The Australian government wants to ban children up to age 16 from social media and is spending millions of dollars to figure out how. I am willing to wager it will not take long for technology-savvy teenagers who grew up on Instagram, TikTok and YouTube to figure out how to log back on.
The promised regulation, currently sparse on details, comes at a time when policymakers and parents around the globe are grappling with the negative consequences these platforms can have on developing minds. This global debate has raged for years, reaching a fever pitch in 2021 after former Facebook employee Frances Haugen leaked documents showing the company was aware its products were harmful to girls’ mental health. Years later, US lawmakers are still sputtering on federal regulation to keep the powerful technology companies accountable for harms to young users.
Australia is taking matters into its own hands. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised to introduce new laws that set age limits this year, saying that the government was considering a range between 14 and 16 for the cutoff. In a video posted on social media for “the mums and dads,” Albanese said he wants children “off their devices and onto the footy field.”
Illustration: Mountain People
Surveys indicate most Australians support a social media age limit, and the idea has broad political support, but even Albanese acknowledges that the government is still trying to figure out how this would actually work. The government does not identify what social media platforms the youth ban would apply to. Can children message their parents on WhatsApp? Or watch Khan Academy’s algebra tutorials on YouTube?
It also does not offer specifics on enforcement (Big Brother-esque digital IDs further criminalizing children, this time for opening TikTok), and in the absence of substantive policies, it is hard not to see this as a soundbite proposal to signal concern to voting parents on a popular issue ahead of an election year — without actually accomplishing anything to keep children safe.
Thousands of miles away from Silicon Valley, Australia has been leading the charge in efforts to rein in the dominance of the big technology companies. Separate proposed legislation aimed at cracking down on digital misinformation has even drawn ire from Elon Musk, who last week labeled the government “fascists” after the government sued Musk’s X over a violent video of a terrorist attack, but lost in court.
The nation has also been engaged in a years-long battle to force technology titans to pay for news content. At a time when other jurisdictions have struggled with taking on such powerful companies, Australia’s multifaceted attacks are admirable, but research has shown that age limits for social media are not the most effective way to protect teenagers from its potential harms. Young people have shown remarkable prowess for finding workarounds — even those under the age of 13 whom most platforms already prohibit.
The American Psychological Association has argued that using social media is not inherently beneficial or harmful to teenagers, but strict age limits ignore individual differences in adolescents’ maturity levels. In other words, turning 16 does not instantly make you more competent at navigating the digital world than a mature 14-year-old.
The process of enforcing broad age verification online raises a slew of privacy concerns, ranging from how identifying information about young users could be stored to cutting off their ability to freely browse the Internet while maintaining digital anonymity.
Completely shutting off access to digital communities can also sever lifelines for some young people, especially those from marginalized groups. TikTok, in particular, has emerged as a popular platform for indigenous Australians, allowing them a space where they share everything from budget-friendly recipes to relatable responses to racism. Indigenous young people in remote areas who might not see their stories reflected in traditional media can feel less isolated.
LGBTQ+ advocates in Australia have raised similar concerns about a potential loss of connections for vulnerable gay teenagers if the ban takes effect. More broadly, technology researchers warn that excluding young people from social media platforms would just drive them to darker, even less regulated corners of the Web.
Still, a growing body of evidence points to a minefield of harms young people can encounter, as much as company executives like to deflect any links. It is absolutely critical that lawmakers take action to protect children from these risks, but selling quick fixes for complex, global problems distracts from the harder policy work required to come up with effective real-world solutions.
Simply banning young people from participating in digital life comes a generation too late. The reality is teenagers today are very much growing up online, a trend accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. So much so that the UN has said that children have the right to get information from the Internet, but adults have a responsibility to make sure it is nit harmful.
Policymakers need to focus on holding social media companies accountable for the harms, especially for young users, embedded within their services. They can start by demanding that platforms offer more transparency about how their algorithms work and allowing more outside researchers to look under the hood to identify risks. Without sharing data on how their services are designed, it is hard for mental health experts and officials to recommend solutions that address the dangers. Lawmakers must also focus on requiring social media companies, which go to great lengths to understand their users, to create and enforce more guardrails for young people.
Without putting the onus on technology companies to reduce risks on their platforms, raising the age limit by a couple of years does not keep the next generation safe. Instead of bucketing out floodwater, policymakers in Australia and beyond should turn off the spewing faucets.
Catherine Thorbecke is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asian technology. Previously she was a technology reporter at CNN and ABC News. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS