This Thanksgiving, the Australian Senate officially voted to pass a bill to penalize social media companies for allowing or having kids under 16 on their platforms. This decision, made with a significant majority and rather hastily, has led some observers to wonder whether or not there were underlying incentives.
The bill proposed a penalty of $33 million for any social media company found to have children on their platforms. Some believe this bill to be extremely restrictive. “Under the bill, parental consent for children to use social media does not override the ban,” Rod McGurick of the Associated Press noted. None of the offending children would be punished, however. The companies were allotted one year to plan for the consequences, which will be enacted in 2025. A variety of different platforms will be affected. “[The] ban [will] apply to Instagram, X, Snapchat [and] TikTok,” Byron Kaye and Praveen Menon of Reuters said.
The bill came after heightened attention on suicides linked to sextortion attacks. One particularly tragic case is the suicide of Mac Holdsworth, a boy who had fallen for a sextortion scam at 15 and ultimately took his own life at 17. Holdsworth had believed that he was talking and sending nudes to a girl his age, but he soon found out that the receiver was actually a 47-year-old man who threatened to send the pictures to others if Holdsworth did not pay. In the wake of this tragedy, his father embarked on a one-man mission to raise awareness and provide support by visiting schools to talk about the sensitive matter.
Suicide resulting from cyberbullying was another reason for the bill. For example, Ella Catley-Crawford, a 12-year-old only child, was catfished by her bullies. She had been academically successful and extremely talented. Despite her promising future, the relentless bullying led her to commit suicide, cutting short her immense potential.
Social media has always been reported to cause certain unintentional side effects. “Studies […] found that discussing or showing [self-harm and risk-taking] content can normalize these behaviors,” Kathy Katella, the Senior Clinical Writer of Yale School of Medicine said. This along with body-shaming content found on social media lead to many teens to develop depression. In her article, she describes how social media’s curated feeds lead to the reinforcement of bad habits and false personal perceptions in a degree unlike anything else in history.
Supporters believe that this bill is a good step in the direction of protecting children from the negative aspects of the internet. Holdsworth called the government’s proposal to ban children under 16 from social media as “‘absolutely essential for the safety of our children’” The Associated Press reported.
However, there are still concerns from the public ranging from the feasibility to the potential implications of the bill. “Criticisms include that the legislation was rushed through Parliament without adequate scrutiny, is ineffective, poses privacy risks for all users, and undermines the authority of parents to make decisions for their children,” McGurick said.
Even the leader of Suicide Prevention Australia, Christopher Stone, did not agree with the bill. “The government is running blindfolded into a brick wall by rushing this legislation. Young Australians deserve evidence-based policies, not decisions made in haste,” Stone said.
Additionally, some people think that it will drive the youth to evade the “safe” social media sites and resort to the dark web, where no safeguards are in place. Other opposers include the social media companies themselves, since the bill would largely hurt their business models and is what they believe to be a large exaggeration. Some also believe that social media’s positives such as the ability to foster and maintain connections should allow social media to be unrestricted for all ages.
If the law actually comes into effect, the hope is that it will lead to a significant reduction in suicide and cyberbullying rates, ultimately fostering a safer online environment for children.
