TikTok and Meta Gear Up for Possible Social Media Ban in Australia -

Australia’s controversial new law forbidding individuals under 16 from accessing social media represents one of the toughest crackdowns on platforms like Facebook and TikTok, as governments around the world strive to protect children from harmful content.

The sweeping ban, enacted late Thursday, introduces some of the strictest internet usage regulations outside of China and other authoritarian regimes, potentially inspiring similar measures in other countries. From Florida and Texas to France and the UK, officials have either begun or are considering raising age limits for social media usage or enhancing content oversight.

Central to this discussion are the disturbing aspects of social media that lead to tragic outcomes. A recent case involved a 16-year-old boy whose social media feed was saturated with videos portraying despair and death, resulting in his tragic decision to take his life by stepping in front of a train in Bayport, New York. Similarly, a 15-year-old Australian girl ended her life by hanging after experiencing years of online bullying.

While the ban in Australia is widely supported—77% approval according to a YouGov poll—it has sparked considerable backlash from major tech companies. Significant industry players like Meta Platforms Inc. contend that the regulations are flawed or ineffective, while X, led by Elon Musk, has raised questions about the legal standing of the ban, possibly setting the stage for a legal challenge. Scholars express concerns regarding the unintended effects of such a blanket prohibition.

The new legislation, to be enforced over the next year, places the onus on digital platforms like Snapchat, Instagram, and X to uphold the age restrictions, with penalties reaching up to A$50 million ($32 million) for noncompliance. However, it is unclear how these platforms will verify ages, as the government has dismissed the use of official documents like passports due to privacy concerns. Children who bypass these verification methods will not face penalties, nor will their parents.

This law may also disrupt the business models of some of the world’s most valuable companies, facing mounting global scrutiny regarding issues related to their services, including exacerbating mental health issues, online scams, poor academic performance, and grooming. Effectively implementing the ban would cut off access to a vital demographic—millions of teenagers that advertisers fiercely target and aim to engage at a young age.

In a statement, Meta expressed its intention to comply with the law but voiced concerns about the swift development of the legislation, which neglected to account for evidence, existing industry measures for age-appropriate experiences, and the views of young people.

Anthony Albanese Photographer: Rohan Thomson/Bloomberg

The World Health Organization (WHO) issued a grave warning in September after studying social media usage among nearly 280,000 school-aged children across 44 countries, making it one of the most extensive studies on this topic. The WHO cautioned that problematic social media habits could have enduring effects on adolescent development and overall health.

The Geneva-based organization called for “immediate and sustained action.”

This week’s proactive stance from Australia, which imposes age restrictions regardless of parental consent, sets a new standard.

“We want Australian children to enjoy their childhood,” stated Prime Minister Anthony Albanese during the introduction of the legislation last week. Typically, social media platforms require users to be at least 13 years old.

Read More: Australia’s Social Media Ban for Under 16s to Become Law

However, the straightforward approach of Australia’s solution has exposed the complexity of the issue at hand.

YouTube, categorized by the Australian government as a health- and education-oriented platform, is excluded from the ban, despite the frequently toxic nature of its comment sections. Online gaming and messaging services, such as WhatsApp and Discord, are also not subject to the ban, even though they can likewise serve as platforms for bullying and grooming.

Lisa Given, a professor of information sciences at RMIT University in Melbourne, points out one significant flaw of the ban is that it fails to tackle the creation of harmful content. She argues that platform owners should concentrate on deactivating problematic algorithms that bombard social media users with harmful content. Additionally, she advocates for increased investments in digital literacy for both children and their parents.

“This legislation is fundamentally misguided,” she stated. “It represents a simplistic fix for a deeply intricate problem. And why choose 16? It seems arbitrary.”

Nearly all major social media companies, including TikTok, X, and Meta (the parent company of Facebook and Instagram), expressed their concerns about the new law during a swift Senate inquiry held prior to the bill’s passage.

TikTok, owned by China’s ByteDance Ltd., characterized the legislation as “hastily constructed” and “unfeasible,” citing “unresolved issues and concerns.”

Snap Inc., the parent company of Snapchat, indicated that previous international initiatives for comprehensive mandatory age verification had not succeeded. X, which was known as Twitter before Musk’s acquisition, raised “serious concerns regarding the legality of the bill.”

Unicef, the UN agency focused on children, warned that Australia’s ban might push young users toward more dangerous, unregulated areas of the internet. The law likewise poses risks to children’s rights and could hinder their access to vital information necessary for their welfare, as per Unicef.

“Rather than banning children, we should hold social media companies accountable for creating age-appropriate, safe, and supportive online environments,” stated Katie Maskiell, head of child rights policy and advocacy at Unicef Australia, in her submission to parliament.

Elected officials worldwide face a challenging dilemma. Many parents feel overwhelmed and frustrated, seeking to decrease their children’s screen time. Their calls for government intervention are intensified by heartrending incidents of youth suicides linked to social media bullying or sextortion. Nevertheless, addressing the serious risks of social media presents complications that do not diminish its benefits.

“It is nearly impossible to be a teenager in most parts of the world without social media,” remarked Stephen Scheeler, the former head of Facebook in Australia and New Zealand, in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “Managing that access from the perspectives of parents or the government is far from straightforward.”

Various other nations and US states have attempted to restrict children’s access to social media, but with limited success.

A Florida bill that limits social media accounts for children under 14 has faced legal challenges, along with initiatives in states like Arkansas and Ohio that would mandate parental consent for minors to use social media.

Norway is considering implementing a minimum social media age of 15, given data indicating that many children under 13, the current threshold, continue to access popular platforms, according to recent reports by the Guardian and others.

Even if Australia’s ban proves challenging or impossible to enforce, other countries are likely to adopt similar measures as concerns regarding social media’s impact on children grow, according to Simon Kemp, founder of Kepios Pte., a Singapore-based digital consulting firm specializing in online behavior analysis.

“I would be very surprised if we don’t see more of this,” Kemp noted.

France is renewing its efforts to keep those under 15 off social media, as reported by Politico this week. French Education Minister Anne Genetet, who is also a trained medical doctor, told Politico during a meeting of EU education and youth ministers that the EU should follow Australia’s example.

The UK’s Secretary of State for Science and Technology, Peter Kyle, has contacted the Australian government to better understand the rationale behind its ban. Kyle has indicated that he is not rejecting the idea of a future ban, but emphasizes that any actions must be evidence-driven.

Follow Moneyweb’s comprehensive finance and business news on WhatsApp here.