How will the federal government's under-16s social media ban work? Here's what we know
But questions still remain around how the restrictions will work, and exactly which platforms will be affected.
Just this week, the federal government reversed plans to provide an exemption to video-sharing site YouTube, following a recommendation from eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant.
Here's what to know about the teen social media ban.
All children under the age of 16 in Australia.
The federal government says the ban is needed to protect the mental health and wellbeing of children and teens.
It says the risks of harm presented by social media, such as cyberbullying and exposure to harmful content, outweigh any positives of having accounts.
Australian children below the age of 16 will be unable to have social media accounts under the ban.
Social media companies will be required to take "reasonable steps" to ensure there are no workarounds.
If they don't enforce the ban, they could face fines of up to $50 million.
There won't be fines or penalties for young people or their families if they gain access to the platforms.
Communications Minister Anika Wells said platforms would be required to deactivate existing accounts owned by children.
We still don't know.
The law specifies that while social media companies can request users provide their government ID to verify their ages, it must not be a requirement to access the platform.
Instead, they need to offer "reasonable alternatives" for users to prove they are 16 or older.
There have been trials of age-checking technology, but the results aren't expected to be released until later this year.
Last month, a preliminary report from the organisation commissioned to lead the testing found options existed to verify the age of users privately, robustly and effectively.
But separately, questions have been raised over the viability of some of the technology tested, sowing doubt over whether the ban can be executed.
For example, face-scanning technology tested on school students this year could only guess their age within an 18-month range in 85 per cent of cases.
Ms Wells said the government was awaiting final recommendations out of those trials to provide more clarity on what the government considered "reasonable steps" companies should be taking to enforce the ban.
"There is technology and each platform works differently," she said, adding that companies should be working directly with Ms Inman Grant to establish verification methods.
"Reasonable steps is reasonable," she concluded.
Platforms will not be allowed to use any information provided to verify age for other purposes unless the user consents.
Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X and Reddit will be age-restricted.
Some messaging apps, such as Messenger Kids, WhatsApp and Google Classroom, won't be included in the ban.
A fact sheet published by the federal government in December last year said platforms would fall under the age restriction requirements if the platform:
The federal government did have plans to carve out an exemption for YouTube, but it has since changed its stance.
Ms Inman Grant wrote to Ms Wells formally recommending the platform be included in the ban.
She cited a survey of 2,600 children, which found nearly four in 10 had been exposed to harmful content on YouTube.
While YouTube will be included in the ban, it won't be inaccessible in the same way other social media platforms will be.
That's because an account is not needed to access most of the site's content, meaning children will still be able to view videos without logging in.
They won't be able to view age-restricted content, leave comments or upload their own videos, though.
Meanwhile, YouTube Kids will be exempt from the ban, because accounts on the platform cannot upload content or comment on videos.
It's due to take effect on December 10.
The government has said online video games won't be included in the ban.
Ms Wells said they "pose fewer social media harms to under-16s" compared to social media platforms.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
41 minutes ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.
The Age
41 minutes ago
- The Age
Don't let FOMO fool you: Selling Big Bash teams is a bad idea
Cricket Australia certainly has a challenge to grow revenue. Its commercial revenue – sponsorship, ticketing, hospitality etc – has been flat over the past five years, and its domestic media rights deal is essentially flat until 2031. Selling stakes in BBL teams will deliver an infusion of cash. The problem is that selling capital assets such as the BBL is a one-off. It sacrifices future revenue for a lump sum today. Since CA's costs won't reduce, it will still need that revenue in future years. The only way to do this is to invest the proceeds of sale into something that generates at least the same return as the BBL. Loading Effectively, this means the proceeds of sale need to be sequestered, put into the Future Fund and invested in other revenue-generating assets, most likely outside cricket. This might happen, or might not. As governments worldwide show, the temptation to spend tomorrow's money today can be overwhelming. Best to reduce costs, run at a surplus over the cycle, invest the proceeds wisely and host more World Cups. That brings us to the fear of missing out. The arguments for: Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? In particular, the England Cricket Board has sold stakes in the Hundred for seemingly good prices – especially the team based at Lord's. The IPL includes private owners, and is a success, so perhaps this is causation as well correlation? The IPL clubs are globalising and, if they end up contracting players to their franchises across the world on a 12-month basis, the BBL might miss out on having these players involved unless the IPL owners also own BBL teams. BBL clubs might not be able to afford players in demand from other privately owned leagues played in the same window. The core hope is that someone will overpay for the revenue streams CA would otherwise be receiving, or that they can generate more revenue or profit than CA and the states can. The core fear is we need to sell now or be left behind. It's possible a foreign owner can make more money from BBL clubs from overseas sources than CA can, but only if the BBL effectively becomes the Australian leg of a global T20 tour controlled by IPL owners and private equity firms. Think Sydney Knight Riders rather than Sydney Sixers. The question for CA is whether this will help it to grow the game in Australia more effectively than retaining full ownership and control. This seems unlikely. CA and the states are focused on growing Australian cricket and understand the participation and consumption markets better than anyone; foreign BBL owners are not, and won't ever, be focused on this. Nor is Boston Consulting Group. CA's flagship product, international cricket, also runs parallel to the BBL. CA has the ability to manage its schedule to maximise the audience for all formats. This will become far more challenging when private owners are solving only for BBL. And CA will not exercise the same degree of control over Indian billionaires as the Board of Control for Cricket in India does. The BCCI is in effect an arm of the Indian government; CA is not. The nub of the issue appears to be 'If we sell the BBL now we can get top dollar. If we don't, the IPL owners will compete with it and take the players'. This is already happening to a degree, with parallel tournaments over summer in South Africa and the Middle East. Is it therefore better to surrender, to take the money and run? The answer in my view is no. It is a mistake to think the BBL is popular because of specific players. Players come and go and always will. And the BBL makes stars as much as stars make the BBL. BBL is popular fundamentally because it is cricket, it is T20 and it is played in the perfect timeslot – every summer night. Its standing among global T20 leagues is largely irrelevant to Aussie fans. As, frankly, is the IPL. It is also a mistake to think the IPL is better-run. It simply operates in a far bigger market. Which brings us to cricket politics. The argument for: Key figures are in favour of it. The 'privatise' faction has existed in Australian cricket since at least 2011. However, its incentives must be carefully examined. If I am a leading player, player agent, or players' union, I want as much competition for players as possible – except when it comes to restrictions on overseas player slots in the BBL. More owners and more competitions are better. So privatisation is good. CA's incentives are the opposite. If I am associated with a potential investor or stand to make money from a transaction, I want privatisation. CA needs to discount these perspectives accordingly. Loading And if I am an executive or director who wants to be seen to 'do something', or 'leave a legacy', or just do something new, I might want privatisation. That requires a good hard look in the mirror. Administrators are only temporary custodians of the game. The real question for CA is what is best for Australian cricket fans, and the grassroots clubs and associations that ultimately own the game. Publicising the report would help us decide for ourselves. That is the right next step.
9 News
41 minutes ago
- 9 News
Pro-Palestine protesters barred from Melbourne bridge
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here Thousands of pro-Palestine protesters were met with a wall of police refusing to let them onto the King Street Bridge in Melbourne today. The tense showdown followed a peaceful march through the city. However, some pent-up frustration broke into anger, with riot police seen in the area. The group assembled outside the State Library at midday and wound its way through the heart of the city toward the King Street Bridge. (Asanka Ratnayake) A protester speaks to riot police as people march during a pro-Palestinian rally. (Getty) The group assembled outside the State Library at midday and wound its way through the heart of the city towards the King Street Bridge. Police had sealed it off before anyone got close. A lone counter-protester stood out in the crowd and was taken away in handcuffs. After 21 months of marching it was more than just a Sunday rally for the action group amid increasingly upsetting reports of starvation from Gaza. It was the 92nd gathering of this group and they say they will continue to March every Sunday until they're satisfied there's a ceasefire. As the main protest dissolved and moved back to the State Library, a smaller storm of troublemakers splintered off. The Australian flag was burned as paint hit the concrete As the main protest dissolved, and moved back to the state library a smaller storm of troublemakers splintered off. (Getty) The handful that stayed behind continued to stir chaos, planting themselves in traffic. Police said they feared the worst as they tried to control the crowd, which dwarfed the numbers organisers had expected. CONTACT US
