Australia has enacted a world-first ban on social media for users aged under 16, causing millions of children and teenagers to lose access to their accounts.
Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Kick, Twitch and TikTok are expected to have taken steps from Wednesday to remove accounts held by users under 16 years of age in Australia, and prevent those teens from registering new accounts.
Platforms that do not comply risk fines of up to $49.5m.
There have been some teething problems with the ban’s implementation. Guardian Australia has received several reports of those under 16 passing the facial age assurance tests, but the government has flagged it is not expecting the ban will be perfect from day one.
All listed platforms apart from X had confirmed by Tuesday they would comply with the ban. The eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, said it had recently had a conversation with X about how it would comply, but the company had not communicated its policy to users.
Bluesky, an X alternative, announced on Tuesday it would also ban under-16s, despite eSafety assessing the platform as “low risk” due to its small user base of 50,000 in Australia.
Parents of children affected by the ban shared a spectrum of views on the policy. One parent told the Guardian their 15-year-old daughter was “very distressed” because “all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat”. Since she had been identified as under 16, they feared “her friends will keep using Snapchat to talk and organise social events and she will be left out”.
Others said the ban “can’t come quickly enough”. One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media and the ban “provides us with a support framework to keep her off these platforms”.
“The fact that teenagers occasionally find a way to have a drink doesn’t diminish the value of having a clear, national standard.”
Polling has consistently shown that two-thirds of voters support raising the minimum age for social media to 16. The opposition, including leader Sussan Ley, have recently voiced alarm about the ban, despite waving the legislation through parliament and the former Liberal leader Peter Dutton championing it.
The ban has garnered worldwide attention, with several nations indicating they will adopt a ban of their own, including Malaysia, Denmark and Norway. The European Union passed a resolution to adopt similar restrictions, while a spokesperson for the British government told Reuters it was “closely monitoring Australia’s approach to age restrictions”.
It’s not designed at all. Some pearl-clutches said “won’t somebody think of the children”, and then made the social media companies figure out how to implement the ban.
The social media companies all looked at the free, government mandated access to user biometrics and complied.
Do I think that social media should be restricted for children and teens? Sure. Do I think this if going to go about as well as the 2007 porn filter that the government tried to implement? Absolutely.
Bingo.
It's never about "the children." It's a way to normalize handing over biometrics and anonymity to an assumed authority to use the internet.
It's always about control, control, control. It's about tying real identities to online activity, then it's about wholesale harvesting your secrets you didn't even know you were keeping.
Then it's yet another instrument to make sure you shut up and don't step out of line or else.
First they take us away from our kids by necessitating that entire households need full time careers to survive.
Then as a substitute for education and actual parenting we're so eager to offer up our childrens' futures in the name of "protecting" them from the inevitable consequences of parentless households.
people show ID to get into a bar, doesn't feel that far away from this. its not a substitute for parenting , though it is another layer
The bar's not storing your information. If this was just age verification on entry, that would be similar.
yeah understood. the intention is good but concerns exist re implementation. what are some other approaches that could he used?
Beforehand the user gets a personal key from the government, then when a site asks for proof of age, the user signs a token which the site sends to the government server with a query "Is this user over 16?". Then the government server identifies the user with the token, and responds to the site "Yes" or "No".
The site cannot see any of your personal information, just that you are over 16.
I'm surprised the government isn't doing the verification themselves as it has a huge information/tracking incentive to do so.
Bars are required by law to store the identification documents of patrons in Australia.
Like the other reply said, when you go to a bar you're just showing your birthdate to some guy at the front for a few seconds.
Now, if the bar demanded to make a scan of my ID and uploaded it to some server, and reported my entry to said bar to the government or some privatized authority, then handed that data to some algorithm to cross reference everywhere else I've been to build a profile on my behavior, then established various metrics based on who I was seen hanging around....then probably sold all of that to a bunch of marketing firms...
And on and on. Now imagine it's been doing this since you were like 16.
If this sounds far fetched and overblown, I invite you to look at how US law enforcement uses dragnet surveillance like "stingray towers" to hand information to ICE, then make a decision as to whether "The Good Guys" or anybody else should be allowed to follow your footsteps across the Web.
Edit: quick side tangent:
The hilarious part is how the parties pushing for this "fOr ThE ChiLdReN" surveillance capitalism will also be the first to cry "Leftist Nanny State tho! Muh personal responsibility!" When people want something like universal healthcare.
agree, so the idea is ok but the way they are going about it sucks. what are some fixes?
That is in fact a requirement for bars in Australia.
It's been that way for a while with clubs and some designated bars, but when did this happen with all bars?
Okay, I agree and I am not exactly cheering for government telling anyone what they can and can't look at... but what's the alternative here? I am cautiously siding with the idea behind the regulation if not the execution, but so far nobody has suggested what we do about a problem that is real, proven and studied and is leading to a worse world.
I'm being serious here and in good faith. Should we do anything?
Am I in the wrong here for thinking we need to do something about this? Or is everyone just okay with whatever the end-result will be from subsequent generations of people growing up anxious, depressed, lacking social skills, without relationship partners? We already have "loneliness" being considered a global health risk, and it's tied directly to digital communication habits. I would ask you or anyone here to just type "research on health social media teens" in google. Just try it and see how much work has gone into studying this problem.
yeah we need to do something about it, and people seem to be trying their best to come up with bullshit arguments against it. "people will find ways around it" and then saying not to bother etc i mean, people under 18 sneak into clubs and get beer... or maybe fake an ID and hit a pub... or get an older friend to do something for them.... it doesnt stop us as a society holding a view that under age drinking isnt great, and we make some effort to enforce that even if its not perfect.
Wait, do you honestly believe that drinking age laws like the US has leads to less alcoholism, less underage drinking and less deaths from teenagers overdosing on alcohol?
Are you out of your mind?
do i think that drinking age laws restrict access to drinking? well, yes, i do. if i consider the impact of going from "drinking age laws existing" to "no laws existing at all"... would i be surprised to see a surge in drinking sales for minors? no. its not magic, and it doesn't fix society issues, but that doesn't make drinking age laws wrong either.
If that occurred that would only conclusively prove an abrupt non-linear change may be bad with a law that impacts so many people and aspects of society..?
It's more than pearl-clutching though.
Kids dependency on social is a genuine social problem. Any parent that cares about their kids is deeply concerned about this.
I don't really buy the "govt access to biometrics" angle. These companies have all the biometrics they could ever want.
The ban is going to be easy to circumvent technologically, but not so much socially. At this very moment, being the evening of 10 December, families around Australia are having conversations about social media and the problems it can cause.