Age restrictions: Australia's social-media law set to be a case study

Last week, Australia approved the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill, 2024, to prevent children under 16 from using social media such as Facebook, Instagram, Tik-Tok, and Snapchat. Australian lawmakers were triggered into passing this measure by the recent suicides of two 12-year-olds who had been bullied online. This is the first such legislation in a liberal democracy, though many platforms voluntarily prevent children under 13 from accessing their platforms and ask for parental permission before signing up underage users. The Bill imposes fines of $32 million if a platform fails to prevent access by under-16 users and it gives the platforms a year to set up age-verification measures. This is tricky, and may turn out to be a Catch-22 since age-verification involves the use of the sensitive personal data of minors, which may in itself result in a breach of existing privacy laws.

 

The new law is also contentious for other reasons. For one, while bullying and anxiety caused by social-media harassment are well-documented issues (affecting not only underage users), there are conflicting opinions about the holistic effects of social-media usage. Some developmental psychologists claim in data-driven, peer-reviewed studies that social media can have positive impacts. For children in isolated places, or with unusual interests, it can be a window to a larger world, and can create a sense of belonging to a community. There are instances of youngsters with abusive families reaching out and finding support on social media, to offset the many instances of online harassment.

 

There is also the practical issue that banning an all-pervasive medium doesn’t make it go away. Close to a third of global internet users are underage; all use some form of social media. Crucially, most use social media as a critical adjunct of school work and conduct educational research on it. YouTube and other platforms with educational content have not been banned. Messaging apps (such as WhatsApp) and online gaming platforms are also exempted. But, for example, Tik-Tok, which has been banned, hosts the world’s most influential book clubs, and Instagram, which too is banned, is the world’s go-to medium for showcasing architecture and art. Some Australian youngsters have argued that they will, one way or another, continue to use social media, in defiance of the law.

 

The platforms are upset. The ban impacts a large chunk of their user base, and young people are among the most engaged users. As mentioned above, there will be serious practical problems in implementing the ban. In practice, a ban may be unenforceable. It is easy for a teenager to impersonate an adult, or use a virtual private network to set up accounts outside the geographical reach of Australian law, or simply set up a fake account in the name of an adult. There are clearly two sides to this debate. Social-media platforms have, according to whistleblowers, developed addictive algorithms to increase engagement and have tended to ignore or suppress evidence that they can have harmful impacts. On the other hand, social media can, according to academics, also have significant positive impacts. A blanket ban, particularly one that is very likely unenforceable, may not be the best way to mitigate possible harm. Once the Australian law is implemented, the outcomes will be worth watching for India, which has a large and young user base of social media.