In September, the Australian government announced that it would not allow anyone under 16 years of age to have social media accounts. This ruling has sparked public outcry and lawsuits by two 15-year-olds and a civil rights organization. The controversial and legally-challenged measure went into enforcement on December 10. It creates an obligation on major social media platforms, including Meta, TikTok and YouTube, to prevent young Australians from making accounts. This decision has raised fears about free communication. It has raised some serious concerns about the best way to go about achieving online safety.
Noah Jones and Macy Newland, the two teenagers challenging the ban in court, implore the government to reconsider their stance. Rather than placing a widespread ban, they call for improved education surrounding online harms and increased safety measures. They argue that these strategies would be more productive than an outright ban.
Noah Jones articulated his concerns by stating, “We shouldn’t be using the resources and money of these social media platforms to try to avoid fines from our government.” He particularly stressed that even though he absolutely recognizes the problem of toxic content online, banning all under-16s is not the answer.
Macy Newland from the Tennessee Conservation Voters sounded the same alarms and called for a new direction. “They should be using this money and resources to try to get rid of the predators and harmful content out there,” she said. Additionally, she expressed her belief that “democracy doesn’t start at 16 as this law says it will.”
The Australian government is still standing its ground. Communications Minister Anika Wells has reiterated that the government would not be deterred by the legal challenges still being pursued. “We will not be intimidated by threats. We will not be intimidated by legal challenges. We will not be intimidated by big tech. On behalf of Australian parents, we will stand firm,” she declared.
This strong level of public support is reflected in polls showing that three-quarters of Australian adults support the ban. They view it as an important step to safeguard young users from evolving online harms. Now, tech companies are coming together to help implement and enforce this new law. They run into challenges that make us scratch our heads about how functional these strictures truly are.
The civil liberties organization representing Jones and Newland argues that the ban violates the right to free speech and interaction. They want to see social media companies and the government collaborate. Rather than restricting access based on age, they have to develop best practices to ensure that online spaces are safer and more secure for all users.
We appreciate that the case is still developing in the nation’s highest court. It shines a spotlight on the longstanding conversation around digital rights, safety, and the responsibilities that both governments and technology companies have to safeguard young people from dangers online.