Australia's social media ban has been designed on the fly. Is it time to delay take-off?

Australia Broadcast Center

7 hours ago

You might've heard of policy on the run, but what about policy from the cockpit?
It's something Australia's eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant appears to be contending with when it comes to the federal government's social media ban.
Speaking to the National Press Club yesterday she said while confident it will be able to be implemented by December this year that "we may be building the plane a little bit as we're flying it".
Inman Grant has provided the government with advice on its plan to ban under 16s from social media platforms, which she describes as "one of the most complex and novel pieces of legislation" they've ever had to handle.
Her office will be responsible for producing regulatory guidelines once the ban is finalised.
Put more bluntly, the government have handed her a proverbial sandwich in the form of a huge, unwieldy scheme that affects some of the community's most vulnerable, governs an ever-changing online landscape and requires facing off against some of the most powerful companies in the world.
Oh and if that wasn't enough, imagine a big countdown clock, like in the TV show 24, with less than six months to go until the ban is meant to come into force.
Easy!
In November when the government put forward its proposal, YouTube was exempt under the banner of educational material and WhatsApp allowed under the carve-out for messaging services.
Now eSafety is calling for YouTube to be banned too and says WhatsApp poses its own challenges — thanks to hosting channels and advertising — though it remains exempt for now.
YouTube Kids could still be an option, but the commissioner says that's still being assessed.
Either way, teenagers likely won't be too happy about that, as one of them put it in our comments when we reported on the initial exemption: "If I have to watch YouTube kids ima crash out" [sic.]
The unofficial motto of the Albanese government has been slow and steady, with the prime minister repeatedly saying that if you want reform to happen you need to bring the community with you.
As far as big changes go this is a doozy and according to the government's own research it has substantial community support.
But when it comes to the specifics of how this ban is actually implemented there are a number of unanswered questions and community support is mixed when it comes to age checking methods.
Aside from whether YouTube Kids will be allowed, Crikey's Cam Wilson reports that not all is well within the advisory group for the trial of the program.
Tim Levy, managing director of children's safety technology company Qoria which put forward technology for the trial, has stepped down from the expert panel saying key questions and issues have not been addressed.
Other experts have also questioned why key data from the trial is not being released publicly, though a spokesperson said it would be released once the full report is handed to the government in July.
And that's not the only issue. The ABC revealed that the face scanning technology being trialled misidentified kids as young as 15 as being in their 20s and 30s.
The software consultancy program running the trial said the system is far from perfect but does show promise however Lisa Given, professor of information sciences at RMIT University, told the ABC such errors in misidentification show the ban isn't viable.
It would be remiss to not mention that neither the government nor the eSafety Commissioner are proposing that this ban will utilise just one type of age-detection tech nor that it will be 100 per cent foolproof.
After all, they're up against teenagers who've been told they can't do something: one of the most determined and innovative groups on the planet (just ask 13-year-old Claudia who learned how to code to customise a Tumblr profile she wasn't allowed to have).
With so many key factors seemingly up in the air, there are questions to be asked about why the deadline for the new rules to be implemented hasn't been shifted.
Ask anyone who works in, around or with government, it's not exactly known for getting things done quickly.
The opposition support a ban but say there are currently more questions than answers, which is not exactly what a government that wants to bring people along on reform would like to be hearing.
Of course, the once-again-a-Coalition isn't really in a position to throw its weight around having just suffered one of its most humiliating defeats ever.
But on the flip side, does that mean the government should power on full steam ahead?
Such a comfortable majority gives it the flexibility to admit that sometimes things take a bit longer than expected.
Politicians are loath to ever admit things haven't gone 100 per cent to plan, both to avoid criticism from their opponents and a media class fixated on anything that could be construed as a backflip or back down.
It's not a great environment to actually develop and implement policy in, encouraging the worst, most stubborn instincts rather than encouraging flexibility, questioning or humility.
When you add a looming deadline to that mix it's not a recipe for anyone's best work.
But questions and disagreements over exactly how this ban will be implemented give Labor a chance to stretch that muscle and follow-through on Anthony Albanese's commitment last term to "change the way we do politics in this country."
Inman Grant says she's confident everything will be ready to go by December, but with so many questions about how this ban will work it might be time for the government to clear a runway for a temporary landing.