Latest news with #socialmediaban
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- Business
- The Guardian
How will Australia's under-16s social media ban be enforced, and which platforms will be exempt?
Australians using a range of social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat and X will need to have their age checked to ensure they're 16 or older when the social media ban comes into effect from early December. Sign up: AU Breaking News email How will it work? And what information will people need to hand over? From 10 December, new laws will apply to platforms that meet the government's definition of an 'age-restricted social media platform', which has the sole or significant purpose of enabling social interaction with two or more users, and which allows users to post material on the service. The government has not specified by name any platforms that will be included in the ban, meaning any site that meets the above definition could be included except if they meet the exemptions released on Wednesday. The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, has said that the covered platforms include – but are not limited to – Facebook, Instagram, X, Snapchat, and YouTube. The communications minister, Anika Wells, said these platforms would be expected to take reasonable steps to deactivate accounts for users under 16, prevent kids registering new accounts, check ages, and also prevent workarounds to bypass the restrictions. The government said platforms would be exempt if they had the primary purpose of: Messaging, emailing, voice calling or video calling. Playing online games. Sharing information about products or services. Professional networking or professional development. Education. Health. Communication between educational institutions and students or their families. Facilitating communication between providers of healthcare and people using those providers' services. It will be up to the eSafety commissioner to determine which platforms meet the criteria for an exemption. In practice, this means that LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Roblox, and Coursera would likely be exempt if assessed to meet the criteria. LinkedIn had previously argued to the government it was not of interest to children. In theory, it could also mean YouTube Kids could be exempt from the ban if it meets the criteria for an exemption, given it does not allow comments on videos. But the government has not confirmed this, and YouTube has not commented on whether it would seek an exemption for its service designed for children. Platforms that have not been named by the government but do not meet the exemption criteria will also need to consider whether they need to bring in age assurance by December. This would include services like Bluesky, Donald Trump's Truth Social platform, Discord and Twitch. A common misconception about the social media ban is that it will only apply to children. In order to ensure teens remain off social media, the platforms will need to check the ages of all user accounts in Australia. How they will do that is not prescribed, but it will be informed by the outcome of the age assurance technology trial, the full report of which is due in August. The government has legislated that although ID checks can be one form of age assurance, it can't be the only one accepted. It's expected Australia will follow a similar path for age assurance that launched in the UK in July, which includes options such as: Allowing banks and mobile providers to confirm a user is over 18. Asking site users to upload a photo that is then matched with photo ID. Use of facial age estimation technology. In addition to that, platforms could potentially infer user ages based on account behaviour or age. For example, if you signed up for Facebook in 2009, you would be over 16 by now. YouTube has also flagged it will use artificial intelligence to determine user ages. Albanese has compared the social media ban to alcohol restrictions, and said there will no doubt be children who manage to get around the ban, but he argued it was still worth doing. In the UK, where age verification was brought in this week for accessing pornography websites, there has been a surge in people using virtual private networks (VPNs), which hide a user's real location, enabling access to blocked websites. Four of the top five free apps on the Apple app store in the UK on Thursday were VPN apps, with Proton, the most popular, reporting a 1,800% increase in downloads. The Australian government has said it expects the platforms will implement 'reasonable steps' to account for how teens may seek to avoid the ban. Platforms that do not take what the eSafety commissioner determines to be 'reasonable steps' to keep kids off their service can face a fine of up to $49.5m that will be determined in the federal court. What 'reasonable steps' means will be up to the commissioner to determine. When asked on Wednesday, Wells said: 'I think reasonable steps is reasonable.' 'These are meant to be working rules, and they also need to sort of correct any errors as they arise. Because these are not set-and-forget rules, these are set-and-support rules. They are world-leading. But this is manifestly too important for us not to have a crack.'
The Guardian
20 hours ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
The more governments try to restrict social media use, the more young people will find ways to get around it
It's not entirely surprising the Australian government is now including YouTube accounts in its under-16s social media ban – but the decision to stop a 15-year-old from subscribing to their favourite channels only adds to an endless list of problems with the policy. This ban already had a number of broad issues, including the possibility of every Australian being required to hand over personal identification in order to use social media websites. We've already seen the UK's Online Safety Act making global headlines over the past week, where it is proving to be a nightmare for enforcement. Let's be clear: the harmful content the federal government keeps referencing isn't going anywhere. This content (excluding videos already restricted to those over 18) can still be viewed by anyone in a logged-out state or by teenagers using the account of their parents. Once you turn 16, there is nothing stopping you from accessing the content, and it could just as easily lead to a negative impact. What this ban does do, however, is effectively punish teenagers, even those who have always had overwhelmingly positive experiences from YouTube. Parents who are more than happy for their teenager to use YouTube with an account are not given any exemptions, despite the government's repeated line that the social media ban gives power back to the parents. The reason for YouTube's initial exemption was education, something I can personally attest to as a current year 12 student. After remote learning ended, YouTube continued to be used as a key tool for learning, both during and outside of school hours. This includes simple things such as a homework task involving taking down notes from a video, to a teacher uploading their own set of videos for a particular subject unit for student viewing anytime and anywhere. There have even been more than a few instances of teachers recommending subscribing to an educational channel, which I know has been a help to me and many of my peers. That's not to say YouTube isn't also a source of harmful content. But while there's no perfect solution for keeping young people safe online, there are clear steps that could and should be taken by the federal and state governments. And it starts in the classroom. From the late stages of primary school into secondary school, repeated lessons on ways to report content and dangers to look out for (among many other things to teach) would be a welcome addition. Crucially, this prevents the entire burden being on parents, many of whom are not tech-savvy by their own admissions. Simply saying 'don't do this' has never worked for any generation of teenagers, and it doesn't work for keeping them offline in this day and age. The more parents – or for that matter, governments – try to force a restriction on social media use, the more young people will be motivated to get around it. Additionally, measures to actually target the platforms, rather than the teens who use them, would make a lot more sense. Exactly what those measures would be is a further question, but we already know the government has plenty of tools at its disposal, such as the eSafety commissioner, if it's looking for a direct fight with tech giants. With a high court challenge from Google seemingly looming, it's worth remembering that – like it or not – Australia is far from the largest market for social media companies. This means it's not beyond the realm of possibility that these platforms could abandon Australia altogether rather than follow this legislation, just as Facebook did with news for a short period in 2021. I'm personally not convinced that will end up happening, but it also doesn't require that much imagination. Banning teens from accessing YouTube through their own account isn't going to stop harmful content in the slightest. Genuine problems need genuine solutions, but the social media ban isn't one of those. Leo Puglisi is chief anchor and managing director at 6 News Australia
News.com.au
a day ago
- Politics
- News.com.au
‘Create more risk, not less': Expert's warning after YouTube added to social media ban
'Rushed, vague and politically motivated.' That's how one expert has described the federal government's decision to include YouTube in its controversial under-16s social media ban, warning it could cause 'more risk, not less' to young Australians. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed on Wednesday the government had reversed an earlier decision to exclude the platform from its world-leading restrictions under the banner of educational material, on the advice of eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant. Research conducted by Dr Inman Grant's office found that of 2600 children, 4 in 10 reported exposure to 'misogynistic or hateful material, dangerous online challenges, violent fight videos, and content promoting eating disorders'. From December, children will be barred from creating their own YouTube accounts – but will still be able to access the site in either a logged-out state or through a parent or other adult's account. The video-sharing giant, which is owned by Google, has since threatened the government with a High Court challenge, arguing it is 'not a social media service' and 'offers benefit to younger Australians' – a move Swinburne University media expert Dr Belinda Barnet labelled 'a last-ditch attempt to get out of the regulation'. 'I hope the government does not back down,' Dr Barnet added. 'YouTube absolutely is a social media platform like the others – it is not a special case. It also represents equivalent risk of harm as the others.' Other experts spoke to in the wake of the government's announcement, however, were less inclined to agree. Director of Queensland University of Technology's (QUT) Digital Media Research Centre and Professor of Digital Communication, Daniel Angus, said the restrictions on access to YouTube in a logged-in state – rather than to the site as a whole – could actually achieve the opposite of what the government ban is intended to, 'alienating young users rather than meaningfully protecting them'. 'Logged-in access alAlows for personalised experiences, safety controls like restricted mode, and content curation through subscriptions and algorithmic recommendations,' Professor Angus said. 'Ironically, removing that logged-in functionality for under-16s may increase their exposure to harmful content by stripping away those safety features and pushing them into unmoderated, anonymous browsing – a shift that could create more risk, not less. 'This remains to be seen, but it underscores how poorly thought-through these proposals are. 'The main concern with YouTube is that the algorithms that recommend new videos to users are opaque, and we know that YouTube's recommendation system has served content that is sexually-explicit and otherwise distressing to young viewers,' University of Sydney lecturer in Media and Communications, Dr Catherine Page Jeffrey, said. 'Yet including (it) in the ban will not necessarily preclude this.' Dr Page Jeffrey, who said she disagreed with both YouTube's inclusion in the ban and 'the legislation more broadly', stressed the 'important role' the platform plays in the digital lives of teenagers for education, entertainment, information and community. 'Young people have a right to engagement in the digital world, and (to) simply live out parts of their lives online,' she added. 'Sure, there are risks – but the approach to mitigating these risks should not be excluding young people (from these platforms) altogether.' Failure to differentiate the specific risks posed by each platform and instead lump them 'under a generic 'social media' label is a fundamental flaw in the government's approach', Prof Angus said. 'YouTube's … user dynamics differ significantly from, say, Snapchat or TikTok,' he continued. 'There are certainly harmful elements … but these require nuanced and holistic responses, not blunt bans. Targeted moderation, transparency of algorithms and platform processes, and digital literacy education are more effective and proportional strategies.' Though the ban will 'hopefully (act as a) wakeup call' to social media platforms on what – and how – they algorithmically push users, Deakin University Senior Lecturer in Communications Dr Luke Heemsbergen said it won't be enough to 'stop teenagers from finding things they want to online'. 'Unfortunately, it is also already setting new precedents around policing and surveilling online spaces that break rights and privacy in new ways – ironically offering more power to the big platforms in how we get to live and connect.' At a press conference on Wednesday, Communications Minister Anika Wells – who ultimately made the decision to include YouTube in the legislation – said that parents helping their children navigate the internet 'is like trying to teach (them) to swim in the open ocean with the rips and the sharks, compared to at the local council pool'. 'We can't control the ocean, but we can police the sharks – and that is why we will not be intimidated by legal threats (from Google) when this is a genuine fight for the wellbeing of Australian kids,' Ms Wells said. Invoking the Minister's analogy, Dr Heemsbergen said it was 'pretty hard to tell if YouTube's 'currents' of content are any worse than other services – so I'd rather teach my kids to swim and what to do when they hit a rip, than try to ban them from this beach or that beach'. 'We – as a society – can do a lot to clean the beach up, for sure, but the water is always going to be there, and it remains our responsibility to make sure our kids understand and act accordingly,' he said. It's 'unlikely' the ban will be effective, Prof Angus said, pointing to 'international experience that shows children can – and do – find ways to circumvent age verification systems'. After the UK introduced its own mandatory age verification systems on porn sites, Reddit and X last week, virtual private network (VPN) use skyrocketed. Research conducted by Prof Angus' own team has also indicated tools like facial age estimation 'are unreliable, biased, and potentially discriminatory, especially against already marginalised groups'. What's needed, he said, 'is a shift in thinking away from trying to protect children from the internet, and toward protecting children within the internet': building age-appropriate digital spaces, enhancing media literacy, ensuring access to comprehensive sex and relationship education, and involving them in the design of the policies that affect them. 'Policies like this one, rushed, vague, and politically motivated, risk doing more harm than good,' Prof Angus said.
France 24
a day ago
- Politics
- France 24
What's behind UK's possible recognition of a Palestinian state?
06:19 30/07/2025 Australia widens teen social media ban to YouTube, scraps exemption 30/07/2025 Gaza faces famine as Israeli bombings continue 30/07/2025 New Benin law offers citizenship to descendants of African slaves 30/07/2025 Tunisia's 'barbechas': the invisible workforce behind recycling 30/07/2025 Kenya: Justice sought for victims of protest crackdowns 30/07/2025 Angola: Deadly protests erupt over fuel price hikes 30/07/2025 Palestinian activist Owdeh Hathaleen killed by Israeli settler in West bank 30/07/2025 Portugal battles three large wildfires 30/07/2025 France: Mine d'Or beach, a summer favourite on the Breton coast
BBC News
a day ago
- Business
- BBC News
YouTube: Is Australia banning under 16s a good or bad idea?
Last year the Australian government introduced plans to ban children under the age of 16 from using social media - but it has now been announced this will also include had originally been said that the video-sharing site would be excluded from the ban, which will affect the use of TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X and Snapchat and is due to start in ban won't make it impossible for under 16s to view YouTube videos, as they can watch on someone else's profile or without signing in - but they won't be allowed to have an account and can't upload content or interact on the ban means that tech companies will need to deactivate existing accounts and stop any new accounts that break the rules from being set they don't, they will have to pay a fine of up to A$50m (£25.7m). Why has YouTube now been added to the social media ban? The change comes after Australia's eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant recommended YouTube be added to the list last said it was "the most frequently cited platform" where children aged 10 to 15 years are able to view "harmful content".But YouTube, owned by Google, has argued it shouldn't be blocked for children, as the platform "offers benefit and value to younger Australians".Speaking on Wednesday after the news was announced, the company said that YouTube is "not social media," and said it will "consider next steps" and "continue to engage" with the government. The government has also decided not to include "online gaming, messaging, education and health apps" as it has said they "pose fewer social media harms to under 16s".This new law will come in effect in us know in the comments what you think about this. Do you think it's right that Australia are including YouTube in the ban?
