice between allowing their children to use an addictive device or watching their children become isolated and feel abandoned in society,” Ms. Friedlander said. ”.

“We have been trapped in a norm that no one wants to be a part of.”

James says that since leaving Snapchat, he finds himself spending more time outside with friends.

And he hopes that the new law can allow more kids like him to “go out and do the things they love” instead of feeling pressured to go online.