Social Media Ban 🚫: Youth Freedom Fight! 💥

Tech & Science

A legal battle over the implementation of a new law banning Australians under 16 from social media has reached Australia’s highest court, involving a pair of 15-year-olds who are challenging the legislation. The landmark law, passed last year and scheduled to take effect on December 10th, mandates that platforms like YouTube, TikTok, Meta’s Facebook and Instagram, and Snapchat must ensure no Australian children under 16 can hold accounts; companies in violation face potential fines of up to A$49.5 million. Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, representing the advocacy group the Digital Freedom Project (DFP), are arguing that the law unlawfully restricts the implied freedom of political communication – a right not explicitly defined in the Australian Constitution but understood as an integral part of it. In their High Court filing, the DFP seeks a formal declaration that the minimum age provisions of the law are invalid, or alternatively, an urgent injunction to prevent the government and the eSafety Commissioner from enforcing the ban to the extent it inhibits young people's ability to engage in political communication. The group also requests that the provisions be read down or severed to exclude political communication. They contend that the ban will prevent young people from utilizing essential social platforms for political participation.

The young plaintiffs’ concerns extend beyond the inherent flaws of social media and instead focus on the government’s approach to online safety. They argue that simply suspending accounts represents a “lazy” and disproportionate response, asserting that resources should be directed towards removing harmful content itself, rather than targeting users. Speaking to BBC Radio 4, Jones emphasized the need for platforms to “use this money and resources to try to get rid of the predators and harmful content out there.” The teenagers also highlighted the crucial role social media plays in political education and civic engagement. Meanwhile, Neyland cautioned against the potential repercussions of a ban, stating, “Driving us to fake profiles and VPNs is bad safety policy. Bring us into safer spaces, with rules that work: age-appropriate features, privacy-first age assurance, and fast takedowns.” Their proposal calls for lawmakers to prioritize enhanced safety measures, improved education regarding online harms, and robust age assurance technology that safeguards user privacy, moving away from a blanket ban. Despite the constitutional challenge, the government remains steadfast, with Communications Minister Anika Wells publicly affirming, “We will not be intimidated by threats. We will not be intimidated by legal challenges.”

“Australian parents stand firm, asserting they will not be intimidated by big tech,” the coalition stated. The government maintains that the legislation is necessary to protect young Australians from harmful algorithms and content that contribute to bullying and poor body image. Meanwhile, the nation’s online safety regulator, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, has acknowledged that the implementation of the ban will be complex. She told ABC News that not all Australians under 16 will “magically disappear overnight” from social platforms when the law begins. Grant noted that compliance will “vary platform to platform,” and her office intends to pursue a “gradual and fair compliance process” before issuing financial penalties. The regulator’s guidance encourages platforms to adopt a “layered approach” to age checking and explicitly states that companies cannot rely solely on government-issued ID for age verification. Despite these complexities, Commissioner Grant affirmed that the eSafety office will compel platforms to provide “very specific information about what they’ve done and how many accounts that they’ve deactivated or de-platformed.”