Australia wants to ban kids from social media. Will it work? | Global News Avenue

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

Australian boy, 12 years old, After an argument with a friend, the boy added him to a group chat with two older teens before going to bed one night.

Almost immediately, his phone “started exploding” with a stream of violent messages.

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

James (not his real name) first joined Snapchat when he was 10 years old, when a classmate suggested that everyone in their friendship group use the app. But after telling his parents about his experience with cyberbullying, which was ultimately addressed by the school, James deleted his account.

His mother Emma (also using a pseudonym) said his experience was a cautionary tale about why the Australian government’s proposed social media ban for children under 16 is necessary.

The laws, which Prime Minister Anthony Albanese described as “world-leading”, were tabled in the lower house of parliament on Thursday.

While many parents applaud the move, some experts question whether children should — or even can — be banned from social media, and what adverse effects it might have.

Albanese said the ban, which would cover platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram, was aimed at protecting children from the “harm” of social media.

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

The new legislation provides a “framework” for the ban. But the 17-page document, expected to be tabled in the Senate next week, has few details.

Instead, it will be up to the national internet regulator – the Electronic Security Commissioner – to discuss how to implement and enforce the rules, which will not come into force for at least 12 months after the legislation is passed.

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

Tech companies face fines of up to AU$50 million ($32.5 million; £25.7) if they fail to comply, but platforms that create “low-risk services” deemed suitable for children will be exempted. The bar has not yet been set.

Messaging services and gaming sites will not be restricted, however, raising questions about how regulators will determine what is and is not a social media platform in a rapidly evolving environment.

An Australian group representing the interests of tech companies including Meta, Snapchat and X dismissed the ban, calling it a “20th-century response to 21st-century challenges.”

The digital industry group said such legislation could push children into “dangerous, unregulated parts of the internet” – a concern echoed by some experts.

Electronics Safety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant acknowledged that her office would have a difficult task enforcing the ban, given that “technological changes will always outpace policy.”

“It’s always fluid, which is why regulators like eSafety have to remain flexible,” she told BBC Radio 5 Live.

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

“I would say the evidence base is not established at all,” she said, pointing to her own office’s research that found some of the most vulnerable groups, such as LGBTQ+ or Indigenous youth, “feel more important online than themselves.” . Do it in the real world”.

A sentiment shared by 15-year-old Lucas Lane, who runs an online business selling nail polish to boys. “This ban has destroyed … my friendships and my ability to make people feel seen,” the Perth teenager told the BBC.

Ms Inman Grant would rather see tech companies clean up their platforms and invest more in educational tools to help young people stay safe online. She used the metaphor of teaching children to swim, rather than prohibiting them from entering the water.

“We don’t fence off the ocean… but we do create protected swimming environments, provide safeguards and teach important lessons from an early age,” she told parliament earlier this year.

But parents like Emma see things differently.

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

“Or should we let them be like kids and learn how to interact with each other outside before we start these discussions?”

Amy Friedlander, a mother of three who is part of the Waiting for a Mate movement, which encourages parents to delay giving their children smartphones, agrees.

“We can’t ignore all the positive impacts that technology has on our lives. It has huge benefits, but we don’t really take into account the impact it has on brains that aren’t ready for it.”

More than 100 Australian academics have criticized the ban as “too harsh a measure” and believe it goes against recommendations from the United Nations, which has called on governments to ensure young people “Secure access” to the digital environment.

It also failed to win support from a bipartisan parliamentary committee that has been studying the impact of social media on teenagers. Instead, the committee recommended that tech giants face tougher regulation.

To address some of these issues, the government says it will eventually introduce “digital duty of care” laws, which will put tech companies under a legal obligation to prioritize user safety.

Joanne Orlando, a digital behavior researcher, believes that while bans “may be part of a strategy, they are definitely not the whole strategy”.

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

The government has spent $6 million since 2022 developing free “digital literacy tools” to try to achieve this goal. However, research shows many young Australians are not receiving regular lessons.

Ms Orlando and other experts warned there were also significant obstacles to making the age verification technology needed to enforce the ban effective and secure, given the “huge risks” posed by potentially storing every Australian’s identity document online.

The government says it aims to address this challenge through age verification trials and hopes to submit a report by the middle of next year. It promised that privacy concerns would be front and center but provided few details about which technology would actually be tested.

In its recommendations, the eSafety Commissioner floated the idea of ​​using a third-party service to anonymize users’ IDs before they are passed to any age verification site to “protect” their privacy.

Ms. Orlando, however, remains sceptical. “I can’t think of any technology that currently exists that would achieve this,” she told the BBC.

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

In 2011, South Korea passed the “Lockdown Law” prohibiting children under 16 years old from playing online games between 22:30 and 6:00. However, this regulation encountered strong opposition and was later repealed on the grounds that it needed to “respect the rights of teenagers.” rights”.

Recently, France introduced legislation requiring social media platforms to block access to children under 15 without parental consent. Research shows that nearly half of users are able to bypass bans using a simple VPN.

A law in Utah, USA (similar to the one in Australia) ran into a different problem: a federal judge struck down the law as unconstitutional.

Albanese acknowledged Australia’s proposal may not be foolproof and would be scrutinized if it passed parliament.

“We know technology moves quickly. No government can protect every child from every threat, but we must do our best,” he said when announcing the measure.

But for parents like Emma and Ms. Friedlander — who have been lobbying for change — What matters most is the message the ban sends.

Ms Freeland said: “For too long, parents have been faced with the impossible choice: give in and buy their child an addictive device, or watch their child become isolated and feel socially excluded ”

“We’re stuck in a norm that no one wants to participate in.”

James said that since quitting Snapchat, he has found himself spending more time outside with friends.

He hopes the new laws will allow more kids like him to “get out and do things they love” instead of feeling pressured to be online.