Australia’s government has unveiled plans to introduce a landmark law banning children under the age of 16 from using social media.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that the legislation, which will be presented in Parliament next week, aims to address the growing concerns over the negative impact of social media on the mental health and safety of Australian children.
“This is for the mums and dads who, like me, are deeply worried about the safety of our kids online,” Albanese said. “I want Australian families to know the government has your back in protecting your children from the harms of social media.”
Under the proposed laws, social media platforms would be responsible for ensuring children under 16 cannot access their services. The ban would not affect children who are already on social media, and there would be no exemptions for children with parental consent. Instead, the onus will be on the platforms to demonstrate that they are taking sufficient steps to prevent access to underage users.
The legislation, which will come into effect 12 months after it passes, will be enforced by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner. However, there will be no penalties for underage users, only for the platforms that fail to comply with the new regulations. The law will be subject to a review after it has been in effect for some time.
While the government’s move has received praise from some quarters, it has also sparked significant debate. Experts are divided over whether an outright ban is the best approach. Critics argue that bans might only delay young people’s exposure to platforms like TikTok and Instagram, rather than teaching them how to navigate these spaces safely. Previous attempts at restricting social media access, such as in the European Union, have faced challenges and backlash from tech companies.
The Australian Child Rights Taskforce, a coalition of over 100 academics and child advocacy groups, has criticized the proposed ban as an overly simplistic solution. In an open letter, the group urged the government to consider imposing safety standards on social media platforms instead of implementing a blanket ban. They also referenced United Nations recommendations, which emphasize that digital policies should provide children with safe access to the online world while also helping them benefit from it.
Despite this, there is strong support from grassroots campaigners who argue that the legislation is necessary to protect children from harmful content, bullying, and the mental health risks posed by excessive social media use. The 36Months initiative, which has collected over 125,000 signatures, argues that children’s brains are still developing and that social media use during critical stages of growth can have long-lasting consequences on their mental health.
In response to questions about whether educating children on safe online practices would be a better alternative, Albanese maintained that such an approach would not be enough. He pointed out that the algorithms behind social media apps are designed to keep users hooked, and children are particularly vulnerable. “These tech companies are incredibly powerful, and their algorithms push people toward certain behaviors. That’s why we need stronger protections for kids,” he said.
As the government moves forward with the legislation, it is clear that the debate over how best to protect children online is far from settled. The proposed ban on social media access for under-16s will likely continue to generate significant discussion and could set a precedent for other countries grappling with similar concerns.
Source: BBC
Bd-pratidin English/ Afia
