logo
YouTube should not be exempt from Australia's under-16s social media ban, eSafety commissioner says

YouTube should not be exempt from Australia's under-16s social media ban, eSafety commissioner says

The Guardian4 hours ago

YouTube should be included in the ban on under-16s accessing social media, the nation's online safety chief has said as she urges the Albanese government to rethink its decision to carve out the video sharing platform from new rules which apply to apps such as TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram.
The eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, also recommended the government update its under-16s social media ban to specifically address features like stories, streaks and AI chatbots which can disproportionately pose risk to young people.
Sign up for Guardian Australia's breaking news email
The under-16s ban will come into effect in December 2025, despite questions over how designated online platforms would verify users' ages, and the government's own age assurance trial reporting last week that current technology is not 'guaranteed to be effective' and face-scanning tools have given incorrect results.
Although then communications minister Michelle Rowland initially indicated YouTube would be part of the ban legislated in December 2024, the regulations specifically exempted the Google-owned video site. Guardian Australia revealed YouTube's global chief executive personally lobbied Rowland for an exemption shortly before she announced the carve out.
But in new advice to the communications minister, Anika Wells, Inman Grant warned that large online platforms were weakening their policies designed to reduce harm, and said YouTube should be included in the social media ban.
'Given the known risks of harm on Youtube, the similarity of its functionality to other online services, and without sufficient evidence demonstrating that Youtube predominately provides beneficial experiences for children under 16, providing a specific carve out for Youtube appears to be inconsistent with the purpose of the Act,' Inman Grant wrote in advice to Wells.
YouTube was exempted from the rules after Rowland said it was among online services that helped young people access 'education and health support they need' – a deal strongly opposed by other leading social platforms, which called it an 'irrational' and 'shortsighted' decision.
In her advice to Wells, Inman Grant said an exemption was 'not consistent with the purpose of the [social media minimum age] obligation to reduce the risk of harm'.
Wells announced last week she had asked Inman Grant for advice on the rules around the under-16s ban. Inman Grant's advice was released by Wells' office ahead of a speech by the eSafety commissioner to the National Press Club on Tuesday.
Inman Grant said exempting any particular service could create issues around enforcement, noting 'rapidly evolving' technology was leading to a 'shifting risk profile' of certain platforms, and that naming any specific platform could quickly become outdated. She said YouTube features – such as infinite scroll, auto-play and algorithmically recommended feeds – which are also present on TikTok and Instagram, were among those meant to be captured by the social media ban.
According to advance speech extracts released by the eSafety Commission, Inman Grant will raise concern about YouTube in her press club speech, referencing a survey of 2,600 children aged 10 to 15 conducted by her office.
'Alarmingly, around 7 in 10 kids said they had encountered harmful content, including exposure to misogynistic or hateful material, dangerous online challenges, violent fight videos, and content promoting disordered eating,' Inman Grant will say.
Sign up to Breaking News Australia
Get the most important news as it breaks
after newsletter promotion
'Children told us that 75% of this harmful content was most recently encountered on social media. YouTube was the most frequently cited platform in our research, with almost 4 in 10 children reporting exposure to harmful content there.'
'This also comes as the New York Times reported earlier this month that YouTube surreptitiously rolled back its content moderation processes to keep more harmful content on its platform, even when the content violates the company's own policies.'
Inman Grant will also voice alarm at 'platform after platform winding back their trust and safety teams and weakening policies designed to minimise harm, making these platforms ever-more perilous for our children'.
Inman Grant's advice also recommended the government's rules be significantly amended to better address the harms they set out to curb, including editing the wording of the ban as well as specifically listing the design features – such as endless content feeds, notifications, stories and streaks – which can disproportionately affect children.
Meta, TikTok and Snapchat were unhappy with the original decision to exempt YouTube from the legislation.
'It is illogical to restrict two platforms while exempting the third,' TikTok's director of public policy in Australia and New Zealand, Ella Woods-Joyce, wrote in a submission to a government consultation on the ban.
'It would be akin to banning the sale of soft drinks to minors but exempting Coca-Cola.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Man who made 'burn hotels' comment in Rotherham has case quashed
Man who made 'burn hotels' comment in Rotherham has case quashed

BBC News

time3 hours ago

  • BBC News

Man who made 'burn hotels' comment in Rotherham has case quashed

A man who was due to be sentenced over a social media post saying "burn any hotels" used by asylum seekers has been released from prison after a mistake by Haythorne, 26, pleaded guilty to publishing material intended to stir up racial hatred after writing on X just as violence erupted outside the Holiday Inn Express, in Manvers, Rotherham on 4 Sheffield Crown Court heard the Crown Prosecution Service had not sought the necessary permission from the Attorney General to bring the charge due to an "oversight".After his original conviction was quashed by Judge Jeremy Richardson KC, Mr Haythorne was told he must appear at Sheffield Magistrates' Court on Wednesday for "the whole process to start again". Mr Haythorne, from Ashford, in Surrey, had spent the weekend in custody having admitted the offence at a hearing on earlier, Judge Richardson told the hearing any court proceedings up to now were "a nullity"."I am sorry about this," he said. "I am not best pleased, you have been detained, worse still, you were expecting to be sentenced tomorrow and I can't sentence you tomorrow."If on Wednesday consent has been obtained, the proceedings will be starting all over again." Prosecutor Laura Marshall told the court on Friday Mr Haythorne's post was sent from an anonymised account and viewed by 1,100 people before he deleted also included a link to a post, which has now been deleted, by the "perhaps divisive figure" activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, also known as Tommy said the defendant's full post read: "Go on Rotherham. Burn any hotels [with asylum seekers]."Ms Marshall said his case had some similarities with the case of Lucy Connolly, who was jailed last year for 31 months after she posted on X: "Mass deportation now, set fire to all the … hotels full of the ... for all I care ... if that makes me racist so be it."Bianca Brasoveanu, who was defending Mr Haythorne, said he posted the comment in a "momentary lapse of judgment which he regrets every day".During the anti-immigration demonstrations outside the hotel last August, more than 60 officers were injured after hundreds of people went after police and the hotel with missiles.A bin against a fire door of the hotel was also set on fire and people then broke into the hotel, which had 240 asylum seekers inside, as well as more than 20 staff. Listen to highlights from South Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, catch up with the latest episode of Look North or tell us a story you think we should be covering here.

WhatsApp has made a subtle change that has left users FURIOUS - as one vents it's 'hurting my eyes'
WhatsApp has made a subtle change that has left users FURIOUS - as one vents it's 'hurting my eyes'

Daily Mail​

time3 hours ago

  • Daily Mail​

WhatsApp has made a subtle change that has left users FURIOUS - as one vents it's 'hurting my eyes'

It's the everyday messaging app used by millions of people around the world. But WhatsApp has made a subtle change that has left users furious. The popular encrypted messaging service has launched an updated user interface for its web browser version. The update includes an all-black look and redesigned tabs for switching between different chats. This brings the web version much closer to the mobile app most users would be familiar with. However, some have been outraged by the new look for the iconic messaging service. Flocking to social media to share their complaints, one user vented that the redesign was 'hurting my eyes'. While another added: 'What the f*** is the new WhatsApp web look.' This update is entirely cosmetic and doesn't introduce any new features or change the way that messaging works. Upon opening the updated website for the first time, users are presented with a message which reads: 'Starting today, we're introducing a brand new design for WhatsApp Web. 'You'll notice that some things look completely different but everything works the same as before.' The most obvious difference is that the website's blue-grey background has been changed to a much darker colour, closer to that of the mobile app. The column of tabs on the left-hand side of the website no longer has lines to separate different chats and only highlights the currently open tab with a green outline. Additionally, a new 'Communities' icon has been added to the toolbar running along the far left of the screen. Although the changes are subtle, some fans have been upset to see the differences in their favourite messaging service. On X, formerly Twitter, one commenter raged: Another company ruining their apps. The new look is STRAIGHT UP BAD.' Compared to the old design (pictured), the new look is closer to the current aesthetics of the mobile app A commenter complained that the new WhatsApp look was 'STRAIGHT UP BAD' Another user suggested they were not convinced by the new darker look for WhatsApp Web 'New WhatsApp web look, OMG!', exclaimed another. While one commenter chimed in: 'Not sure I like the look of WhatsApp Web.' But not every WhatsApp user was unhappy to see the old design go as some fans took to social media to share their enthusiasm. One commenter wrote: 'I love this new WhatsApp web look and feel.' 'The new WhatsApp we ui is soooo beautiful,' another wrote. Another added: 'WhatsApp web UI updated almost a decade!!! Now it's clean and smooth.' However, the new update does not include many of the features that WhatsApp Web still lacks from the mobile version. Unlike the app, WhatsApp Web cannot upload status updates or change chat backgrounds. Another user said that they 'love' the new design But this is not the first time that a WhatsApp update has frustrated the service's users. Last month, WhatsApp's vast user base threatened to delete the app altogether after a particularly controversial change. The Meta-owned app said that it would start to introduce adverts for the first time. WhatsApp said adverts will be rolled out to all its users 'slowly over the next several months', regardless of what country they're in. However, the announcement caused an outpouring of rage as users branded the move Meta's 'dumbest idea ever'. One furious commenter wrote on X: 'WhatsApp is bringing ads. Its time to get back to Nokia 3310.' BEST WHATSAPP ALTERNATIVES If you're considering deleting WhatsApp, you'll be happy to hear that there are several alternative apps to choose from: 1. Telegram With more than 400 million users, Telegram is one of the most popular WhatsApp alternatives. While it looks very similar to WhatsApp, what sets it apart is the fact that it gives the option to set messages to self-destruct after a given period of time, leaving no trace. Telegram also offers end-to-end encryption. However, as a WhatsApp spokesperson pointed out, Telegram 'does not offer end-to-end encryption by default so it's not necessarily more secure than WhatsApp'. 2. Signal Signal is one of the most secure messaging apps, thanks to the fact that it is open-source. This means that the code for the app is publicly available to view, making it near-impossible for the app's creators to sneak in any backdoors that could allow governments or hackers to spy on your messages. 3. iMessage If you use an iPhone, you may consider simply switching to iMessage, Apple's own messaging app. The app has a number of impressive features included no character limits, the ability to send pictures and videos, and of course Apple's animated emoji feature, Animoji. Unfortunately, iMessage is only available for iPhone users, so you'll struggle to interact with anyone using an Android. 4. Google Messages Google's answer to iMessage is Google Messages, an Android-only messaging service. The app replaces your standard SMS app, and integrates with all of Google's apps and services, making it easy to share images or use Google Assistant. 5. Facebook Messenger If you were put off using WhatsApp due to its sharing of data with Facebook, Facebook Messenger may not be the best option for you.

Get involved: Send in your questions about staying safe online
Get involved: Send in your questions about staying safe online

BBC News

time4 hours ago

  • BBC News

Get involved: Send in your questions about staying safe online

Do you have questions about how to stay safe online? Companies have until 25 July to apply new safety measures laid out by Ofcom - the regulator that oversees TV, radio and the internet in the UK. It comes after the Online Safety Act was introduced, making online and social media companies legally responsible for keeping children and young people safe will be speaking to the government about the new regulations and we want to ask them YOUR questions. What do you want to know about online safety? Is there anything you want to know or ask the government about the new safety measure? Let us know in the comments below. What is the Online Safety Act 2023? The Online Safety Act is a new set of laws which aims to protect children and adults from illegal and harmful content online. The new guidelines mean tech companies will have to make changes to the technology they use that recommends content to young people, and introduce better age checks by 25 July 2025 or they could face big says its new rules include more than 40 guidelines that tech firms must follow, including:Algorithms - tech which offers content users may like - must be changed to filter out harmful content from children's age checks for people accessing age-restricted quick action when harmful content is terms of service easy for children to children the option to decline group chats invitations which may include harmful content, and to block and mute accounts and to disable comments on their own support to children who come across harmful a "named person accountable for children's safety" at the organisation.A yearly review of possible risks to children.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store