Debate has erupted among teens and kids on the actual social media platforms the Albanese government is preparing to ban under 16s from accessing. A group of 12-year-olds even suggested a protest against the proposed government plan to ban them.
Earlier this month, the Albanese government announced plans to set the minimum age for social media use at 16, it aligns with the Coalition’s previously position, as a way to protect young people from potential harms online.
Tiktok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, Instagram, and X will have to ban children under 16. Messenger Kids, WhatsApp, Kids Helpline, Google Classroom, and YouTube, on the other hand are expected to be classified as “out-of-scope services.” Communications Minister Michelle Rowland introduced this legislation to federal parliament on Thursday, saying it would make the online environment safer for young people. Companies that breach the minimum age obligation will face fines of up to $50 million.
While both major parties agree on banning under-16s from these platforms, a parliamentary inquiry into social media—tabled on Monday—stopped short of endorsing the ban. Instead, it recommended empowering young users to alter, reset, or turn off algorithms. The report notes the “contrasting views on whether making it safer for children means preventing them from accessing social media until they reach a certain age”.
With legislation being introduced this week in Parliament, Neos Kosmos reached out to parents, children, teachers and an expert on the subject, Prof Julian Sefton-Green.
Everyone worries about how the ban will be enforced
Opinions vary, however all share the concern around the ban’s practical implementation and worry about increased data collection for age verification purposes.
Julian Sefton-Green, Professor of New Media Education in Deakin University, is glad that this debate is taking place, highlighting the opportunity it presents to us, as a society, to discuss the social media effect on our lives and our democracy in general, going forward.
Prof Sefton-Green has researched extensively the number of ways in which children and young people have been affected by their digital experiences, and currently he is part of the big Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child.
“Digital technology is so pervasive, it is such a huge infrastructure. It is a part of our lives,” he told Neos Kosmos, stressing that the problem with this discussion is that “we think we can separate the digital from our everyday life, as if it something that can just be taken away.”
“I don’t think banning things is a very progressive policy unless it’s only a cause of harm,” Prof Sefton-Green continues. “I think we should treat social media interaction, much like we treat sex education or drug education or alcohol education, in order to support people to have control over what they do and why they do it, and what influence it has.”
Prof Sefton-Green employs the analogies of sex or alcohol education, “because social media is something that young people are going to do when they’re older”.
How social media shapes young lives
For many teens, social media is an integral part of their daily lives. Dimitri, aged 12, speaks to his friends daily on group chats on Discord and Snapchat. This has allowed him to keep strong ties with his Primary School friendship group, as he navigates the challenges of finding new connections in high school.
Harry, 14-years-old, relies on Snapchat as a of communication with his mates and finds TikTok and Instagram informative and entertaining, he wouldn’t mind so much if they were banned, believing that the platforms should put in the effort to filter disturbing content for underage users. What would affect his social life though, is a ban on Snapchat.
Alessia a 13-year-old teen has gone a step further by turning her social media skills into a small business -skills she has taught herself through several tutorials online. All this she presents on her account on Instagram. Alongside her formal education, she is gaining valuable hands-on experience in running a business.
This Genie is already out of the bottle
Lena who is 15 knows young people who are struggling and have found a community and support within the social media network, which helps them not feel so alone.
“If you try to impose restrictions around social media, kids will find a way to get around it,” she said.
“Taking it away won’t solve mental health problems, putting more funding into mental health services for young people and creating more supports for them will help.”
Tanya, a mother of two teenage girls, feels that the ban is not the right approach. “My kids have had accounts for years. For me, the genie is already out of the bottle, and my kids have had a taste of social media, and taking it away now would just lead to more resistance.”
The mother of teens believes “it’s about accepting that social media is a part of how we all communicate today”.
“We need to work with the technology, educate our kids on its risks, and support them when issues arise. Anything less feels like underestimating their intelligence.”
The ban seems impossible to implement
“It’s impossible to implement, and like all bans… all it does is increase desire,” Prof Sefton-Green said.
“There are practical aspects to the banning process which are really regressive, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do anything.”
He believes it is a good to have the discussion as “it has raised awareness and understanding”.
He believes the ban had raised discussion in “rather negative way”.
“If the government, really wants to do something about social media, they should change the curriculum. If they’re worried about the role of social media in influencing democracy, then they should do something about that… Somebody has to bite the bullet about making social media publishers accountable, with the same responsibility as the media on what they publish.”
Taking away the screens, seems like a simple solution he said but points to the fact that we’re “not taking away screens for ourselves.”
“It’s a superficial, quick fix solution, without thinking about the factors that are bringing people to this point.”
He underscores how we live in a society where children are “more and more pressured about exams, where there’s more competition, and parents are worried about their children’s futures”.
Enforcing a ban will require yet another layer of surveillance
“The only other country, that has some level of control [over social media] is China, a very authoritarian regime and the ban that they propose here would require an even higher level of internet surveillance,” Prof Sefton-Green said.
The parents Neos Kosmos spoke to are also concerned about personal data being mined if an age verification process is set up for the proposed ban. The government has already named the UK-based ‘Age Check Certification Scheme’ to run a six-month trial of age assurance technology, including testing ID credentials, age estimation, age inference, and parental certifications or controls.
Felicity, the mother of two teenagers aged 14 and 17, Harry and Cleo, “applauds any effort to limit social media in children” but, said it is “going to be incredibly difficult to implement it with teenagers”.
“Having two teenagers myself, my view is that they are extremely intelligent and craftier than their parents or teachers or any authorities, in getting around restrictions,” she told Neos Kosmos.
Felicity said that it is “very hard for parents to implement restrictions, and even for schools”.
“I feel we are scrambling with the technology, we are always ten steps behind and I don’t trust the big tech companies. Everything they do seems to be self serving. So, I wonder what is in it for them, if an age verification process is implemented,” Felicity said.
Worse, Penny, also a mother, fears that the ban may force young teens into “darker online spaces”, which she finds more alarming.
Schools are dealing with issues, initiated on social media groups
A Melbourne High School teacher, who asked to remain anonymous, highlighted the issues that can arise within online group chats, such as naming and shaming, bullying, harassment, exclusion.
“Many issues have been brought to school that were initiated on social media. The younger the student the more scrutiny required, banning would theoretically be beneficial however the logistics and practicality would be interesting,” the teacher said.
Young people sometimes, the teacher adds “use social media to organise negative gatherings such as fights”, and the news spreads like wildfire.
“It’s very easy to have a misunderstanding on group chats, and violence can result readily.”
On the other hand, children Neos Kosmos spoke to, say that bullying has always been an issue, and will remain so. Some said, that knowing that they can block bullies online, makes it easier to deal with than being harassed face-to-face.
Dimitri, 12 said his parents monitor and control the social media he uses.
“They have access to my phone and my conversations any time they want, so I don’t see why it should be up to the government and not the parents to make that decision.”
Punishing children for adult failings?
Social media was originally a form of public space, “for people to communicate, listen and talk with each other,” Prof Sefton-Green said.
He highlights how over the last 10-15 years social media has created new opportunities for “hate speech, for racism, for one-sidedness.”.
“If all the government does about this, is to impose a ban on children, it’s blaming the children for adult problems.”
Dim, a mother of three children, agrees with the media professor.
“We see the hateful comments adults are allowed to post, even about tragic incidents, and no one is stopping that.
“Banning children is not going to change that. People do not become less toxic when they turn 16, and that behaviour can be harmful to many vulnerable people, not just children,” Dim said.
Rethinking childhood in the digital age
Modern childhood is more controlled, less independent than before. From conception to school, children’s lives are surveilled. This ban may seem to add another layer of control without addressing the root causes of digital dependency said the expert.
Instead of bans, Prof Sefton-Green is calling for a wider discussion to reflect on “what kind of society we want to create together”.
