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.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS