There are a few claims being made - even on our socials - that are critical of the Government's Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024.
We want to correct them.
Myth: Age assurance is trying to do parents' jobs
Age assurance is not about government parenting children, it is government stepping in to establish a layer of protection between children and sexual predators and the multibillion-dollar predatory pornography industry which preys on kids.
The Hon Michelle Rowland has made it very clear that "this Bill is about supporting parents … It is about making sure that children have a childhood and parents have peace of mind.”
Big Tech corporates have failed to exercise corporate social responsibility. Instead, they have sat back, facilitated and watched the sexual exploitation and grooming of children for years. And they have profited from it.
Parents cannot fight this alone. And we cannot continue to allow children to be collateral damage of these industries. Even the most informed and well-intentioned parents don’t have a chance against these rich, powerful and predatory industries.
Myth: Preventing children from accessing social media is parents’ responsibility
Relying on parents to supervise children 100% of the time when they are online will severely restrict parents. In the real world, we do not expect a parent to accompany a child every time they enter a newsagent to buy sweets to make sure they don't buy an adult magazine - we make the shopkeeper responsible too.
Parents are often unaware of parental controls or lack the ability to set them up. Many children also figure out how to circumvent them. Parental controls are a valuable measure alongside education - but they are not a sufficient solution on their own. Ofcom has found that around 6 in 10 parents of 5-15s (who had fixed broadband at home and a child who went online) were aware of certain technical tools and controls; however, only around half of these actually used the tools and controls available. That's only 3 in 10 parents who are using parental controls to protect their children.
Myth: This Bill is pointless as it doesn't include Pornhub
Pornhub is not a social media platform, so it was never going to come under the remit of this Bill.
What we know is that children are more likely to be exposed to porn through popular social networking platforms, such as X (Twitter), Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and Facebook through pop-ups and advertising. From the UK Children's Commissioner's 2023 report on young people and pornography:
Twitter is the platform where the highest percentage of children had seen pornography; 41% of young people reported having seen it on Twitter. Dedicated pornography sites came next (37%), followed by Instagram (33%), Snapchat (32%) and search engines (30%).
The research found that "between 6-8% of children aged 8 to 17 had been exposed to pornography on these platforms in the month prior to the survey."
2023 research from our own eSafety Commissioner found that three in five (60%) young people who had encountered online pornography had done so via social media.
Regarding dedicated porn sites, the Federal Government has commenced an Age Verification Pilot to help protect children from porn exposure which we at Collective Shout lobbied for. We contributed to public consultations and recommended the best global age verification bodies to run the trial. Collective Shout is taking part in a stakeholder meeting in Canberra on 28 November with the UK Age Verification Provider.
Myth: The government will require digital ID
The Hon Michelle Rowland, in her response to question time, has made it clear that "the digital ID framework is not in scope and would not be used for age assurance."
The government has stated it will be the responsibility of social media providers, not the government's, to police who is on their platforms. In protecting children, the legislation features stronger than typical data protection requirements. Companies will be required to ring-fence to destroy data collected for age assurance once the age verification is complete. Not destroying data would be a breach of the Privacy Act, with penalties of up to $50 million.
Your privacy will remain intact...
In medicine, a "double-blind clinical trial" is one where neither the researchers nor the patient is aware of whether the latter has had a real drug or a placebo. A double-blind approach is applied to age verification, where the age-restricted website is not given any information about the identity of the user, and the age verification provider records no data about the identity of the website seeking to confirm a user's age. No certified age verification provider is permitted to create or retain a list of the sites any individual customer has accessed. For more information see the Age Verification Providers Association.
Iain Corby, Executive Director of the Age Verification Providers Association, shares with our Movement Director Melinda Tankard Reist in Canberra at the Stakeholders Briefing for the Age Assurance Tech Trial.
Myth: Social media is not harmful
The evidence is clear, "there is no robust evidence that social media is safe for children under 16, and significant data points to the harms it can cause." As stated by Michelle Rowland “the special psychological vulnerability of children and the risks they’re exposed to on social media is understood.”
Children are seeing torture, beheadings, extremely degrading depictions of women and a level of violence that children are not meant to see. They are being desensitised! When it comes to boys they’re being radicalised online, fed misogyny, from the likes of Andrew Tate, and they’re sharing dangerous content with each other. They’re learning callous, brutal ideas about masculinity.
In 2022 a group of UK psychologists and neuroscientists, analysing longitudinal data on 17,400 young people, found that young girls experience a negative link between social media use and life satisfaction when they are 11 to 13 years-old and young boys when they are 14 to 15 years old. In the Australian context, Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children – a partnership between the Department of Social Services, Roy Morgan and the Australian Institute of Family Studies, showed that increased frequency of social media use was associated with elevated symptoms of depression and anxiety.
In addition, Dr Danielle Einstein highlights that "depression and anxiety invariably improve when social media use is restricted" and "the unhealthy, addictive element of social media are the notifications, and that is what leads to overuse. This element can cause children to ignore face-to-face interactions in the playground or after school and instead turn to online interactions. And yet, mental health at a young age is built by a multitude of face-to-face connections. The bill would, therefore, improve the environment for a majority of young people.”
Myth: If we raise the age, it might drive help-seeking behaviour underground
Social media is one of many pathways available for struggling teens to seek out information and access online support or health information. Introducing age restrictions won’t prevent young people from being able to easily access the wealth of information available elsewhere online. This is one of the reasons why the legislation will exclude educational and health support apps from the age limit.
Examples of excluded services include: Google Classroom, Kids Helpline social platform, and ReachOut’s peer chat.
Myth: We will be raising a generation of children, who upon turning 16 will be introduced to the harms of social media without adequate education and critical thinking skills to protect themselves online
We have digital literacy and online safety education in schools. No one is suggesting that we stop providing this education to children. In fact, the government has "expanded free digital media literacy training to all schools through the Alannah and Madeline Foundation.” Find out more.
Myth: The Bill was rushed through
The Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society was stood up in May 2024, and the Australian public was invited to make submissions to their inquiry. The Committee received 217 submissions and conducted five public hearings in Canberra. Two summits were conducted in October, and there were multiple presentations to government by lobbyists and advocates before the Bill was introduced. Decision makers, therefore, had time to weigh up the evidence presented by a range of stakeholders. The Australian public also had time and the opportunity for their voices to be heard.
See Also:
Why Australia is Setting a Minimum Age of 16 for Creating Social Media Accounts
Age Matters: The Case for Raising the Social Media Age Limit
Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society
Hold social media platforms to account: MTR addresses Fed inquiry
Add your comment