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”.
Who's next to be blocked?
I mean, now that the infrastructure and policies are in place, it's only a matter of time.
The definition is so vague they can block literally any web site.
I'd be down with banning everyone from social media
Then why are you here!!!?? I don't get this blanket cynicism for social media, if you don't like it as a concept than why the hell are you here? Please leave if you truly feel that social media is inherently bad, you are just a toxic influence on this social media community at a fundamental level if that is actually how you feel. Otherwise if you are going to stay you need to think more critically about this and nuance your views.
i'd just be down for banning social media. Not sure how that would look though.
I'm genuinely curious who you think will be blocked next?
The age & general cohort of who this applies to is in the legislation (under 16s).
Think more about which sites/platforms it applies to. There was some indecision about YouTube (its in EDIT: yt kids is out) & but signal/whatsapp/telegram are not affected - yet.
Think more about how to communicate.
What's your point?
This legislation only bans people under 16 years of age. To change that requires a whole new bill & vote in both houses of Parliament.
I can't be much clearer than that
The sites that are being policed are chosen by the office of the australian information commission & esafety.
It is already growing
This was always the stated plan though.
Yes - that's how laws work.
This must be the most tedious conversation since the dawn of the internet.
I replied to some nutter inferring that this was some dastardly overreach by our authoritarian overlords.
Then you show up, basically saying the same thing I am but in the most unintelligible and snarky way possible?
People with a serious criminal record. Murderers and worse. Those who leave their victims alive but scarred mentally or physically.
Then those with less serious criminal records. Fraud. White collar crimes. That sort of thing.
Then other "undesirables" depending on who isn't liked by whoever's in charge.
And then the goalposts for what's desirable will start to move.
And the scope won't just be limited to social media. Websites will be categorised further. Some might remain open access to all people (except the ever increasing list of those to be protected and those who shouldn't have access) but others? No. Those sites themselves are undesirable.
Ooh, and social credit! Maybe you'll need to earn social credit which you'll require to access some websites, with some like social media only being provided to people with a high enough social credit score! /s
Not every new law is a slippery slope that leads to something, this line of reasoning is literally a fallacy.
When we blocked youth from drinking, we didn’t inch towards making it illegal for people in their 30s did we? Worst we got was like 21 in some places.