Under-16 social media ban: Is it an unenforceable, diabolical can of worms?

WARNING: CONTAINS A REAL-TIME CONVERSATION

We know the psychological harm caused by teenage (and younger) social media misuse can be severe – trauma, humiliation, shame, isolation, depression and more. Even suicide.

Now that Labor’s Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 has been passed, the promised social media ban for under-16’s has become a reality.

It’s contentious, with arguments for and against - like a veritable volleyball match – back and forth, back and forth ad infinitum.

Let’s do some eavesdropping:

I’m pleased that this new Bill has been OK’d for under-16’s. Kids can be so brutal with their sexting, cyberbullying and all the other ways they dream up to intimidate online.

I detest this behaviour, but I don’t think a ban like this is the right way to go. It doesn’t seem right to have under 16’s made to feel excluded from ’normal’ society.

Are you one of those high-minded, out-of-touch civil libertarians?

I am not out of touch! Why should all under-16’s be denied access to the positives that social media has to offer? We should consider things like support for marginalised or disadvantaged social groups. A ban would limit access to peer support and information. And what about kids living in lonely remote areas?
Yet again, we have a case of the well-behaved majority being disadvantaged by the minority, who seem to always spoil things for the rest.

But social media has become an addiction, and it kills real-world socialisation. It even hinders brain development. The under-16 ban makes bloody good sense to me.

Yeah, it is addictive, and here’s the problem. Tech-savvy kids will be desperate for their fixes and find ways around the ban. I bet they’ll succeed. They’re cunning!
Besides, kids can still get onto platforms through VPNs, that’s Virtual Private Networks. They make it appear they’re in a different location where the restriction doesn’t apply.

I am starting to lose my optimism about this new ban.

Good to hear! And let’s remember, the more something is prohibited, the more appealing it often becomes. And historically, prohibitions have a habit of attracting criminal activity that creates bigger problems. Think of Prohibition in America in the 1920’s causing the infamous Gangster Era and the likes of Al Capone.

Now that analogy is a pretty big leap!

Yes I know, but is this ban going to open up a diabolical can of worms? I cannot for the life of me see how it can be enforced. Sure, the platforms face huge fines for non-compliance, but does it mean that mums and dads and teachers have to become the police? Besides, I bet many parents will help their kids get around the law. And what then?

That raises a good point about parents. A lot of them are hardly paragons of virtue themselves and they hardly set good examples.

Imagine what parents might say to their kids, “The government says you are not mature enough to be vile, abusive and offensive on social media, like mummy and daddy are. You will have to wait until you turn 16.” Boy, wouldn’t that reinforce the attraction!

OK then, since you know so much, what is the solution?

I reckon this problem is a blight on society in general. The behaviour needs to be addressed, not just an age group.

So you believe in Paul Keating’s fairies at the bottom of the garden, do you?

Maybe I do in the form of AI. But let me qualify that – with great caution about privacy. There ain’t no silver bullet, but I can dream.
With the incredible advances in artificial Intelligence, surely it would be possible for platforms to quickly identify these violations across the board.
The Online Safety Act has powers to hold online service providers responsible for harmful content. Under the Act, the eSafety Commissioner can investigate and require removal of content. The Act has got big powers already, including heavy penalties.
So, I have a dream. Where have I heard that before? With advanced AI detection by providers enforced by law, the Commissioner is to be automatically notified by platforms of all serious breaches. Platforms will be expected to act ‘appropriately’ according to new law amendments. If not, hefty fines will be on their way to providers.
Mind you, the office of the Commissioner might need to move to much larger premises.

Sounds too good to be true.

FIGJAM