In a world first move, the Australian parliament has passed a bill that bans children under 16 year old from social media.
Platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Snapchat and Tik Tok can be liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 to hold accounts.
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese mentioned that the law supports parents who are concerned about online harm to their children.
“Platforms now have a social responsibility to ensure the safety of our kids is a priority for them,” Albanese told reporters.
Meta claims that the law had been rushed and it did not take into account the positive side effects of social media.
Social media platforms have up to a year to implement changes to their apps to accommodate the new law.
Many have claimed that the legislation had been rushed and platforms have been left in the dark as to how to maneuver the new legislation. It is uncertain how the law will impact social media use by Australian kids.
The legislation also enhances privacy protections. Platforms will not be allowed to ask users for government issued identity documents such as drivers’ license and passports. Platforms also cannot demand users identification through a government system.
Sonya Ryan whose 15 year old child was murdered by a 50 year old pedophile posing as a teenager on social media, hailed the new legislation as a monumental moment to protect children from unwarranted online harms.
Wayne Holdsworth who lost a child due to a sextortion case fervently welcomed the new legislation.
Nonetheless, critics of the law have claimed that the new legislation did not take into account the positive sides of social media. Children who are excluded from social media may feel alienated and a loss of connection with social contacts and this could increase mental health concerns.
The law may also bring about unwarranted consequences such as driving children to the dark web and remove incentives for platforms to improve online safety.
Some have also argued that the law is ineffective, and teenagers will just find means to get around the safety restrictions, if implemented.