Australia raises social media ban penalties to $99 million as children keep accessing platforms

midian182

Posts: 11,726   +177
Staff member
In brief: More countries are introducing social media bans for under 16s, but they aren't working as effectively as intended. Australia, which was the first nation to introduce such a restriction last year, has discovered that the majority of kids are still accessing the platforms. As such, it's doubling the penalty against tech firms for breaches from $49.5 million to $99 million.

Australia's government said tech companies are "not doing enough" to keep children off social media sites. In addition to the doubling of potential penalties, the eSafety Commissioner – Australia's internet regulator – will have strengthened information-gathering powers under proposed reforms.

The new powers will allow the commissioner to compel social media companies to provide more evidence of what they have done to prevent under-16s from owning an account. This includes demands to see information and documents, including from third parties, such as age assurance or app store providers.

eSafety is already investigating the possible non-compliance of Meta, Instagram, Facebook, Google, YouTube, Snapchat, and TikTok.

A report in April found that, four months after being introduced, the Australian ban mostly wasn't working. A survey showed that 61%, or three in five, Australian 12- to 15-year-olds who had accounts on restricted platforms before the ban came into force still had access to one or more accounts.

It was also discovered that almost two-thirds of platforms had taken "no action" to remove or deactivate an account a young user had before the restrictions.

"Based on the regular updates I receive from the eSafety Commissioner, it is clear to me that social media platforms are adopting tricks straight out of the big tech playbook and doing the bare minimum to get by," Minister for Communications Anika Wells said in the statement.

A recent study that included 408 adolescents found that 85% of Australians aged 12 to 15 were still using social media three months after the ban took effect. Two-thirds of underage users stayed online by self-declaring an age over 16 or posting a selfie that the platform accepted as over 16.

A spokesperson for the prime minister said the government had not yet decided when the amendments would be introduced to parliament, but added that it would have more to say on the matter soon.

Australia says that more than 5 million under-16 accounts have been deactivated or restricted since the ban was introduced. But many children are circumventing the restrictions with VPNs and passing age verification checks by making unusual facial expressions, applying makeup, or asking friends or family who look over 16 to help.

Earlier this month, the UK became the latest country to announce a social media ban for under-16s, though it's not expected to be introduced until spring 2027.

Permalink to story:

 
Tech companies are doing "bare minimum"? Is It like code for p*rn? That must be Musk and His Grok.
 
If it's more profitable to break the rules and no one goes to jail for it then why bother in the first place.
Just pretend you're doing something and pay the fine.
 
Tech companies are doing "bare minimum"? Is It like code for p*rn? That must be Musk and His Grok.
I hate to confuse you with the facts, but the Australian government says otherwise:

"Australian eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant ...says was satisfied with progress made by the remaining restricted platforms: X, Kick, Reddit, Threads and Twitch...."


Raising the penalties is meaningless if you never actually fine anyone for breaching the law.
They've removed five million accounts and implemented age-verification software. How do you propose they stop Australians from using VPNs to circumvent the ban?
 
All countries are playing with the mental health of children. Why, not just ban social media altogether? It's a bully pulpit.
 
freedumb of course
Anyone who believes freedom is "dumb" should live somewhere it doesn't exist, to learn the difference.

That said, freedom doesn't involve granting children access to social media. I'd be in favor of an outright ban ... and not just till age 16, either. If you can't buy alcohol or certain firearms until age 21, you shouldn't be on social media, either.
 
You're demanding companies ban their own users, which is generally not good business practice.

This seems like a family issue. Some parents might be ok with their 14 year old using social media. Other parents might disallow their 16 year old from using social media.
 
This seems like a family issue. Some parents might be ok with their 14 year old using social media.
Some parents are ok with their 14 year olds using alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, and carrying dangerous weapons to school. In these cases, government steps in.
 
Gee, children are finding a way around the bans? Not surprised
Platforms looking the other way so children continue to access the sites? Not surprised
Parents that have no idea children are on these sites? Not surprised
 
Anyone who believes freedom is "dumb" should live somewhere it doesn't exist, to learn the difference.

That said, freedom doesn't involve granting children access to social media. I'd be in favor of an outright ban ... and not just till age 16, either. If you can't buy alcohol or certain firearms until age 21, you shouldn't be on social media, either.
so you know that dumb has a b at the end. your pinup boy, the orange pos, didn't. r u sure that you're a 100% committed special little red hat wearer. you shouldn't embarrass your messiah like that?
 
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Passing laws doesn't automatically MAKE something happen. You have to be prepared to enforce those laws.....and that's where it always falls apart (unless you intend to turn at least half your population into law-enforcement officers, actively spying upon and constantly arresting the other half).

Shades of Orwell's "1984", anyone?
 
They've removed five million accounts and implemented age-verification software. How do you propose they stop Australians from using VPNs to circumvent the ban?
My comment was based on what the Australian government is doing, not what the companies potentially affected by the law are doing to avoid being in breach of the regulations, so not sure why you're asking me about the later.
 
My comment was based on what the Australian government is doing, not what the companies potentially affected by the law are doing to avoid being in breach of the regulations, so not sure why you're asking me about the later. [sic]
Wasn't it obvious? You criticized the Australian government for not fining these firms for "breaking the law". I'm asking you why you believe a fine is appropriate, if they have no effective means to stop children from using VPN to circumvent age blocks.
 
Wasn't it obvious? You criticized the Australian government for not fining these firms for "breaking the law". I'm asking you why you believe a fine is appropriate, if they have no effective means to stop children from using VPN to circumvent age blocks.
The Australian government has yet to fine anyone under the law, hence my original comment about increasing said penalty being meaningless. I'm being critical of the supposed intent of the fine as a deterrent, irrespective of the amount, rather than the application of the fine itself.

Yes, I misspelt latter. Kudos to you for picking up on that.

You've asked me two different questions in response to my original comment now. Neither of which I feel need to be answered as they are tangential to the point I was making.
 
You've asked me two different questions in response to my original comment now. Neither of which I feel need to be answered as they are tangential to the point I was making.
I've asked you the same question twice, and that question is more than relevant. The Australian government has yet to issue fines because no fines are justified. Why would you fine someone for not doing the impossible?
 
Back