NITV Radio - News 30/7/2025
Minister for communications defends the government's decision to include YouTube in media ban.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
a day ago
- ABC News
Government backflip on YouTube social media ban is one of Olympic proportions
As any gymnast will tell you, it's not easy landing a backflip, and as any politician will tell you, a political backflip is harder again. It's also less likely that people will applaud you when you land, even if you nail it. The government's announcement this week that YouTube would be included in the teen social media ban is a political backflip of Olympic proportions, and its first since the election. In late April, the then-minister for communications, Michelle Rowland, was still doubling down on her commitment to the company's CEO to do the exact opposite, citing YouTube's educational benefits and community expectations, but little else. A spokesperson for Ms Rowland told the ABC in April the decision "was made in November last year, publicly stated in a media release and reflected in the second reading of the legislation". "That decision has been made and there has been zero reconsideration or communication to suggest otherwise," the spokesperson said. Three months on, the new minister, Annika Wells, is just as resolute that YouTube will in fact be part of the ban, citing strongly worded advice from the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant in late June. "The eSafety Commissioner's advice was clear," Ms Wells told Question Time in Parliament on Wednesday. "Four out of 10 Australian kids have had their most recent or most harmful experience on YouTube," she said. "On top of that, YouTube uses the same persuasive design features as other social media platforms like infinite scroll… auto-play and algorithmic feeds." Despite the famed difficulty of publicly changing your mind in politics, the government seems to have pulled off the manoeuvre with a surprising amount of grace. It could have been a more awkward landing if their final position was less well supported by the eSafety Commissioner, policy experts, and the well-documented harm being visited upon younger YouTube users. Additionally, the fact Ms Rowland had said so little about her reasons for promising YouTube a carve out in the first place means Labor now finds itself with relatively few words to eat. But no landing is perfect. At their media conference on Wednesday morning, Ms Wells and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese were asked what might be the biggest question of all on social media policy, by a somewhat frustrated Mark Riley from Seven News: "Parents will be hearing this and thinking it's a great thing to limit kids' access to this harmful content, but they'll also be asking, 'why is that harmful content there in the first place?' If any of us in our media organisations were to publish or broadcast this stuff, we'd be straight up in front of ACMA or the courts, justifiably. When will the day come when governments can stop these organisations allowing this stuff to be posted in the first place?" "That's a great question, Mark," Ms Wells began, displaying immaculate technique for the judges. "… and ultimately one for the social media platforms to answer," she continued. Usually, thrusting responsibility solely back into the hands of social media giants is not a bad political instinct. But to do so at a press conference otherwise devoted to "cracking down" on those same companies is a different kind of gymnastics — it's contortion. After all, the teen social media ban depends on the assumption that the government can force social media companies to change their dealings with Australians, and that asking nicely won't achieve the desired result. So when faced with the question: "Why is the harmful content there at all and when will governments intervene?", it was arguably the perfect moment for the new minister to mention the government's own plan, announced in November last year, to implement a Digital Duty of Care on social media companies. The Digital Duty of Care is designed to place an obligation on social media companies themselves to actively prevent foreseeable harms to Australian users of all ages. Launching the policy eight months ago, Ms Rowland described it as "a shift away from reacting to harms…. and moving towards systems-based prevention". It was one of more than 60 recommendations made by Delia Rickard after a year-long statutory review of the Online Safety Act. But unlike the teen social media ban, it has rarely been mentioned in public since it was first announced. The government's reticence on the proposal this year has prompted quiet speculation among policy experts that it would never materialise, but Ms Wells told the ABC the government was still committed to legislating the change. "I'm looking forward to doing more work on it," Ms Wells told 7:30 this week, before adding: "I'm still a new minister". Neither Ms Wells nor her predecessor have given a timeline for implementing the change. The government is also yet to reveal when it will respond to the rest of Delia Rickard's recommendations. As for why the minister opted not to mention the government's own policy when the opportunity came on Wednesday morning, it's worth remembering how tricky these political backflips can be. Bringing up an eight-month-old plan that hasn't visibly progressed since it was first announced comes with its own risks. With a new minister in the portfolio and less than three months before the teen social media ban comes into effect, it might be a while still before the government is eager to broach the topic unprompted.
Sky News AU
2 days ago
- Sky News AU
Labor's under-16 YouTube account ban an incoherent mess that overlooks the hostile, addictive scourge of online video game streaming
Anthony Albanese's government crossed a dangerous line on Wednesday by adding YouTube to Australia's under-16 social media blacklist. This represents state paternalism at its most intrusive—bureaucrats in Canberra deciding which digital platforms serve children's interests and which threaten their development. The mechanics reveal the policy's absurdity. Children will still be able to watch YouTube in a logged-out state, but they can't fully engage with it. No uploads, no comments, no subscriptions. It's like letting teenagers attend a concert but forcing them to wear noise-cancelling headphones. They can see the lights, feel the crowd, but they're cut off from the sound, the soul of the experience. A digital muzzle, enforced not for safety, but for control. All because of their age. Although it's flawed, YouTube is still humanity's most valuable classroom. You'll find MIT lectures next to language lessons, history deep dives, and programming bootcamps. But under this ban, a curious 15-year-old can watch advanced chemistry but can't ask questions or join a study group. They can sit at the back of the room, but they're barred from raising their hand. They're locked into passive consumption, exactly the opposite of how real learning happens. Cabinet minister Tanya Plibersek struck a defiant tone, insisting Australia won't be bullied by tech giants threatening legal action. But her bravado misses the point. If the concern is algorithmic manipulation, then go after the algorithms. YouTube already offers restricted modes and detailed parental controls. Real reform would strengthen those, not resort to blunt-force bans. eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant defended the crackdown, labelling YouTube a primary gateway for harmful content. But that argument falls apart with the slightest scrutiny. By that logic, every medium with mixed-age audiences becomes a threat. Libraries contain books inappropriate for children, some with graphic violence, sexual content, or dangerous ideologies. Yet, we don't bulldoze libraries. We guide children to age-appropriate shelves. Television airs adult material every night; we don't outlaw TVs. We create time slots, ratings, and parental locks. In every other domain, we understand that access demands guidance, not prohibition. Children aren't barred from parks because danger might be present. They're taught how to cross the street. A healthy society supports and supervises; it doesn't censor. This policy does the opposite. It targets the tool, not the misuse. It confuses control with care, and in doing so, punishes promise instead of protecting children. Its incoherence betrays its intent. Gaming platforms, arguably the most addictive and hostile environments online, get a free pass. These are spaces flooded with unmoderated voice chats, rage-filled rants, and grooming risks masquerading as friendship. Predators don't need to look far; they just need a headset and a username. Still, no restriction. Discord remains untouched, too, despite being ground zero for underground communities, extremist recruitment, and private messaging between minors and strangers. Servers spawn faster than they can be policed. But no crackdown there. Meanwhile, YouTube—the largest free classroom on Earth—gets blacklisted. Chemistry lectures, language tutorials, history deep-dives—all gone in any meaningful sense, because of a comments section that can already be disabled. None of this makes sense. Australian families deserve effective safeguards. What they're given instead is a blunt instrument disguised as policy. A meaningful solution should start in schools. Digital citizenship must be taught like reading or math. This should be non-negotiable. Kids need to learn how to protect their privacy and identify manipulation. They must be shown how to navigate the online world with awareness. Parents also need help—practical tools, clear guidance, and support to set boundaries without dampening curiosity. Regulations should focus on real threats, such as shady algorithms, deceptive design, and hidden loopholes, instead of banning entire platforms out of fear. And then comes the enforcement nightmare. Platforms will be expected to verify every user's age without building massive ID databases that endanger the privacy of all Australians. It's an impossible brief. Today's teenagers move through digital loopholes effortlessly. They fake birthdates. They borrow older siblings' logins. They deploy VPNs to spoof their location and skirt around firewalls. These are standard tactics. Lawmakers imagine compliance. Kids assume workarounds. And in that gap, real harm festers. Bans won't cure screen addiction. They won't fix chronic disconnection or declining youth mental health. For that, Australia needs to invest in real-world alternatives—community sports, arts programs, mentorship, safe physical spaces where teens can belong without a screen in their face. Punishing the outlet won't address the underlying issue. And this isn't just an Australian experiment. Norway has already followed suit. The UK is watching closely. If this becomes a global template, we'll be looking at state-directed censorship based on moral panic rather than evidence. The illusion of safety will come at the cost of access, autonomy, and education. Parents lose the right to guide. Children lose the chance to build resilience. When the ban lifts at 16, they're tossed headfirst into the full chaos of the internet without the judgment that only comes from experience. We wouldn't keep kids off roads until adulthood, then hand them the keys and expect zero crashes. But that's exactly what this policy does. Real protection means preparing young people for the world they already live in, not pretending we can block it out. Australia's policy isolates kids instead of educating them. It sidelines parents, ignores actual evidence, and creates more risk than it prevents. It's policy-by-panic, a handbook for helplessness. Australians must see this crackdown for what it is: not bold leadership, but blind overreach. John Mac Ghlionn is a researcher and essayist who writes on psychology and social relations. He has a keen interest in social dysfunction and media manipulation.
Sky News AU
2 days ago
- Sky News AU
‘Doesn't make sense': Teen founder of 6 News scolds Albanese govt's backflip as YouTube included in social media ban
A teenage news presenter who founded his own media outlet has scolded the Albanese government for backflipping on exempting YouTube from its social media ban for children. Australia became the first country in the world to ban social media for children under the age of 16. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Communications Minister Anika Wells announced on Wednesday YouTube would now be included in the framework, despite earlier suggestions the site might be exempt. From December 10, all services which meet the definition of 'age-restricted social media platform' in the Act, and are not excluded in the rules, will be subject to the social media minimum age law - with fines up to $49.5 million for those who do not comply. Under 16s will still be able to use YouTube in a logged-out state, but they will not be able to hold an account. Chief correspondent of 6 News, Leo Puglisi, 17, said there were 'a lot of problems' with including YouTube in what was already a problematic social media ban. Puglisi was just 11-years-old when he founded 6 News, which has since grown to inform thousands of people across YouTube and other social media platforms. In five years the youth-focused news channel has garnered a healthy following of 30,000 subscribers on YouTube, covering stories by the hour across politics, sports, law, and government. Puglisi said it would have been a 'real shame' if the new laws were in effect when he first started 6 News, but the ban would be very difficult to enforce. 'I think it's virtually impossible to enforce age verification without requiring that for pretty much all age groups and I don't think most people are going to be willing to hand over their passport to an overseas social media site,' he told Sky News host Steve Price. The teenaged media personality said the harmful content the government "keeps talking about" would continue to be on YouTube and would still be accessed by young people. 'You could log in with your parents' accounts, as a lot of people do from a young age. I don't see why that would suddenly stop,' he said. 'This ban doesn't actually stop harmful content. It supposedly delays the age of when a teenager would see it, but even in saying that, it's going to be seen in a logged out state.' While the social media ban does not affect Puglisi, it still restricts his co-workers from exercising their journalistic capabilities on social media. Puglisi said the government's ban was not addressing what it said it would and it was 'concerning' how the legislation was 'rushed' through parliament. 'We're only getting consultation after the legislation was passed rather than a lot more consultation before it actually was passed,' he said. Puglisi said the educational use of YouTube was 'extremely wide' and was used as a resource in schools for remote learning, as well as videos being assigned for homework. With the largest video sharing platform in the world originally exempted from the social media ban, now 'so much content' would be restricted which Puglisi said was 'not a practicality'. 'This backflip just really doesn't make sense,' he said.
