Social Media Platforms Challenge Australia’s Proposed Under 16 Ban

As Australia continues to progress towards a social media ban for all users under the age of 16, the major players are now pushing for more clarity about the bill’s intention, and the logic that’s gone into its formulation.

Last November, Australia’s Parliament pushed through a vote to implement a new law that will force all social media platforms to ban users under the age of 16. The bill, which was subject to limited response and external debate, includes various provisions, and will factor in pending requirements around age checking for the platforms, and how exactly they’ll be enforced.

In its second revision, which was passed by Parliament, the bill also saw YouTube exempted from the list of platforms that will be subject to the law.

Which Meta, TikTok and Snapchat are now saying is unfair, and illogical given the intention of the effort.

As reported by The Guardian, in a joint submission to the government, the three companies have called for more insight to explain YouTube’s removal from the law, which the government claims is based on YouTube’s value as an educational tool. The government has also said that YouTube is not a “core social media application.”

TikTok says that YouTube’s exemption is “irrational and indefensible”, and shows clear preferential treatment for the Google-owned app.

As per TikTok:

“An exclusivity agreement like this will hand one platform unfettered access to every teenager in Australia, and provide one platform with an unchecked competitive advantage in the market. A sweetheart deal for just one platform won’t help the government protect kids online; it will only hurt young Australians in the long run.”

Snapchat has also criticized the perceived preferential treatment given to YouTube, while Meta claims that YouTube’s removal “makes a mockery of the government’s stated intention” with the law.

Indeed, various experts have also questioned YouTube’s exemption, considering that research has shown that YouTube can be just as harmful as any other online app, in regards to exposure to concerning elements. Add to this the fact that Shorts, which essentially replicates TikTok, is now a much bigger element of the YouTube experience, and you can see why the other platforms are calling foul, and suggesting that YouTube should be included in any restriction.

Though the broader debate, of course, is whether a ban on younger users is even necessary, and if it will end up having the desired effect.

Academics are divided on the harms caused by social apps, versus the connective benefits, as well as any proposed limits and their impacts.

The Australian legislation, in fact, was based on research which itself has largely been debunked or dismissed by many academics, while various groups have raised questions as to how it will actually function, and whether it will even be workable in practice.

For its part, the Australian government has yet to reveal its preferred mechanism for age checks, for which it will base enforcement of the law upon. Without that, implementing legal penalties seems largely impossible, but with Apple recently announcing new, more nuanced age thresholds at the app store level, it does seem like there will be some options on this front.

There’s a lot to go yet, with Australia also set to hold elections in the coming months. That could have some impact on the trajectory of the bill, but right now, it does seem like the nation will eventually become the test case for an under 16 social media ban. And that YouTube will also be included in the proposal.