It’s been a few days since the Australian under-16 social media ban was enacted, and the world is watching on, waiting to see the data on just how effective Australia’s approach will be, with many other regions also considering similar restrictions on young users.
So, what’s the word thus far?
Well, being in Australia, and being a parent of two teens who are directly impacted by the change, I can tell you that not much has changed.
Sure, some youngsters are being locked out of some accounts, but others have been unaffected, while they’ve also established workarounds and different approaches to keep in touch.
It hasn’t been a total blackout of young teens, as many had expected.
The Australian government has acknowledged this, noting that “there will still be kids with [social media] accounts on 10 December, and probably for some time after that”.
But over time, the government believes that the threat of heavy fines (up to $50 million) for violations will see platforms crack down on young teen usage, and stop under-16s from accessing most apps.
As per Australian Communications Minister Anika Wells:
“The government recognizes that age assurance may require several days or even weeks to complete fairly and accurately. However, if eSafety identifies systemic breaches of the law, the platforms will face fines.”
So it may be too early to expect any real impacts, but even so, the early mail is that the approach is probably not going to be as effective as initially hoped.
The main problem here is that social media is now such a significant element of modern-day connection that you can’t expect kids to not use it. The counterargument the Australian government has put forward on this is that kids also want to try alcohol, and making that illegal has had a huge impact. But social media is different, in that it does link kids to information, to entertainment, and the negatives, while also concerning, are also circumstantial, in that some users will find it highly valuable, and others will be impacted in negative ways.
Which is why a blanket ban likely isn’t the best approach, unlike alcohol, which has universal health impacts.
That’s part of the argument that Reddit’s using to challenge the Australian government’s under-16 social media ban in the High Court, while a couple of Australian teenagers themselves have also mounted their own High Court challenge, on the basis that the ban is unconstitutional, because it interferes with free political communication.
Both cases could raise compelling evidence that counters the government’s stance, given that there are conflicting reports on the impacts of social media use, and it’ll be interesting to see how the court rules on each.
But really, a better alternative, as pitched by many academics, and the platforms themselves, is more digital literacy education, which accepts the valuable role that social media now plays in modern life, and aims to ensure greater understanding of how to manage your time and experience, and avoid harm.
Because whether it’s when they’re 14 or 16, kids are going to be faced with the same issues at some stage.
The Australian government says that it’s also aware of a surge in downloads in alternative social media apps in response to the restrictions, and it’s monitoring the activity on these platforms for potential expanded action.
