Australia wants to ban kids from social media. Will it work?

James describes a Snap affair that made him wonder about safety after describing how he felt “really scared to be honest.”

The Australian boy, 12, had had a disagreement with a friend, and one night before bed the boy added him to a group chat with two older teenagers.

Nearly instantly, his telephone” started blowing off” with a string of violent information.

According to James, “one of them sounded like he was likely 17.” ” He sent me videos of him with a machete… he was waving it about. Next, there were messages threatening to stab me and get me.

James, who is not named as he is, first became a Snap user when he was 10 years old when a student recommended that everyone in their companionship group get the app. But after telling his kids about his bullying experience, which was finally resolved by his class, James deleted his account.

His expertise is a cautionary tale that shows why the American government’s proposed social internet ban on children under 16 is important, says his family Emma, who is also using a pseudonym.

The legislation, which were tabled in parliament’s lower apartment on Thursday, have been billed by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as “world-leading”.

While some parents have praised the decision, some experts have questioned whether children should be prevented from using social advertising and what potential negative effects might be.

According to Albanese, the restrictions, which will apply to websites like X, TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram, is intended to shield children from “harms” of social media.

” This one is for the parents and fathers… They, like me, are worried tired about the health of our children online”, he said.

The innovative policy provides a “framework” for the ban. But the 17-page report, which is expected to mind to the Senate next month, is sparse on information.

Instead, the eSafety Commissioner, the country’s internet regulator, will decide how to implement and enforce the regulations, which wo n’t take effect for at least 12 months after the legislation is passed.

The act states that the ban will apply to all under-16s, and that existing users and those who have parental consent will not be exempt.

Tech companies will face penalties of up to A$ 50m ($ 32.5m, £25.7 ) if they do not comply, but there will be exemptions for platforms which are able to create “low-risk services” deemed suitable for kids. This level standards are still pending.

Messaging services and gaming sites, however, will not be restricted, which has prompted questions over how regulators will determine what is and is n’t a social media platform in a fast-moving landscape.

The ban was described as” a 20th Century response to 21st Century challenges,” according to a group representing the interests of Australian tech companies like Meta, Snapchat, and X.

Such legislation may force kids into “dangerous, illegal parts of the internet”, Digital Industry Group Inc says- a fear even expressed by some experts.

Given that “technology change often outweighs plan,” safety director Julie Inman Grant has acknowledged the enormous job her business will have to carry out in enforcing the restrictions.

” It will always be smooth, and this is why authorities like eSafety have to be nimble”, she told BBC Radio 5 Survive.

However, Ms. Inman Grant has also raised questions about the underlying theory behind the president’s plan, which is that social media is linked to declining mental health.

According to her own company study, which found that some of the most vulnerable organizations, such as LGBTQ or First Nations youth, “feel more self-assured online than they do in the real world,” she said,” the data center is not settled at all.”

Lucas Lane, 15, who sells nail polish to guys, shares this view. ” This]ban ] destroys … my friendships and the ability to make people feel seen”, the Perth teenager tells the BBC.

Ms. Inman Grant favors more funding for education tools to help younger people stay safe online as well as technical companies’ programs ‘ clean up. Instead of enforcing a ban on swimming in babies, she uses the metaphor of teaching them.

She told parliament earlier this year,” We do n’t fence the ocean, but we do create protected swimming environments that provide safeguards and teach crucial lessons from a young age.”

But families like Emma see it differently.

When tech companies always want kids to use these challenging methods, should we really been wasting our time trying to help them do so? she says.

Or if we start these discussions later on by allowing them to get kids and learning to be social outside of one another?

The Rush Mate activity, which encourages parents to delay giving their children smartphones, is led by mother-of-three Amy Friedlander, who agrees.

” We ca n’t ignore the advantages that technology has to us.” There are many benefits, but what we do n’t really consider is how it might affect those who are n’t prepared for it.

Over 100 Australian academics have criticised the ban as “too blunt an instrument” and argued that it goes against UN advice which calls on governments to ensure young people have “safe access” to digital environments.

A bipartisan political committee that has been looking into the effects of social media on children has also been unsuccessful in backing it. Otherwise, the committee recommended that software giant face tougher laws.

The government says it will eventually pass “digital duty of care” regulations, which will require tech companies to prioritize consumer safety in order to solve some of those concerns.

Joanne Orlando, a researcher in digital behaviour, argues that while a ban” could be part of a strategy, it absolutely ca n’t be the whole strategy”.

She believes that teaching children to thoroughly evaluate the information they see on their feeds and how they use social advertising should be the “most important piece of the puzzle.”

The government has already spent A$6m since 2022 to develop free “digital literacy tools” to try and do just that. However, research suggests that many young Australians aren’t receiving regular lessons.

Given the “enormous threats” that might accompany the potential to house every Australian’s identification documents online, Ms. Orlando and other professionals warn that there are also significant challenges in making the age-verification technology necessary to enforce the ban.

The government has stated that it intends to use age-verification methods to address that issue and expects to submit a report by the middle of next month. It has promised that privacy issues may be top of mind, but it provided much information about the technology that will truly get tested.

In its guidance, the eSafety Commissioner has floated the idea of using a third-party support to anonymise a person’s ID before it is passed on to any age verification places, to “preserve” their protection.

Yet, Ms Orlando remains wary. She tells the BBC,” I ca n’t think of any technology that can pull this off right now.”

Australia is not the first nation to attempt to restrict young people’s online access to particular websites or programs.

South Korea passed a” closure rules” in 2011 that forbids children under the age of 16 from accessing online games between 22:30 and 6:00, but the regulations, which faced opposition, were later dropped because they “require the respect of youths.”

France recently passed a law mandating parental consent before social media platforms to prevent exposure to minors under 15 years old. According to research, nearly half of users could bypass the ban with the aid of a straightforward VPN.

A regulation in the US condition of Utah- which was related to Australia’s- ran into a unique problem: it was blocked by a federal judge who found it illegal.

Albanese has conceded that Australia’s proposal may not be foolproof, and if it passes the parliament, it would be subject to a review.

” We are aware that technology is evolving quickly. No one government will be able to defend every child from every threat, but it must take all possible steps, he said in announcing the measure.

But for parents like Emma and Ms Friedlander – who have lobbied for the changes – it’s the message that the ban sends which matters most.

Parents have had to make the difficult choice between giving in to their child’s addiction or seeing them isolated and socially excluded, according to Ms. Friedlander.

” We’ve been ensnared in a culture of which no one wants to be a part.”

James claims that he has started spending more time with friends outside since quitting Snapchat.

And he hopes that more children like him wo n’t feel pressured to be online because of the new laws, which will make it easier for them to “get out and do the things they love.”