Australia’s Social Media Ban: A Band-Aid Approach
Australia’s social media ban has come into effect this week, preventing anyone under the age of 16 from holding an account or accessing specific platforms.
Australia’s social media ban is a world-first initiative spearheaded by the Albanese government in an effort to protect children from being exposed to inappropriate content and online harassment.
From Wednesday 10 December, under-16s have been prohibited from accessing social media platforms, with stringent age verification measures being implemented. Thus far, the ban will restrict under-16s from accessing Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X, and YouTube.
Up to one million Australian accounts on these platforms have already been removed, with more expected to be deleted in the coming days and weeks. Platforms are now legally obligated to uphold strict governance and monitoring to enforce the ban.
For most Aussie teenagers, it will be the first time in their lives they are disconnected from a constant feed of information and content.
Australia’s social media ban is landmark legislation with unknown implications and consequences.
The ban has drawn both vehement support and harsh criticism from within Australia and around the world. While some countries are considering following suit, others have outright rejected the prospect of imposing a social media ban.
In touting the ban, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese spoke extensively about the dangers young people are exposed to through social media, from harmful content and misinformation, to cyberbullying and sexual predators.
He recalled: “the sombre experience of meeting with mums and dads who have seen their child’s wellbeing crushed by the worst of social media, many living with the devastating pain of losing a child.
“We’re doing this for those parents – and for every parent. Because this law is about making it easier for you to have a conversation with your child about the risks and harms of engaging online.”
Detractors of the ban include Elon Musk, who said it: “seems like a backdoor way to control access to the internet by all Australians.” Other key criticisms of the ban argue it impedes young peoples’ right to information, and that it will effectively cut them off from mental health services in the online space.
Meanwhile, child health specialists are warning parents not to be complacent about the psychological impact being disconnected from social media will have on their children. Without the dopamine hit supplied by scrolling, liking, and sharing, some are likely to experience withdrawal symptoms similar to those of a narcotics user.
People have also questioned how the Australian government will now effectively communicate with younger generations about youth issues without social media, the primary way teenagers communicate these days. It was a question that stumped our high-flying Communications Minister Anika Wells at the National Press Club as she was further grilled about her lavish, taxpayer-funded travels amid the Optus outages.
The first few days of the social media ban have already brought mixed results.
Unsurprisingly, a tech-savvy generation raised, educated, and entertained by screens have found ways to circumvent the ban and remain online. Videos have popped up with kids bragging about still being online, using AI generated photos and credentials to bypass age verification systems.
It was naïve of the government to believe the social media ban would be foolproof, especially when kids are involved. Kids are programmed by adolescence to break rules, push boundaries, and question authority; tell them to do something and they’re guaranteed to do the opposite.
In the age of AI, where creating an essay or image is simple as entering a prompt, there is no doubt that technology would be used to get around the ban. And if you’re talking about trying to keep addicts from their fix, you’ve already lost. There is no law or war on drugs in history that has curbed substance abuse and addiction.
Take the plain packaging laws on tobacco products, for example, another Australian world-first. Introduced in 2012, the plain packaging laws were implemented to curb tobacco use and improve the health of Australians. Though Australian smoking rates have declined, the government is now battling a thriving black market for cheap, imported tobacco products and vapes.
Among the back and forth, there is a rose-tinted notion held by older generations that the social media ban will “reboot” childhood.
Like a golden reset switch that will turn time back to the pre-Internet days of our parents, grandparents, and so forth. As if barring them from a handful of social media platforms will suddenly launch a renaissance of kids playing outside and reconnecting with the real world.
They wallow in nostalgia about long lost summers riding bikes, climbing trees and staying out till dark, forgetting that the world they grew up in no longer exists. They also ignore the grim reality that the dangers lurking online were transplanted from the real world to begin with. Social media didn’t create schoolyard bullies or sexual predators; they were always there.
Additionally, parenting expectations have shifted immensely in the past 50 years. In the ‘70s and ‘80s, it was perfectly acceptable to not know where your children were until they came for dinner. In this day and age, that sort of behaviour warrants a visit from the department of social services. What was once considered good parenting would be considered negligent or even abusive by today’s standards.
In short, kids are no safer being let loose into the world than they are online. The difference lies in educating them to be aware and vigilant about the dangers of the world, whether its IRL or in cyberspace, and there’s plenty present in both.
Townsville Lime & Gypsum – 100% Organic, High % Calcium, Eco Friendly
The social media ban includes exemptions for multiple platforms, such as Roblox, a known hunting ground for online predators.
The fact Roblox is exempt from the ban flies in the face of trying to protect children from online predators. It is well-known that predators use the chat functions of children’s games like Roblox and Minecraft to contact and groom minors. There have been multiple cases of predators being caught in the act. Despite this, Roblox particularly has been more interested in protecting the privacy of their users than safeguarding children.
A recent case involved a creator named Schlep who tracked down several offenders and reported their nefarious deeds to Roblox admins. The response from Roblox was shocking, sending a cease and desist letter to Schlep claiming his actions violated the privacy of the offenders in question, rather than forwarding their details to authorities.
Exemptions are also in place for WhatsApp, Messenger, Discord, Google Classroom, YouTube Kids, Steam, GitHub, and Pinterest. Discord is another known platform for predators, allowing them to identify and contact minors with a high degree of anonymity.
The problem isn’t keeping kids away from predators, it’s keeping predators away from kids. Instead of banning kids from social media, it seems more prudent that anyone with a conviction for harming a child be prohibited from having a social media account.
In its initial rollout, Australia’s social media ban offers a shotgun approach to the complex issue of child safety in the ultra-modern age.
We can’t keep kids entirely safe online, just like we can’t keep them safe offline. But they do deserve better from the generations that came before them, the people who promised they could make the world a better place.
While Australia’s social media ban is, in principle, a laudable effort to protect children, it provides more a band-aid solution that largely ignores the core issue of education. We should be preparing them in mind and spirit to be vigilant, not ignorant, about the dangers of the world.
