Australia’s world-first social media ban has been sold to the world as a policy to help protect children. But is it doing more harm than good?
Australia introduced the world’s first social media ban for under-16s last December. Since then, some 20 other countries have adopted similar bans, including the UK, Canada, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brazil and Austria.
The ban was pitched as a measure to protect young people’s health and wellbeing from harmful content. This includes cyberbullying, violent or sexually explicit content, scams and content that encourages unproductive or unhealthy behaviours.
Associate Professor Noam Peleg from the School of Global & Public Law at UNSW Law & Justice agrees that there’s online content young children shouldn’t be exposed to without guide or support. But he argues the ban breaches children’s rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child .
“Any decision or process of adopting a decision concerning children – in our case, legislation – should take the rights of children into account, including listening to children,” he says.
“In other words, you can’t form a policy about children without listening to them and then claim that it’s done for their own good.”
A right to freedom of speech
A/Prof. Peleg says limiting children’s access to social media platforms effectively prevents children under 16 from taking part in public forums, whether socially or politically.
“The ban significantly limits children’s access to information. They cannot engage with others. They cannot produce their own knowledge. They cannot be part of these knowledge production processes, which all now happen online,” he says.
“Conversations happen online in forums, blogs and social media; you don’t send a letter to the newspaper anymore. Children have been removed from these spaces. Freedom of expression equates to the right to information and the right to assembly.”
But A/Prof. Peleg isn’t alone in raising these concerns. The Digital Freedom Project launched a High Court case against the social media ban , which is still pending.
In August, France’s Constitutional Council ruled against a social media ban for under-15s, finding that it infringed freedom of expression.
A policy designed for adults
A/Prof. Peleg also argues the ban wasn’t designed around how children engage with the online world, but around adults’ concerns about online harm.
“The outcome is an adult-centric process. It provides a so-called solution that might make sense for adults who are panicked with Instagram or TikTok,” he says.
The eSafety Commissioner’s first evaluation of the social media ban found most children aged 10 to 15 were still using social media in March as often as they were before the ban came into effect.
“The ban doesn’t correspond with the ways in which children engage with these platforms,” A/Prof. Peleg says.
Part of the problem, he argues, is that the legislation relies on categories that don’t reflect how young people engage with the online world.
Under existing measures, age restrictions apply to Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, Threads, Twitch, YouTube and X (formerly Twitter). But other platforms with social or communication features, including YouTube Kids, Roblox, Messenger, Discord and WhatsApp, are excluded.
You can’t form a policy about children without listening to them and then claim that it’s done for their own good.
A/Prof. Peleg describes what adults define as social media as “a very 2010s term”. He adds that “for young people, the existing social media categories make no sense, especially when they’re engaging with multiple apps all at once”.
“If we don’t understand how children engage with the online world, we can’t protect children,” he says.
He points to Roblox as an example. While the gaming platform is not covered by the restrictions, some of its “worlds” can contain disturbing content, and the platform also includes communication features. eSafety has previously raised concerns about child grooming on Roblox.
The online safety regulator has also issued similar warnings about other popular gaming platforms, such as Minecraft, Fortnite and Steam, stating they “contain unlawful material or create environments for child sexual exploitation and abuse or activity which promotes, incites or instructs in matters of crime or violence”.
Right versus wrong
But do children have the mental capacity to decide whether what they see online is right or wrong? For A/Prof. Peleg, the answer is obvious.
“When you speak to children, you realise they have the capacity to differentiate between right and wrong, between what is appropriate and what might be confronting. Any child can speak about their own experiences, and we need to listen to them, engage with their views on their own terms and provide them the knowledge and tools to engage online,” he says.
“Adults are there to broaden the conversation by considering their perspective. We need to move away from this paternalistic approach to children.”
He adds that it’s important to recognise every child’s online experience vary with age.
“The experience of a child at the age of five is different from a 13-year-old, yet this policy applies to both,” A/Prof. Peleg says.
“The discussion should be about understanding how they’re using online platforms, how they engage with the online world, and if we accept the premise that the online world can be harmful to them, we need to understand what the harm is.
“But we also need to remember that the online world is full of opportunities for children to play, learn and interact with peers and family members.”
If we don’t understand how children engage with the online world, we can’t protect children.
Taking aim at the wrong group
Rather than take aim at users, A/Prof. Peleg says the real focus should be on holding social media and other companies, like gaming companies, accountable for allowing harmful content on their platforms. Under current legislation, social media platforms face penalties of up to $99 million if they don’t stop under-16s from creating an account.
“We should be regulating the platforms and removing the harm. At the moment, the law doesn’t handle the source of the harm,” he says.
A/Prof. Peleg is hopeful that this will eventually happen. He compares the approach with the regulation of the tobacco and mining industries, which continue to operate, but within strict regulatory boundaries.
“People can still smoke but there are now plain packaging rules where you can’t advertise cigarettes. Or with soft drinks, people can still consume them, but they need to jump through hoops, and the nutrition value, or lack of, soft drinks appear on every can and bottle,” he says.
“We need to deal with the industry while educating the consumer. Currently, we are trying to tell the consumer you can’t do something, but it doesn’t fix the problem.”
A second chance
While children’s rights weren’t considered as part of Australia’s social media ban, there is still potential for a different approach, particularly when it comes to AI.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has announced that it will dedicate its next general comment to children’s rights and emerging technologies, including AI.
In July, UNICEF, together with France and Spain, established a Coalition for Children’s Rights and Protection in the Age of AI to ensure children’s rights, safety and wellbeing remain at the centre of AI governance. Since then, other countries including Australia, have joined. The coalition intends to present its first voluntary commitments at the Paris Peace Forum in November.
A/Prof. Peleg is cautiously optimistic of what outcomes can be delivered, saying: “Establishing this coalition is a positive step, but the question is whether it will live up to its promised mandate and deliver a framework that will cater for children’s rights and safety in a meaningful way.
“The announcement of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child is much more promising. This body of independent experts will provide, probably in 18 to 24 months, a framework to think about and regulate the online world, centering on children and their rights at the heart of this process.”
