Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s Labor government made good on his September 10 threat to make Australia the first country to legislatively enforce a minimum age for social media access. In November, the communications minister Michelle Rowland introduced the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 to the House of Representatives in Canberra. Rowland stated that

for too many young Australians, social media can be harmful. Almost two-thirds of 14 to 17-years-old Australians have viewed extremely harmful content online including drug abuse, suicide or self-harm as well as violent material. One quarter have been exposed to content promoting unsafe eating habits.

Further, Rowland claimed that the bill “is about protecting young people, not punishing or isolating them, and letting parents know that we’re in their corner when it comes to supporting their children’s health and wellbeing.”

Parlaiment is expected to vote on the legislation by the end of November, to make good on Albanese’s promise of a bill by the end of the year, leaving little time for further consultation. It will take effect “at least” 12 months after it is passed in Parliament. And as with all legislation, the devil is in the details.

Under the new law, it would be illegal for Australians under 16 to have a social media account. There would be no grandfathering of existing social media-account holders age 14 and 15 (already allowed by Facebook to have accounts) when the legislation took effect. They would be required to give up their accounts and any social interactions associated with them. Owners of the newly-restricted platforms whose sole or significant purpose is to enable users to post material online and interact socially with other users would be required to take “reasonable steps” to prevent people under 16 from having a user account. Fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars (USD 33 million) could be imposed for systemic failures to prevent young children from having accounts.  

The focus on account ownership rather than actual engagement on the platform specifically targets the likes of Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, and X. However, the bill does not apply to messaging services such as WhatsApp, and specifically excludes online gaming platforms and services with the “primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users,” for example, Google Classroom. However, it does not stop children under 16 viewing online content on Facebook (just not having an account) or on sites like YouTube, which do not require accounts in the first place.  

Rowland justified the exclusions by arguing,  

We are not saying risks don’t exist on messaging apps or online gaming. While users can still be exposed to harmful content by other users, they do not face the same algorithmic curation of content and psychological manipulation to encourage near-endless engagement.

Yet I know from experience that a bunch of catty teenage girls in a WhatsApp group can engage in really meaningful cyber-bullying, inflicting catastrophic mental harm on their pubescent victim. Moreover, it is most certainly the case that online gaming platforms and even YouTube use targeting algorithms based on the end users’ characteristics, adapting game settings, plots, and the like to keep young players interested. That’s not to mention algorithms that play on gamers’ proclivity to purchase specific sorts of merchandise, tokens, and optional events with either points or cash both within and between sessions as a means of maintaining attraction.  And as long ago as 2011, Korean politicians were sufficiently exercised about the addictive effects of online gaming to impose bans on those under 16 playing between midnight and dawn, for the sake of their physical and mental health.

The legislation appears part of Australia’s long-standing and high-profile battle to exert some form of legislative control over media platforms, thereby appealing to voters rather than, as Rowland stated, to keep young people “safe” from the mental effects of “extremely harmful content online.”

There is an Australian federal election next year. For those campaigning, a crude law put in place soon may be better than delaying to get a better piece of legislation that takes account of concerns that have emerged. For example, 140 academic experts found that “the ‘ban’ is too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively” through to the Australian Human Rights Commission, concerned about “the potential for these laws to significantly interfere with the rights of children and young people.”

Australia risks legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. Unfortunately, politicians are the least likely to be harmed by the process.

Learn more: Political and Regulatory Boundaries in Telecommunications | Does Privacy Regulation Compromise the Public Good? | Making Australia the Safest Place on Earth to Date? | Disconnecting Australian Children from Social Media