Australia's social media ban is attracting global praise – but we're no closer to knowing how it would work
The smash hit Netflix show Adolescence, which explores a teenage murder fuelled by social media and toxic masculinity, has renewed calls for social media bans in some countries. One of the show's stars this week said the UK should follow Australia's lead in banning children aged under 16 from social media platforms.
The ban has been praised in the US and UK, and is described as 'world-leading' by the Australian government. Time magazine this week praised the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, for a 'remarkable' policy that was 'politically uncontroversial' on the basis that both major parties supported it.
Left unsaid was all the criticism raised by mental health groups, LGBTQ+ groups and other campaigners during the rushed process to pass the bill in parliament last year. The committee reviewing the bill only reviewed the legislation for a single day, despite over 15,000 submissions being received.
Author Jonathan Haidt, who reportedly lobbied politicians in Australia to push the policy before it was adopted and privately dismissed critics of his approach, told the New York Times this week that 'it's going to work. It doesn't have to be perfect at first, but within a few years it will be very good'. If it worked in Australia, it was going to go global 'very quickly', he said.
But nine months out from the policy coming into effect, Australians are still in the dark about how our ban – which was passed by the parliament in November 2024 – will work. And that's likely to remain the case up to the federal election on 3 May.
A trial of age assurance technology is under way, with schoolchildren still being recruited to participate just weeks before the first report is due.
The under-16s social media ban is due to come into effect in December, but the government faces a number of hurdles before then, including figuring out what tech to use, and whether the platforms – emboldened by the apparent backing of Donald Trump – will comply.
The Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS), a UK-based company recruited by the Albanese government to conduct an assessment of the technology used to determine whether people are the age they say they are when accessing social media, is due to provide a preliminary report to the government by the end of April.
Sign up for the Afternoon Update: Election 2025 email newsletter
While the report is said to be on track to be delivered this month, Guardian Australia has confirmed this preliminary report will not be released publicly by the company. A spokesperson for the communications department said the report was never intended for public release and is designed 'to afford procedural fairness to trial participants' on any changes that need to be made.
The final report is due just two months after the preliminary report in June, before the communications minister – whoever it will be after the federal election – will get to decide which platforms it applies to, and what technology is appropriate.
ACCS has begun recruitment of school-age children to test out the various technologies, but there is an education and consent process still under way.
From there, schoolchildren will test out age estimation (where tech estimates how old a user is), assurance (where a parent or guardian confirms an age) and verification (using some sort of identity document verification) technologies.
The children will act as 'mystery shoppers' and attempt to access a purpose-built online platform through the various age assurance methods, documents released by ACCS state.
This process leaves just weeks to get the trials conducted, analysed, and a final report prepared for government.
The ban is not a major focus of the federal election campaign – it had bipartisan support, after the Coalition pushed for it for months until the Labor government relented.
However, there are still major concerns over how the ban will work, and who is included. TikTok and Meta, for example, are angry over the carve out YouTube received. The government's messaging on why this exemption was allowed has been mixed.
The communications minister, Michelle Rowland, said last year that YouTube would be included in a range of services exempt from the ban on health and education grounds. But in the draft wording of the document that sets out what services are exempt, YouTube is granted an exemption on its own, while health and education services are another carve out.
In response to questions in Senate estimates from the Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young last month, the department said the exclusion was 'consistent with broad community sentiment, which highlights the value of YouTube as a tool for education and learning'.
Evidence shows most children under 13 accessing social media are accessing YouTube.
A report from the eSafety commissioner last month stated more than 80% of children aged between eight and 12 are accessing social media, despite the current minimum age requirement being 13.
However, this figure was largely skewed by children accessing YouTube, either by watching while logged out, or using a parent or carer's account. When YouTube is excluded, the figure is closer to 44%.
TikTok and Snapchat are second and third behind YouTube (68%) on 31% and 19%, respectively.
It is also worth noting that the stakeholder advisory board overseeing the trial has some members who have long called for bans or restrictions on online pornography, and have called for online censorship. But missing from the board are digital rights and privacy groups.
Those organisations have subsequently been invited to apply to join the stakeholder advisory board, after inquiries from Guardian Australia, but as of yet do not appear to be included.
Whether all this results in a report that the government can rely upon and implement before the end of this year remains to be seen, as does whether the social media companies will be willing players.
The inconsistent treatment of some platforms over others might lead to companies such as Meta – which has already approached the Trump administration over their treatment by the Australian government – to seek the US government to push back on the ban before it comes into effect.
But this week, Albanese, and the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, said the ban was not up for negotiation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's raid on family businesses to cost his constituents 1,000 jobs
Labour's tax raid on family businesses is projected to cost hundreds of jobs in Sir Keir Starmer's constituency alone, new analysis shows. The revenue-raising scheme is also projected to hit the local economies of Labour constituencies harder than their Conservative, Reform and Liberal Democrat-voting counterparts. Analysis by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), which represents nearly 200,000 UK businesses, revealed that the changes to business property relief (BPR) announced in Rachel Reeves's October Budget will stifle growth in Labour seats across the country. The CBI claims that the average gross value added (GVA) losses in seats that elected Labour MPs at the last general election will be over £24 million, compared to £20 million in Conservative seats and £18.5 million in Reform constituencies. The projections span from the October 2024 budget to April 2030, after the next general election. Only seats held by the Green Party fared worse with an average GVA loss of around £40 million, suggesting that cities and urban centres will be worst hit by the raid. The CBI expects the economic hit to result in thousands of job losses in the most-exposed constituencies. Sir Keir's seat of Holborn and St Pancras will be the fourth-worst hit constituency in the country with 1,037 jobs expected to be lost, according to the analysis. Cabinet ministers to feel the pinch in their seats Red Wall seats are also set to suffer. The analysis shows that of £14.9 billion in nationwide GVA losses, some £4.6 billion (31 per cent) of that will hit constituencies that the Tories won in 2019 and Labour won back in 2024. These seats include the 31 Red Wall seats in the North and Midlands along with other key marginal constituencies which Labour will hope to win again at the next election if it wants to stay in power. Senior Cabinet ministers will also feel the pinch in their constituencies. The second-worst hit seat in the country, Manchester Central, is currently represented by Lucy Powell, the Leader of the House of Commons. The third-worst hit seat is Birmingham Ladywood, represented by Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary. Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland Secretary, represents the ninth-worst-hit seat of Leeds South. In the October Budget, the Chancellor slashed BPR in an attempt to raise money from family businesses. BPR was originally introduced by a Labour government in the 1970s. It allows company shareholders to leave business assets to loved ones without paying inheritance tax on them. But in a sweeping change that will take effect in April 2026, full business relief will only apply to the first £1 million of a business's assets upon a shareholder's death, with everything above this subject to 20 per cent tax.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
KEMI BADENOCH: A simple way to deter migrants? Make them wait for ten years before they can claim any benefits
The issue of immigration is a simple one for the Conservative Party: we need to crack down on it in every form, both legal and illegal. For me, this is about basic fairness. Britain today seems to work more favourably for those who jump the queue, who break the rules, who get into our country illegally but then denigrate our customs and our culture. And those of us who work hard and do the right thing, hoping one day to leave a better life for our children, are left footing the bill. The billions of pounds of taxpayers' money we are spending to put asylum seekers up in hotels, for example, is well known. Less well known, however, is the fact that low-paid immigrants and refugees who stay here for five years qualify for 'indefinite leave to remain'. This allows them to claim the same benefits British citizens are entitled to, such as social housing and Universal Credit. They become automatically entitled to make such claims regardless of whether they've paid taxes or have simply lived off the state throughout those five years. To my mind, that is fundamentally unfair to all the hard-working Brits who have dutifully paid into the system – and I'm determined to stop it. But it's likely to come as no surprise that the Labour Government has no such interest. It voted against our Deportation Bill last month, which would have introduced a strict cap on the number of newcomers to these shores, as well as doubling the time it takes for immigrants to be able to claim benefits from five to ten years. The same ten-year rule would also apply to people seeking the privilege of British citizenship, up from the current five years. And, to make sure those who come here are serious about contributing to our society, rather than just ripping it off, the Bill would have barred anyone who'd claimed benefits from getting indefinite leave to remain. It would also have given the government the power to remove settled status from those who commit any crime – preventing them from claiming that precious British passport. All in all, that Bill was designed to protect our borders and uphold fairness in our benefits system. But thanks to Labour, it was shot down. To be honest, many – if not all – of the measures it contained would probably have ended up going the same way as the former government's abandoned scheme to deport illegal immigrants to Rwanda. That became bogged down in our courts and frustrated by unnamed foreign judges interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Mel Stride (pictured), when he was Work and Pensions Secretary, came up with reforms to the welfare system that would have saved £5billion, but those, too, got stuck in the courts – giving Labour all the excuses they needed to quietly ditch them I have asked distinguished barrister and shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson KC (pictured), and the shadow solicitor general Helen Grant, to lead a commission to establish, once and for all, if the things that we need to do can be done if we remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights Other potentially transformative policies of ours have floundered in similar ways. Mel Stride, when he was Work and Pensions Secretary, came up with reforms to the welfare system that would have saved £5billion, but those, too, got stuck in the courts – giving Labour all the excuses they needed to quietly ditch them. I call this lawfare – the use of litigation as a political weapon. Even if these legal activists aren't successful, the costs and delays they incur are crippling to democracy. It is turning us into a country afraid of its own shadow. This must change. I have asked distinguished barrister and shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson KC, and the shadow solicitor general Helen Grant, to lead a commission to establish, once and for all, if the things that we need to do – get control of our borders, protect our welfare system and restore fairness – can be done if we remain a member of the European Convention on Human Rights. They will get to the bottom of how we got into this legal quagmire, and the challenges to getting us out. If their conclusions are that we cannot enact reasonable policies to put British citizens first when it comes to social housing and scarce public services, then I will know that we need to leave. The commission's findings will also help me make a workable plan to get us out of the ECHR, while taking into account the need to ensure essential human rights remain protected. The greatest danger we now face is allowing lawfare to make this country less fair, less safe and less democratic. But I'm determined that, under my leadership, the Conservative Party will protect our values, our democracy, our country – and, ultimately, our people.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
British businessman accused of spying for China reported to a Red Army agent with close ties to Chinese president Xi
A British businessman accused of spying for China reported to a high-ranking intelligence officer closely linked to President Xi Jinping, The Mail on Sunday has learned. John Miller, who the MoS last week revealed was the subject of an FBI sting operation, was arrested with his 'handler', Cui Guanghai, just hours before they were due to board a flight to Beijing. Both men are accused of trying to buy weapons and sensitive military technology in the United States for the People's Liberation Army. This newspaper can now reveal that Cui, 43, is an Edinburgh University graduate suspected of working for China's military intelligence and described as 'important' to President Xi. Court documents claim Miller, a 63-year-old recruitment specialist from Tunbridge Wells, was 'working for and being directed by' Cui. The two men were once pictured together in London 's Chinatown. Other images on social media show Cui and his wife at locations in Edinburgh, Dublin and London, including the Houses of Parliament. Britain's security services are understood to be liaising with the FBI, examining both Cui's activities in the UK and Miller's background. Last night Miller's sister Avril said: 'I am totally devastated and shocked, but it has nothing to do with me. I last saw him at a wedding 14 years ago.' The MoS revealed last week that Miller was caught on intercepted phone calls referring to Xi as 'the boss', suggesting he was acting under the control of the Chinese government. Now it can be disclosed that Miller once accompanied Cui on a business trip to Colonel Gaddafi-era Libya, a country with close economic ties to China. A family friend said: 'He [Miller] told me he was starting a business building prefab houses for Africa which he was having made in China.' The detention of Cui and Miller in Belgrade, Serbia – where they remain under house arrest – is believed to have led to a diplomatic row. China's ambassador to Serbia, Li Ming, is said to have clashed with the country's interior minister, Ivica Dacic. A source said Mr Li demanded to know why Cui – whom he called 'our agent' and 'important' to President Xi – was arrested at the behest of the FBI. China is the biggest foreign investor in Serbia. Miller and Cui were seized at the city's Hyatt Regency Hotel on April 24 having flown in from Hungary where they met business associates – and apparently fell into an FBI trap. Sources say agents waited for Cui to leave China for Europe before issuing the arrest order. Both men now face extradition to the US. It is not clear how Cui and Miller first met. The Englishman once ran a company bringing Chinese students to the UK, while his son from his first marriage has been based in China for years and is a close friend of Cui. Court documents claim Miller organised the surveillance and harassment of a Chinese-American artist critical of Beijing, telling a henchman to make him an 'offer he can't refuse... like The Godfather'. Miller has been charged in the US with smuggling, stalking and violations of the Arms Export Control Act. If convicted, both he and Cui face up to 40 years in prison. A 14-page indictment filed in Wisconsin alleges that Miller was caught in a sting after arms dealers he was negotiating with turned out to be undercover FBI agents. Family and friends of Miller, who described him as outgoing and charismatic, expressed astonishment at the news. The son of a builder from the Gorbals in Glasgow, Miller grew up one of six children on a council estate in Coventry, sharing a bedroom with his three brothers. A family friend said he had 'a real drive about him and was always looking for the next big thing'. They added: 'He had a hard time growing up and was driven by success. He wanted a nice life; he wasn't going to stay on a council estate. Eight of them in a three-bed house wasn't easy. And then their mum died when she was only 43. That was tough for all of them. Of them all, Johnny was a bit different, a one-off. 'He always had big ambitions.' Miller went into the Armed Forces, becoming a boxer representing the Royal Navy. It was during this time he met his first wife, 'a Puerto Rican beauty', with whom he had two children. They lived in the US, where Miller retains residency status, but later divorced. His daughter from his second marriage attended one of England's top public schools. Friends describe a chequered business history. Miller has been a director or a majority shareholder of at least nine firms, including a courier company. 'When I last saw him at a wedding over ten years ago, he was flying,' said a friend. 'His company had bases in London and New York, and he drove a nice Saab.' But at some point his fortunes waned and he was reduced to asking family and friends for loans. 'I think he saw an opportunity in China,' said another friend. 'He was hyperactive when it came to work.' The US court documents allege that Miller attempted to procure equipment including surface-to-air missiles, predator drones and a handheld device for the secure communication of 'classified and sensitive national security information'. A second 67-page indictment, filed in California, accuses Miller and Cui, also known as 'Jack', of targeting artist Hui Bo, who had created an 'embarrassing' sculpture of Xi and his wife Peng Liyuan naked from the waist up. Transcripts between Miller and an associate allege they discussed shooting Hui or hitting him with a baseball bat.
