Experts warn Anthony Albanese’s plan to ban children under 16 from social media will ‘backfire’

Anthony Albanese’s social media ban for children under 16 is a “band-aid solution that will backfire” and only a “speck in the galaxy” of what needs to be done to keep kids safe online, experts have warned.

Under the landmark announcement on Thursday, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, X, and even YouTube will have to take “reasonable steps” to ensure young users are not on their platforms — even if they have parental permission.

The social media companies would face penalties if they do not comply.

How the companies would actually enforce the mandated age limit is not yet clear, but the Government did not rule out the potential for all users to be subject to biometric facial scanning, or for the platforms to verify users’ ages using Government databases.

The tech companies would have autonomy over their own age verification processes, but Mr Albanese pledged privacy protections would be put in place around any information collected.

Mr Albanese said the decision to set an age limit of 16 had come after speaking with scores of parents who were “worried sick about the safety of our kids online”.

He said was “calling time” on the harms social media was doing to young people, but acknowledged this wouldn’t “fix everything”.

“We don’t argue that the changes that we will be legislating will fix everything immediately, we have laws such as people can’t buy alcohol, and from time to time that can be broken, but those laws set what the parameters are for our society, and they assist in ensuring the right outcomes,” he said.

But some experts, such as Queensland University of Technology’s digital media research centre director Daniel Angus, do not support the plan, describing it as a response to “moral panic” and will not be effective.

Mr Angus said teens will find ways to circumnavigate the rules and will become more vulnerable to online harms — and would feel as though they cannot ask for help because they are now engaging in illegal activity.

“It’s a band-aid solution that will backfire,” he said. “What we will find, is youth will want to remain connected so they will engage in an act that will put them more at risk,” he said.

Mr Angus added children will also be forced to hand over sensitive data to the very companies accused of not doing enough to keep kids safe.

He said no definition had been given as to what was considered social media — and pointed out social media was used to communicate with, and educate youth, for example warning against vaping. “It’s plainly misguided and misses the trick,” he said.

Australian National University School of Law Associate Professor Faith Gordon said more young people would be marginalised once the ban comes into effect.

“There needs to be a focus on supporting and empowering children, families, their guardians, carers, and those in their lives,” Dr Gordon said.

“What is the Government going to put in place on these issues if we’re going to take young people off the platforms in which they access their information, about health, identity and legal issues?”

University of WA Law School Associate Professor Marilyn Bromberg, an expert in social media, said she supported the plan but said it was a “speck in the galaxy” and there was “still so much more that needs to happen.

“It’s easy to think this might solve so many problems . . . but it won’t, there’s still so much more that needs to happen,” she said.

“We need social media algorithms to be transparent, we need to allow people to be able to reset their algorithms easily and on demand.”

According to the latest data from the e-Safety Commission, teens use an average of four different social media services, with YouTube the most popular, followed by Instagram, Facebook and Snapchat.

Under Labor’s plan, there will be no “grandfathering arrangements”, meaning underage users who already have social media accounts will not be able to retain them.

Mr Albanese will take his proposal to a virtual national cabinet meeting on Friday, where he’s expected to stress the need for a uniform approach.

The Government will then introduce legislation later this month, with the Coalition saying they want the laws to be passed this year.

There would then be a 12-month implementation period, which would allow time for the yet-to-begin trial of age assurance technologies to run to inform what steps the platforms would take.

Officials told Senate estimates earlier this week they are close to firming up which company will run the trial.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said social media companies, as well as experts, parents, youth organisations, advocacy groups, State and Territory leaders, and academics, had been consulted on the plan.

“What our approach does is hopes to achieve a balance between minimising those harms that are caused by young people accessing social media, while still enabling connection and inclusion,” she said. “The normative value that this will provide to parents is immense.”

Some social media companies already have age limits of 14, but advocates have been pushing for the age to be raised to 16.

In the face of likely reluctance of companies, especially X, to abide by the rules, the Government and Coalition have both laid down the gauntlet.

Ms Rowland said, “every company that operates in Australia, whether domiciled here or otherwise, is expected and must comply with Australian law — or face consequences”.

Coalition communications spokesman David Coleman said if social media companies “don’t want to follow the law of Australia, then they shouldn’t be in Australia”.

“The Parliament has the right to legislate for Australian law... If you want to market your products to Australians, you follow the law of Australia. It’s not optional,” he said.

He said the legislation would also need to be watertight, saying he didn’t want to see any loopholes that would allow social media companies to seek exemption

“We do not think that with a tweak here or a change there you can make TikTok safe for kids — that applies to products like Instagram and Snapchat as well,” he said.

“If there is wiggle room, the tech companies will take it.”

Meta’s global head of safety Antigone Davis said the company “respect” the Government’s proposed age limits but said the issue was one parents deserved a say over.

“What’s missing is a deeper discussion about how we implement protections, otherwise we risk making ourselves feel better, like we have taken action, but teens and parents will not find themselves in a better place,” she said.

“The research shows parents want to be involved in their teens’ online lives and want to have a say in determining what’s appropriate for their individual teens.

“We strongly believe parental approval and age verification at the operating system and app store level will provide a simple and effective solution, while also reducing the burden and privacy risk for parents and teens.”

DiGi, representing the digital industry, called for proper consultation on the proposed ban which they said was a “20th century response to a 21st century challenge”.

“Rather than blocking access through bans, we need to take a balanced approach to create age-appropriate spaces, build digital literacy, and protect young people from online harm,” managing director Sunita Bose said.