• by Steven Rosenbaum , Featured Contributor, December 2, 2024

Australia has taken a bold step to protect its youngest citizens online, enacting a world-first law that bans social media platforms from allowing users under 16 years old. Passed with overwhelming support in both houses of Parliament, the legislation imposes fines of up to AUD 50 million ($33 million USD) on platforms like TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and X for systemic failures to enforce the age restriction. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese praised the move as a win for parents and children alike, declaring it a significant moment in holding tech platforms accountable for their role in safeguarding mental health and preventing online harm.

“Platforms now have a social responsibility to ensure the safety of our kids is a priority for them,” Albanese said, according to an AP story. The law, he emphasized, is not about punishing children who circumvent the rules but about sending a clear message to tech giants: Clean up your act.

However, while the legislation has been hailed as groundbreaking by some, it has also drawn significant criticism. In a Substack post, former Guardian technology editor and author of “Social Warming” Charles Arthur described the law as “well-intentioned but deeply flawed.” Arthur pointed out that similar age restriction policies in South Korea, such as the now-repealed Youth Protection Revision Act, were circumvented by tech-savvy teens who used identity theft and other methods to bypass the rules.

“Laws like these can inadvertently drive children to adopt workarounds, such as VPNs, fake profiles, or other tools, effectively encouraging them to become digital outlaws,” Arthur wrote. “The focus should be on making platforms genuinely safer for all users, not pushing kids to the fringes of the internet.”

Arthur isn’t alone in his concerns. Critics have warned that the law’s hasty passage -- described by Meta as “rushed” -- has left significant questions unanswered. Sunita Bose, managing director of Digital Industry Group Inc. an advocate for tech platforms in Australia, argued that the legislation lacks clarity. “The social media ban legislation has been released and passed within a week and, as a result, no one can confidently explain how it will work in practice,” she said.

Mental health advocates have also raised alarms about the potential unintended consequences of the ban. Senator David Shoebridge of the Greens party highlighted that for many young people, particularly those in rural areas or from marginalized communities, social media is a vital lifeline. “This policy will hurt vulnerable young people the most, especially in regional communities and especially the LGBTQI community, by cutting them off,” he told the Australian Senate, as quoted in an AP article.

On the other hand, parents and child safety advocates argue that bold actions are necessary to combat the escalating risks children face online. Sonya Ryan, founder and CEO of the Carly Ryan Foundation, has dedicated her life to protecting children from online predators after her 15-year-old daughter Carly was murdered by a 50-year-old man who posed as a teenage boy online. For Ryan, the Senate’s vote represents a monumental moment in child safety.

“This is too late for my daughter, Carly, and the many other children who have suffered terribly and those who have lost their lives in Australia,” Ryan told the New York Post. “But let us stand together on their behalf and embrace this together.”

For Ryan and others, the new law sends a clear signal that governments will no longer tolerate platforms shirking their responsibilities in favor of profit. “These companies have had years to act, and they haven’t. Now it’s time for governments to step in,” said Wayne Holdsworth, whose teenage son took his own life after falling victim to an online sextortion scam, according to an AP article. Holdsworth, who advocated for the age restriction, called the Australian Senate decision a source of immense pride.

The debate over the legislation reflects a broader global tension among parents, legislators, and the tech industry over who bears the ultimate responsibility for protecting children online. While exemptions in the law -- such as for educational platforms like Google Classroom and health services like Kids Helpline -- offer some flexibility, the lack of clarity about how platforms will verify ages without compromising user privacy remains a sticking point.

Julie Inman Grant, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, expressed confidence that tech companies will rise to the challenge. “They’ve got financial resources, technologies, and some of the best brainpower,” Grant told The New York Times. “If they can target you for advertising, they can use the same technology and know-how to identify and verify the age of a child.”

Still, critics like Arthur caution that the law risks doing more harm than good, potentially isolating children from their peers while leaving harmful content unaddressed. “This doesn’t put a duty of care on tech platforms to improve their content or algorithms,” Arthur wrot. “It just pushes the problem down the road.”

Yet for many parents, the risks of inaction are simply too great. As Dany Elachi, co-founder of the Heads Up Alliance, a network of parents advocating for delayed use of social media, put it, “When you think your child might be isolated, that’s what puts parents under a lot of pressure. If everybody misses out, no one misses out.”

This is the crux of the issue: a growing divide between those who see the legislation as a necessary first step in regulating an industry that has long operated without accountability and those who view it as a clumsy overreach that could backfire. For parents and teens struggling to navigate the fraught intersection of social media freedoms, age limits, and platforms that seem unwilling to prioritize safety, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

Ultimately, the message from Australia’s Parliament is clear: If platforms won’t act, governments will. For all its flaws, the law reflects a growing call to impose sweeping changes on how tech companies approach their duty of care to users. If this trend continues, the era of tech giants operating with impunity may soon come to an end.