Australia Has Banned Children From Social Media – Is This Really Workable?

It’s been threatened many times by various governments around the world but last month, in Australia, it finally happened: children under 16 have been banned from social media.

Or, rather, to put it more accurately: social media companies have been banned from allowing children onto their platforms. Because if there are breaches it’s not the offending children who will be punished but the tech companies hosting them.

The legislation was heralded by Aussie Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as urgently needed to protect young people from the “harms” of social media.

And the new law will mean Australia has the tightest restrictions of any democracy in the world on children’s use of platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter/X, Snapchat, Reddit and the rest.

There will now be a 12-month hiatus while everyone works out what happens next.

And that’s the really interesting part – what happens now. It’s also something which the whole world will be watching. Because other countries are likely to be emboldened if the Aussie experiment is deemed to have gone well – and in those circumstances whatever they enact could provide a template for more of the same globally.

But irrespective of where you stand on how viable it is to police something like this – and there are a lot of issues, which I shall get on to  – I have to say I think the Aussies have been quite shrewd initially.

And this is down to one simple decision: they have put the onus on the social media platforms themselves to police this rather than trying to take on the task themselves.  And the reason this is a smart move is that tech firms are, generally speaking, pretty good at tech. Whereas governments and civil servants tend to be quite bad at it.

The new law threatens non-compliant tech firms with fines of up to A$50m – or $32.5 in US dollars, £25.7min in UK sterling. But, crucially, it doesn’t prescribe how they are to go about complying.

Or not yet anyway. There are suggestions that when the new law does come into effect it could be with some mandatory rules around methodology – that there may be a requirement to see account holders’ personal identification or for age checks via biometric data.

Of course the tech firms affected weren’t exactly thrilled at this being dumped in their laps.

Typical was Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram as well as relative newcomer Threads.

In a statement Meta’s Aussie operation said: “We are concerned that the government is rushing this legislation without adequate consultation or evidence and there are still many unknowns with respect to its implementation.”

More outspoken, unsurprisingly given his recent antics around Donald Trump, was Elon Musk. He claimed, on the Twitter/X platform that he now owns, that the legislation seems “like a backdoor way to control access to the Internet by all Australians.” Again, we shall see.

As well as deciding on how age verification will be done the Aussies also need to look at how to stop the steps they impose being bypassed. Because critics have already pointed out that restrictions may be possible to circumvent with tools like a VPN – which can disguise a user’s location to make them appear to be logging on from another country where no checks are needed.

Regular readers will know where we at TMT ID stand on the question of the most efficacious age verification approach: we believe the optimal way is to screen the device the signup application is made from rather than the person making it. All but an infinitesimal number of mobile phone users can be assessed in microseconds via both live and historic telco data to ascertain whether they are over or under a certain age – in this case, 16. Whereas trying to assess the person, usually via uploaded supporting documentation, is both cumbersome and much more open to fraud. And no one is better at coming up with ways to confound crude checks like these – and then widely sharing them – than tech-savvy teenagers with time on their hands.

Despite this fact, governments implementing age verification checks often remain stubbornly keen on seeing physical IDs, however. It seems more credible to them, even if it often isn’t.

Biometric avenues are more promising – typically using tech to assess a user’s age via their face – as it’s a field that’s improving all the time, though it needs to ensure it keeps ahead of the growth of deepfake fraud.

And then there’s the growth field of reusable identity –  technologies which issue, verify, and manage digital identities that can be used repeatedly across multiple platforms and uses, almost like a currency.

Recent developments in the UK provide an interesting contrast. For their sensitive content verification requirements, the UK government has outlined specific compliance standards for age verification. Approved methods include biometric age estimation, age assurance via mobile network APIs, and digital IDs, while traditional methods like physical ID uploads are being phased out due to concerns over data security and fraud vulnerabilities. This shift signals a move towards more tech-driven solutions, which could influence Australia’s eventual implementation.

But will often tech-averse governments buy into less traditional solutions? We shall watch with interest to see what happens next down under.

One final observation though on the complexities here: even if they do manage to successfully negotiate all this and make this legislation broadly work there remain other issues that could affect how the policy is ultimately judged.

Academics and charities have warned that the ban could actually drive children to seek out even worse content – on the notorious dark web. Or it could leave them feeling isolated with devastating effects on the mental health of a generation.

This is high-stakes stuff and the way it plays out could have consequences that affect all of us.