Australia on Thursday, November 28, passed a law banning social media for children under the age of 16 after an active and high-profile public resonance, which has become one of the most discussed topics in the country.
The mentioned Canberra decision is a landmark one. Such restrictive measures are not often observed in the world. The Australian law may become a kind of precedent or example in the framework of the transformation of the interaction of the authorities of other countries with technology companies. Canberra’s decision is one of the toughest among the world’s jurisdictions. In this case, Big Tech is faced with a ban, which, from the point of view of the wording contained in the official documentation, does not directly apply to companies in this sphere, but will certainly affect their activities. It is also worth noting that the Australian law, from the aspect of the generally conventional public understanding of the accessibility of social networks, can be interpreted as an unprecedented measure. In an ethical sense, the relevant issue is not unambiguous, although various kinds of threats to minors on virtual platforms of the mentioned category are what can be described as a proven facts.
A law passed in Australia obliges technology giants such as Meta, which ownership structure includes Facebook and Instagram, to stop minors from logging in. Violation of the relevant norm will mean fines of up to A$49.5 million ($32 million) for the companies. A trial of methods to enforce it will start in January. The ban envisioned by the law will take effect in a year.
The Social Media Minimum Age bill will be an example for an increasing number of governments that are showing interest in such legal measures. It is worth noting that legislators, as part of their intentions for restrictive practices regarding the accessibility of user interaction with social networks, rely on claims that on such virtual platforms, young people may encounter content that has a negative impact on their mental health.
Reducing the scope of opportunities for minors in the context of social media activity is not an established legal fact, typical only for Australia. For example, France and some US states have passed laws restricting children’s access to the mentioned virtual platforms without parental permission. At the same time, the Australian ban is the maximum. In Florida, a complete restriction of access to social media for people under the age of 14 is currently being challenged in court. In this case, the opponents of the ban rely on considerations based on the idea of freedom of speech.
It is worth noting that the Australian law was passed after a marathon last day of the parliamentary year in this country. The media draw attention to the fact that the ban on access to social networks for children under the age of 16 is a victory for the centre-left Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who is preparing for the 2025 elections amid sagging opinion polls. The law, even at the discussion stage, was negatively perceived by privacy lawyers and some child rights groups. It is worth noting that at the same time, the results of polls showed that 77% of the Australian population supported the mentioned ban.
During the discussion of the law in the public information space, the testimony of parents of children who have harmed themselves when faced with bullying on social networks was repeatedly mentioned. It is worth noting that the Australian media supported this legal initiative. As part of the public statement and dissemination of the relevant position, a campaign called Let Them Be Kids was launched.
At the same time, the law passed on Thursday may become a kind of complication factor in Australia’s relationship with its main ally, which is the United States. In the context of this probability, it is worth noting that Elon Musk, the owner of the social media platform X and, according to media reports, one of the main functionaries of the future administration of Donald Trump, who won the presidential election in the US, negatively characterized the mentioned decision of Canberra. According to him, the law is a behind-the-scenes way to control Internet access by all Australians.
It is also worth noting that recently there has been a formation of a kind of antagonism between Australia and large technology companies based mainly in the United States. The law passed on Thursday is likely to become a new stage in the dynamic of the mentioned situation of fundamental disagreements, implying a strengthening of the difference between the positions of the parties of the controversy. In the relevant context, it is worth mentioning that Australia became the first country to force social networks to pay media outlets royalties for sharing their content. Canberra also has plans to implement a legal practice in which virtual platforms of the mentioned category will be required to pay fines for failing to stamp out scams. In the summer, the media released information that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the treasury department are consulting internet, banking, and telecommunications firms about creating a mandatory, enforceable anti-scam code. In this case, it is implied that the mentioned companies must take reasonable measures to protect users, including offering an effective complaint service.
In Australia, cryptocurrency scam advertisements featuring the face of mining billionaire Andrew Forrest caused residents to face several million dollars in financial damage. The mentioned billionaire sued Meta for the fact that this technology giant did not take action in the specified situation. In the relevant context, it implies the absence of measures to counteract the commission of a crime.
According to the Australian government, currently, only telecommunications providers face specific anti-scam regulations in this country. At the same time, it is known that in the period from 2020 to 2023, the financial losses of Australian residents due to fraud tripled. The amount of the mentioned financial losses for the specified period amounted to $1.8 billion. It is worth noting that the corresponding dynamic of the damage caused by fraud reflects global tendencies. The large-scale digitalization process, which extends to the entire globe, provides that many processes of different nature and purposes are carried out in a virtual environment. Also, in general, many types of human activity are transferred to the digital space. Currently, a fully functional, to a certain extent self-sufficient virtual dimension of reality is actually being formed. Against this background, cybercrime is scaling up. At the same time, the corresponding tendency does not mean that global digitalization is malicious or contains threats that outweigh the benefits.
It is worth noting separately that a kind of impulse for the activation of cybercrime, in particular fraud in the online environment, was what can be described as the technological specifics of the coronavirus pandemic period. During the mentioned period, people spent time mostly at home, working in many cases remotely. Against this background, their online activity has increased. In particular, sales figures for goods on virtual commercial platforms have grown. For scammers, the mentioned type of Internet activity has become a kind of space of opportunity. There are many examples when people remotely paid for their purchases, but in the end, they did not receive goods. Such a deception scheme is one of the most common among scammers operating in the virtual space. Also, cybercriminals commonly gain unauthorized access to their victims’ devices for subsequent theft of money through mobile banking apps or to compromise the user, but most often to receive money later. Digital literacy is one of the tools to counter such threats. For example, a query in an Internet search engine, such as how to know if my camera is hacked, will allow anyone to get information about signs of unauthorized access to the device.
Representatives of Meta, TikTok, and X have not yet provided journalists with comments on the law passed on Thursday in Australia banning access to social networks for children under the age of 16. For the mentioned companies, the new law means a decrease in the number of the user audience.
It is also worth noting that Google’s subsidiary YouTube is exempt from the specified ban. This is because the mentioned virtual platform is used in schools. At the same time, Google was among those companies that argued that legislation should be postponed until after the age verification trial.
Sunita Bose, managing director of the Digital Industry Group, said that the Australian authorities rushed through the passing of the new law. According to her, in this case, there is a bill, but there is no guidance from the government around what are the right methods that a whole host of services subject to this law will need to employ.
Some youth advocacy groups and academics warned that the ban could deprive the most vulnerable young people, including LGBTQIA and migrant teenagers, of access to support networks.
The Australian Human Rights Commission stated that the law may violate the rights of young people by preventing them from realizing their opportunity to participate in society.
At the same time, privacy advocates warned that the ban could lead to increased collection of personal data, clearing the path for digital identification-based state surveillance.
It is also worth noting that the law has been amended, according to which social networks must offer an alternative to making users upload identification documents.
As part of commenting on the ban, Sarah Hanson-Young, a senator for the left-leaning Greens, said that boomers are trying to explain to young people how the Internet should work so that they feel better.
Australian parent groups insisted on the need to intervene in the practice of minors interacting with the digital space formed by social networks. One of the arguments in explaining the relevant position was statements by US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who last year said that the mentioned virtual platforms worsened a youth mental health crisis to the point where it should carry a health warning.
Australian anti-bullying advocate Ali Halkic stated that putting an age limit and giving control back to the parents is a starting point. In this context, it was also noted separately that for children aged 10 to 15, the ban will be something that they will find difficult to cope with. At the same time, according to Ali Halkic, the law will not become a similar problem for younger children, since they are much less integrated into the virtual space of social networks.
Cyberbullying is indeed a problem, the existence of which contains no reason to doubt. In this context, the regulation of the process of minors’ interaction with social networks can be interpreted as a measure to protect their mental health. At the same time, radical solutions, such as a complete ban on access to virtual platforms of the mentioned category, also contain certain risks. Minors will continue to interact with the Internet space and it is possible that they may be involved in even more dangerous segments of the digital environment. At the same time, this does not mean that children should be deprived of any access to the virtual dimension of reality. In the era of global scaling of digital space, which is actually becoming a new form of the being, such measures resemble a dispute with reality without the possibility of winning.
It is also possible that the Australian ban will contribute to the formation of a more technologically literate generation. This probability is related to the fact that young people will strive to avoid various barriers to opportunities to interact with the digital environment. The realization of this aspiration will be a natural way to increase their digital literacy.
It is worth noting that young people do not deny the facts of bullying on social networks and perceive this phenomenon as a source of negative consequences, including tragic ones. At the same time, they are not supporters of prohibitions as methods of solving the mentioned problem.
It is also worth noting that in the context of ensuring the safety of minors in the virtual space, ensuring a balance between access to digital platforms and preventing cyber threats is an extremely difficult task. In this case, there is a combination of many factors that require a special approach. It is worth noting that the security process very often faces difficulties related to ethical aspects and compliance with the principles of freedom of action.
Daniel Angus, a professor of digital communication at the Queensland University of Technology, said the Australian law was illogical and uninformed. It was noted that in this case there are no important details about the implementation algorithm.
Daniel Angus also stated that the potential harm from social media cited by the Australian government is not sufficiently supported by high-quality research. Moreover, it was separately noted that children who are disadvantaged, live in rural areas, or are from minority groups rely on social media for community, education, and advocacy.
Daniel Angus stated that as part of the total ban, the government is overlooking the mentioned essential and diverse experiences, thereby exacerbating existing inequalities. He also noted that the exclusion of anonymous or web platforms such as 4chan from the ban paradoxically makes young people more vulnerable to some of the more harmful digital environments.
The Heads Up Alliance, a grassroots collective of Australian parents, supporting increased restrictive measures in the practice of children interacting with social media, said Thursday’s law is deficient and gives it a grade of D+. This group noted that the ban will have no impact on the fight against bullying in messaging apps, which also have highly addictive features. It has been overlined that the mentioned features are likely to end up resulting in the very downsides from which parents seek to protect their children. In this case, excessive fascination with gadgets is implied, which means a decrease in the amount of sleep, outdoor activities, physical activity, and real-life friendships. Also, children’s high-intensity immersion in the digital environment can impair their ability to concentrate.
The mentioned statements actually declare the thesis that the ban on interaction with social networks in no way has a critical impact on the overall ability of minors to immerse themselves in the digital space. The dangers that children may face as part of their activities in the virtual environment exist outside of social networks and the risks generated in this case continue to be valid. As it was above-mentioned, ensuring security in a digital space is a very difficult task, the solution of which involves the need to balance between sensitive issues. It is possible that in this case, the movement towards the goal does not at all provide for the possibility of achieving an ideal state of affairs that could resolve all problematic aspects. Perhaps this is the case when the ideal is impossible, but people need to strive for it, no matter what. At the same time, such arguments are assumptions and do not belong to the category of what can be described as a statement of objective reality.
Moreover, regulation as an activity from the point of view of its conceptual specificity at a fundamental level provides for a conflict of personal and general, public and private. Achieving security in an online environment is a large-scale goal, but the path to it involves the need for restrictions, which are likely to be some kind of barrier to a certain extent, including minimal, from the point of view of the idea of freedom of behavior in virtual space. At the same time, society identifies restrictions as unambiguously justified if the appropriate measures are designed to prevent the realization of risks that can generate extremely negative consequences that threaten health and life. Freedom of action without responsibility can cause big problems and even calamities. This issue belongs, among other things, to the category of philosophical problems. For example, the German philosopher Immanuel Kant argued that a reasonable person should act on the principle of a categorical imperative. In this case, it is implied that it is necessary to act in such a way that actions can become universal laws. Another German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, argued that true freedom is possible only within the framework of a legal and moral order, which presupposes the responsibility of the individual for actions before society.
