Australia has introduced landmark legislation making it illegal for social media platforms to allow users under the age of 16. Many observers have termed this the world’s strictest such measure. The law, set to be implemented next year, would impose heavy fines—for instance, as much as A$50 million—for technology firms that do not comply. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the initiative crucial to protecting children from the dangers of social media, which strikes a chord with many parents who are worried.
Skeptics question how the law would be enforced and raise issues concerning privacy and socialization. The legislation is unprecedented in that no other country has set such a high minimum age without accommodation for existing users or parental consent.
The House of Representatives gave its nod to the bill after it cleared the Senate with a 34-19 vote. Prime Minister Albanese reaffirmed his dedication to safeguarding children’s lives and assured parents that the government is on their side.
While Communications Minister Michelle Rowland will outline the platforms that will be impacted later, the new restrictions are expected to apply to major platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and X. Also worth noting: gaming and messaging services, as well as sites that can be accessed without an account, such as YouTube, are not included in this list.
For the ban to work, the government will require social media platforms to use age-verification technologies that are under review. However, digital experts warn against any unknown methods—possibly involving biometrics—because of privacy and effectiveness issues.
Critics also point out the likelihood of easy circumvention via technology such as VPNs, which conceal users’ locations. Notably, there would be no legal consequences for children who break the ban. Initial polling indicates that a good number of Australian parents support the changes.
Amy Friedlander and others who support the ban contend that it confronts a problem—the excessive use of digital devices that drives a wedge between users and non-users. On the other hand, some experts believe the measure is too simple and could push young people further into unmonitored online areas.
Major players in the industry, such as Google, Snap, and Meta, state that the ban is too vague, and therefore, it would fail to reach its child-safety targets. TikTok said that the policy’s definition of social media is so wide that it could possibly include almost every online service.
Groups that represent young people call for their inclusion in the policy-making process. While they recognize the potential dangers of social media, they believe discussions on the issue currently lack their input. Youth, therefore, should be included in the solutions, according to the eSafety Youth Council, which advises on regulation in the area.
Prime Minister Albanese accepts the debate is complicated but insists on supporting the legislation, comparing it to restrictions on alcohol for minors: enforcement will never be perfect, yet there is a moral duty to align with such rules.
In France, regulations were also tried that were similar: social media access under 15 would be prohibited without consent. Evasion via VPN was noted. A similar effort in Utah was hit with constitutional pushback.
Australia’s strategy is attracting international notice, with possible looking to replicate in places like Norway and think about in the UK, alluding to a potential future similar adoption.