YouTube to be captured by social media ban
The videostreaming giant was initially set to be exempt, with the Albanese government arguing it could be educational.
But the online safety watchdog has since advised YouTube should be included, warning it causes the most harm to kids.
'Our government is making it clear – we stand on the side of families,' Anthony Albanese said in a joint statement with Communications Minister Anika Wells.
'Social media has a social responsibility and there is no doubt that Australian kids are being negatively impacted by online platforms so I'm calling time on it.
'Social media is doing social harm to our children, and I want Australian parents to know that we have their backs.'
Echoing the Prime Minister, Ms Wells said it would give 'kids a reprieve from the persuasive and pervasive pull of social media while giving parents peace of mind'.
'We want kids to know who they are before platforms assume who they are,' she said.
'There is no one perfect solution when it comes to keeping young Australians safer online – but the social media minimum age will make a significantly positive difference to their wellbeing.
'The rules are not a set and forget, they are a set and support.'
Last month, the brains tasked with finding a way to enforce the ban said it is possible but that there is no 'silver bullet' and firms would need to use a range of measures.
One option, according to the project's chief, is successive validation – a series of tests designed to firm up a user's age.
With the advice saying enforcement is possible, Ms Wells noted in the joint statement that there are 'heavy penalties for companies who fail to take reasonable steps to prevent underage account holders onto their services'.
Those penalties include a fine of up to $49.5m.
'There's a place for social media, but there's not a place for predatory algorithms targeting children,' Ms Wells said.
The decision to include YouTube in the ban comes after eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant warned kids were using YouTube more than any other social media platform.
'It's almost ubiquitous that kids are on social media,' she said last month, speaking to the ABC.
'By far the most prevalent social media site they're on is YouTube.
'And when we asked where they were experiencing harm and the kinds of harms they were experiencing, the most prevalent place where young Australians experienced harm was on YouTube – almost 37 per cent.
'This ranges from misogynistic content to hateful material, to violent fighting videos, online challenges, disordered eating, suicidal ideation.'
The decision to include YouTube in the ban comes after eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant warned kids were using YouTube more than any other social media platform.
'It's almost ubiquitous that kids are on social media,' she said last month, speaking to the ABC.
'By far the most prevalent social media site they're on is YouTube.
'And when we asked where they were experiencing harm and the kinds of harms they were experiencing, the most prevalent place where young Australians experienced harm was on YouTube – almost 37 per cent.
'This ranges from misogynistic content to hateful material, to violent fighting videos, online challenges, disordered eating, suicidal ideation.'
The Coalition also called for YouTube's inclusion, with opposition communications spokeswoman Melissa McIntosh saying it is 'a logical thing to do'.
The social media ban is set to come into force in December.
While other countries have mulled similar actions, Australia is the first to make the leap, receiving both praise and criticism.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
2 minutes ago
- The Advertiser
This proposal could improve productivity and incentive to invest. You can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger it
The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort. The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort. The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort. The Australian political system is about to be stress-tested. The test will not be on some visceral, emotionally charged issue. Rather it will come with a complex and prosaic matter that usually does not excite much attention: company tax. The test will come with how the system responds to last week's Productivity Commission report which recommends a change to company tax that so far has only excited accountants and policy nerds. The trouble is that the government has got to stay the course and get the measure through the Senate. The way the numbers are, it means it must get the backing of the Greens, or the Coalition, or all of the other crossbench senators. The recommendation is not for a cut to company taxes, despite some media characterising it that way. It is revenue-neutral. Rather, it is a change in the way companies are taxed. The proposal is not just an Australian first, but a world first. It is to be the first step in moving from taxing company profits to taxing company cash flow. It is fairly complicated, but bear with me. At present, companies can only deduct depreciation on their investment at the rate of about 20 per cent a year, so their profits and the tax on them are going to remain fairly high, especially in the year or two after making the investment. It is a major disincentive to invest. If the government changes to a cash-flow system, however, the whole investment cost is taken off taxable profits, or taken out of the taxable cash flow, from the day the investment is made. Further, if that caused the company to make a loss, the loss can be carried forward to future years and would be adjusted upwards each year by the government bond rate. Ultimately, the investment will result in a more profitable company paying more tax. At present, the disincentive means many investments are not made. It has resulted in stagnant productivity in Australia in the past decade or so. We should look at company investment not just as shareholders and managers trying to make money, but also as empowering the employees of the company who would be retrained and who would be more valuable and whose work would be more profitable. For the past 30 years or so, governments have allowed companies to bring in too much cheap labour, much of it semi-skilled or even unskilled. Like the tax system, that acts as a disincentive to invest in capital to make existing labour more productive. It has made living standards lower than what they could be. Further, the existing system favours established companies. This is because new players have to stump up a lot of investment up front and then start paying tax on notional, paper profits before they have made any actual money. Under the cash-flow system, they do not have to pay any tax until they make real money after the investment money has been recouped. And if the investment goes bad, the investors do not have the added burden of having paid tax on notional, paper profits. With a cash-flow tax, new players would be more likely to enter the market. It would increase competition and reduce prices. Australia's economy is one of the least competitive in the OECD. We have far too many monopolies and market sectors dominated by just a few players. The tax system is one reason for this. Politically, the change has some difficulties. If it is seen just as a company tax, the Greens and at least some of the crossbench will be against it. True, the Productivity Commission is recommending a five-percentage-point cut in the tax on company profits. But it is adding a new five-percentage-point tax on cash flow. Nonetheless, you can bet a simplistic slogan will endanger the proposal. The other danger is from existing business groups, especially big business. You would think that business would support the reform, especially as the Productivity Commission is also proposing measures to reduce the regulatory burden on business. But watch. Business, egged on by the Coalition, will be against this because they are far less interested in improving the overall state of the Australian economy than retaining their cosy monopoly positions in it. So, do not be fooled. If anything, this proposal is too modest. It would shift only about a fifth of the company tax burden from profits to cash flow, giving time for companies to adjust and to work out if there are any unintended consequences. Further, the Productivity Commission noted: "Australia's dividend imputation system makes the relationship between retained earnings and investment weaker than it is in other countries. That's because dividend imputation and franking credits will lead some shareholders to place higher value on receiving dividends than on firms reinvesting their profits." At the very least, an overhaul of the company-tax system should include the removal of franking credits being paid in cash to "taxpayers" who pay little or no tax. Certainly, franking credits should not be extended in any new company cash-flow tax. The task is not so much articulating what should be done about our defective tax system and low productivity, but rather it is about exposing the selfish, destructive behaviour of existing players, which is dressed up as national interest. The most recent example of that was the bizarre statement from Nationals Senator Barnaby Joyce that we should replace renewables with coal-fired power stations. If the productivity debate sinks to that level in the Senate, there is little hope for constructive reform, and the Productivity Commission will have wasted its time and effort.
The Age
32 minutes ago
- The Age
ASX set to jump as Wall Street rallies; Retailer surges as Trump backs Sydney Sweeney ad
US stocks are rallying and recovering much of their sharp losses from last week, when worries about how President Donald Trump's tariffs may be punishing the economy sent a shudder through Wall Street. The S&P 500 jumped 1.3 per cent in afternoon trading to claw back more than two thirds of Friday's drop. The Dow Jones was up 493 points, or 1.1 per cent, in mid-afternoon trade, and the Nasdaq composite was 1.8 per cent higher. The Australian sharemarket is set to bounce higher, with futures pointing to a rise of 83 points, or 0.9 per cent, at the open. The ASX closed flat on Monday. Idexx Laboratories helped lead the way on Wall Street and soared 26 per cent after the seller of veterinary instruments and other health care products reported a stronger profit for the spring than analysts expected. It also raised its forecast for profit over the full year. Tyson Foods likewise delivered a bigger-than-expected profit for the latest quarter, and the company behind the Jimmy Dean and Hillshire Farms brands climbed 3.2 per cent. They helped offset a 3.5 per cent drop for Berkshire Hathaway after Warren Buffett's company reported a drop in profit for its second quarter from a year earlier. The weakening was due in part to the falling value of its investment in Kraft Heinz. The pressure is on US companies to deliver bigger profits after their stock prices shot to record after record recently. The jump in stock prices from a low point in April raised criticism that the broad market had become too expensive. Loading Stocks just sank to their worst week since May not so much on that criticism but on worries that Trump's tariffs may be hitting the US economy following a longer wait than some economists had expected. Job growth slowed sharply last month, and the unemployment rate worsened to 4.2 per cent. Trump reacted to the disappointing jobs numbers by firing the person in charge of compiling them. He also continued his criticism of the Federal Reserve, which could lower interest rates in order to shoot adrenaline into the economy. The Fed has instead been keeping rates on pause this year, in part because lower rates can send inflation higher, and Trump's tariffs may be set to increase prices for US households.
Sydney Morning Herald
32 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
ASX set to jump as Wall Street rallies; Retailer surges as Trump backs Sydney Sweeney ad
US stocks are rallying and recovering much of their sharp losses from last week, when worries about how President Donald Trump's tariffs may be punishing the economy sent a shudder through Wall Street. The S&P 500 jumped 1.3 per cent in afternoon trading to claw back more than two thirds of Friday's drop. The Dow Jones was up 493 points, or 1.1 per cent, in mid-afternoon trade, and the Nasdaq composite was 1.8 per cent higher. The Australian sharemarket is set to bounce higher, with futures pointing to a rise of 83 points, or 0.9 per cent, at the open. The ASX closed flat on Monday. Idexx Laboratories helped lead the way on Wall Street and soared 26 per cent after the seller of veterinary instruments and other health care products reported a stronger profit for the spring than analysts expected. It also raised its forecast for profit over the full year. Tyson Foods likewise delivered a bigger-than-expected profit for the latest quarter, and the company behind the Jimmy Dean and Hillshire Farms brands climbed 3.2 per cent. They helped offset a 3.5 per cent drop for Berkshire Hathaway after Warren Buffett's company reported a drop in profit for its second quarter from a year earlier. The weakening was due in part to the falling value of its investment in Kraft Heinz. The pressure is on US companies to deliver bigger profits after their stock prices shot to record after record recently. The jump in stock prices from a low point in April raised criticism that the broad market had become too expensive. Loading Stocks just sank to their worst week since May not so much on that criticism but on worries that Trump's tariffs may be hitting the US economy following a longer wait than some economists had expected. Job growth slowed sharply last month, and the unemployment rate worsened to 4.2 per cent. Trump reacted to the disappointing jobs numbers by firing the person in charge of compiling them. He also continued his criticism of the Federal Reserve, which could lower interest rates in order to shoot adrenaline into the economy. The Fed has instead been keeping rates on pause this year, in part because lower rates can send inflation higher, and Trump's tariffs may be set to increase prices for US households.
