Almost one year on from the start of Australia’s landmark social media ban, it is clear that the law has failed to stop most children from accessing the platforms. Meanwhile, teenagers are hoping to overturn the policy through a challenge at the nation’s highest court. He was a plaintiff in the case, but withdrew due to the risk of costs being awarded against his family.
Now, the constitutional challenge is being led by advocacy group the Digital Freedom Project, alongside Reddit, which – like other social media behemoths – fears that Australia’s social media ban will be replicated elsewhere around the world. The primary argument before the court this week has been that the ban limits the freedom of political communication for under-16s. In spite of this challenge and widespread concerns about implementing and enforcing a social media ban for children, numerous nations, including the UK, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brazil and a number of EU members, say they, too, will follow suit.
From the moment the policy was announced, many experts warned that it would be unworkable and could have negative outcomes, and that the real target of any policy should be the platforms, their algorithms and what they allow online. The biggest failure of the policy highlighted by researchers is that most children have been able to keep their profiles. One study by Courtney Barnes at the University of Newcastle in Australia and her colleagues, who surveyed more than 400 under-16s prior to the ban and then again three months after it, found that 85 per cent were still using prohibited platforms.
Such research and similar findings from Australia’s eSafety commissioner forced the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, to announce in June a doubling of the fines for social media companies from AUS$49.5 million to AUS$99 million ($35 million to $69 million) if breaches were identified. He also introduced a raft of new powers for the eSafety commissioner to compel companies to provide information about what they were doing to get kids off their sites. At that time, Albanese said countries around the world were following Australia’s lead on social media reform, but that social media companies weren’t doing enough to exclude children.
Yet, nearly half a year later, and in spite of widespread evidence that the laws have had little effect on teens’ social media use, not a single fine has so far been issued. Most kids I know have more social media accounts than last year because new platforms popped up and we tried them out.” Iain Corby at the Age Verification Providers Association in London says up to 80 per cent of children have kept their accounts, with half saying they were never challenged and over a third retaining access “thanks to the false ages they originally used to create the account”. He says the UK’s communications watchdog, Ofcom, has been much clearer about the requirement for highly effective age assurance when the UK brings in its restrictions next spring, and that ministers are “alive to the need for robust legislation that pre-empts loopholes”.
She says this is pushing them to far less safe platforms. Catherine Page Jeffery at the University of Sydney says her children have been able to retain their social media accounts and a “tentative conclusion” can be drawn that not that much has changed for Australian teens. She says there is no point doubling the penalty for social media firm breaches if the government isn’t going to enforce the law.
Extract — continue reading at the source.
