‘Create more risk, not less': Expert's warning after YouTube added to social media ban

News.com.au

3 days ago

'Rushed, vague and politically motivated.'
That's how one expert has described the federal government's decision to include YouTube in its controversial under-16s social media ban, warning it could cause 'more risk, not less' to young Australians.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed on Wednesday the government had reversed an earlier decision to exclude the platform from its world-leading restrictions under the banner of educational material, on the advice of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant.
Research conducted by Dr Inman Grant's office found that of 2600 children, 4 in 10 reported exposure to 'misogynistic or hateful material, dangerous online challenges, violent fight videos, and content promoting eating disorders'.
From December, children will be barred from creating their own YouTube accounts – but will still be able to access the site in either a logged-out state or through a parent or other adult's account.
The video-sharing giant, which is owned by Google, has since threatened the government with a High Court challenge, arguing it is 'not a social media service' and 'offers benefit to younger Australians' – a move Swinburne University media expert Dr Belinda Barnet labelled 'a last-ditch attempt to get out of the regulation'.
'I hope the government does not back down,' Dr Barnet added.
'YouTube absolutely is a social media platform like the others – it is not a special case. It also represents equivalent risk of harm as the others.'
Other experts news.com.au spoke to in the wake of the government's announcement, however, were less inclined to agree.
Director of Queensland University of Technology's (QUT) Digital Media Research Centre and Professor of Digital Communication, Daniel Angus, said the restrictions on access to YouTube in a logged-in state – rather than to the site as a whole – could actually achieve the opposite of what the government ban is intended to, 'alienating young users rather than meaningfully protecting them'.
'Logged-in access alAlows for personalised experiences, safety controls like restricted mode, and content curation through subscriptions and algorithmic recommendations,' Professor Angus said.
'Ironically, removing that logged-in functionality for under-16s may increase their exposure to harmful content by stripping away those safety features and pushing them into unmoderated, anonymous browsing – a shift that could create more risk, not less.
'This remains to be seen, but it underscores how poorly thought-through these proposals are.
'The main concern with YouTube is that the algorithms that recommend new videos to users are opaque, and we know that YouTube's recommendation system has served content that is sexually-explicit and otherwise distressing to young viewers,' University of Sydney lecturer in Media and Communications, Dr Catherine Page Jeffrey, said.
'Yet including (it) in the ban will not necessarily preclude this.'
Dr Page Jeffrey, who said she disagreed with both YouTube's inclusion in the ban and 'the legislation more broadly', stressed the 'important role' the platform plays in the digital lives of teenagers for education, entertainment, information and community.
'Young people have a right to engagement in the digital world, and (to) simply live out parts of their lives online,' she added.
'Sure, there are risks – but the approach to mitigating these risks should not be excluding young people (from these platforms) altogether.'
Failure to differentiate the specific risks posed by each platform and instead lump them 'under a generic 'social media' label is a fundamental flaw in the government's approach', Prof Angus said.
'YouTube's … user dynamics differ significantly from, say, Snapchat or TikTok,' he continued.
'There are certainly harmful elements … but these require nuanced and holistic responses, not blunt bans. Targeted moderation, transparency of algorithms and platform processes, and digital literacy education are more effective and proportional strategies.'
Though the ban will 'hopefully (act as a) wakeup call' to social media platforms on what – and how – they algorithmically push users, Deakin University Senior Lecturer in Communications Dr Luke Heemsbergen said it won't be enough to 'stop teenagers from finding things they want to online'.
'Unfortunately, it is also already setting new precedents around policing and surveilling online spaces that break rights and privacy in new ways – ironically offering more power to the big platforms in how we get to live and connect.'
At a press conference on Wednesday, Communications Minister Anika Wells – who ultimately made the decision to include YouTube in the legislation – said that parents helping their children navigate the internet 'is like trying to teach (them) to swim in the open ocean with the rips and the sharks, compared to at the local council pool'.
'We can't control the ocean, but we can police the sharks – and that is why we will not be intimidated by legal threats (from Google) when this is a genuine fight for the wellbeing of Australian kids,' Ms Wells said.
Invoking the Minister's analogy, Dr Heemsbergen said it was 'pretty hard to tell if YouTube's 'currents' of content are any worse than other services – so I'd rather teach my kids to swim and what to do when they hit a rip, than try to ban them from this beach or that beach'.
'We – as a society – can do a lot to clean the beach up, for sure, but the water is always going to be there, and it remains our responsibility to make sure our kids understand and act accordingly,' he said.
It's 'unlikely' the ban will be effective, Prof Angus said, pointing to 'international experience that shows children can – and do – find ways to circumvent age verification systems'.
After the UK introduced its own mandatory age verification systems on porn sites, Reddit and X last week, virtual private network (VPN) use skyrocketed. Research conducted by Prof Angus' own team has also indicated tools like facial age estimation 'are unreliable, biased, and potentially discriminatory, especially against already marginalised groups'.
What's needed, he said, 'is a shift in thinking away from trying to protect children from the internet, and toward protecting children within the internet': building age-appropriate digital spaces, enhancing media literacy, ensuring access to comprehensive sex and relationship education, and involving them in the design of the policies that affect them.
'Policies like this one, rushed, vague, and politically motivated, risk doing more harm than good,' Prof Angus said.