Australia's under-16 social media ban triggers confusion, workarounds, and privacy fears

Daniel Sims

Posts: 2,564   +77
Staff
In brief: Australia's world-first social media ban on users under the age of 16 has come into effect, with mixed results and varied reactions. As other countries observe the rollout, the new law continues to draw criticism due to concerns about privacy and effectiveness.

The legislation, which passed last year, requires Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, Twitter, and YouTube to verify the ages of Australian users and close the accounts of those identified as under 16. Although social media networks have begun to comply, gaps have already occurred in their age verification methods.

While many teenagers have been kicked offline, various outlets have reported comments from kids and parents whose children have experienced little to no disruption of access. In many cases, facial scans inaccurately determine users' ages, or teens quickly found ways to fool the technology.

In September, a government-commissioned report on age verification methods found that, while facial scans are 92% accurate for users over 18, there is a larger margin of error for users aged roughly 13 to 18. In some extreme cases, parents have reported that children as young as 11 have been estimated to be 18 or even over 30.

Teenagers have also circumvented scans by making unusual facial expressions, applying makeup, or using VPNs. Furthermore, users who passed age verification checks have used their faces to help friends and family members sidestep the ban. Meanwhile, false positives have led to bans for 16-year-old users. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wrote that the government never expected the ban to be 100% effective, comparing it to underage drinking laws.

The rollout echoes the United Kingdom's requirement that sites featuring adult content enforce age verification. VPN use in the country skyrocketed after the law went into effect, and some users discovered innovative solutions, such as using footage from increasingly realistic video games. Others turned to sites that flouted the new rules.

Similar restrictions have spread to parts of the US and other countries, but are controversial largely due to privacy concerns. Verifying users' ages through facial scans or government documents could put personal data at risk. In October, after hackers breached a customer service contractor for Discord, the attackers claimed to have stolen over 1.5TB of verification data, but the company disputed the claim.

While some Australians report seeing teens engage in more offline activity following the ban, others worry that it could disrupt social connections or methods of contacting friends and family.

Permalink to story:

 
I wonder how many teens will just switch to less regulated websites that simply don't care about Australia's rules. Maybe I should go to 4chan & see if there is a bunch of Aussie posting going on.
 
Fact is making something illegal and even a little hard to get drops user engagent like a rock.

People are lazy and they will just do something else if even a minor inconvenience is placed in their way (even for extreme life altering stuff like suicide).

Some people will stop using social media, others will find alternatives, and others will just brute force their way in.

I don't like the *method* of enforcement (face scans) and have long held that parents need to ****ing be parents, but good on Australia for doing something.
 
Oh Those poor, poor children. What will they do? It's a great idea and I hope it works out for them. Looking at screens all the time rots brains
 
Fact is making something illegal and even a little hard to get drops user engagent like a rock.

People are lazy and they will just do something else if even a minor inconvenience is placed in their way (even for extreme life altering stuff like suicide).

Some people will stop using social media, others will find alternatives, and others will just brute force their way in.

I don't like the *method* of enforcement (face scans) and have long held that parents need to ****ing be parents, but good on Australia for doing something.

No government should act as a parent. That's a massive can of worms.
 
Australia still have sane politicians which is great for them. I wonder why they banned social media but didn’t outlaw companies owning these platforms. Would be very much effective influence on changing Meta policies quite fast if there would be Australian arrest warrant on Zuck’s head. I presume Facebook would return to be very kitty platform in 24 hours after that.
 
Fact is making something illegal and even a little hard to get drops user engagent like a rock.

People are lazy and they will just do something else if even a minor inconvenience is placed in their way (even for extreme life altering stuff like suicide).

Some people will stop using social media, others will find alternatives, and others will just brute force their way in.

I don't like the *method* of enforcement (face scans) and have long held that parents need to ****ing be parents, but good on Australia for doing something.
They didnt make it illegal for teens to access it, they only made it a legal requirement for platforms to 'try' to block teens from accessing it. The platforms dont actually care if they do or not, only that they meet the threshold of having 'tried' sufficiently
 
What about porn? Can they still get porn? Porn is awesome.
Yes, they can. To access porn you still only need to press the button that says "I am definitely absolutely for sure over 18, I promise". Hardcore security measures like ID verification and drivers license photos is only reserved for the super duper dangerous stuff, like TikTok......
 
No government should act as a parent. That's a massive can of worms.
Technically that's correct, but protecting children is not only a job of their parents, it's something everyone should be engaged with. Children (unless very small) are not under their parents supervision most of the time.

I don't know of a country where minors are allowed to buy alcohol and cigarettes. And I don't know anyone opposing that restriction, or labeling it "a massive can of worms".
 
Technically that's correct, but protecting children is not only a job of their parents, it's something everyone should be engaged with. Children (unless very small) are not under their parents supervision most of the time.

I don't know of a country where minors are allowed to buy alcohol and cigarettes. And I don't know anyone opposing that restriction, or labeling it "a massive can of worms".
Alcohol and cigarettes are inherently bad for your health. Social media is not. Banning it would be the same as banning all beverages for fear someone might drink an alcoholic one.
 
Fact is making something illegal and even a little hard to get drops user engagent like a rock.

People are lazy and they will just do something else if even a minor inconvenience is placed in their way (even for extreme life altering stuff like suicide).

Some people will stop using social media, others will find alternatives, and others will just brute force their way in.

I don't like the *method* of enforcement (face scans) and have long held that parents need to ****ing be parents, but good on Australia for doing something.
yeah but the main driving force is spite. getting around the ban IS the alternative activity that they will do until they can get back to learning how to cook and sew on tiktok. but thats just my view from the USA
 
Technically that's correct, but protecting children is not only a job of their parents, it's something everyone should be engaged with. Children (unless very small) are not under their parents supervision most of the time.

I don't know of a country where minors are allowed to buy alcohol and cigarettes. And I don't know anyone opposing that restriction, or labeling it "a massive can of worms".
"I dont know of a country where minors are allowed to buy alcohol and cigarettes."
Not being allowed does not mean they are not able to.

In the US, kids could take a note to the store saying they are buying cigs and a 40oz. for their dad and that was acceptable.

But to stay on topic, the issue is the government thinking it can tell people what to do and the governments thinking that anyone cares what they say.
 
Oh Those poor, poor children. What will they do? It's a great idea and I hope it works out for them. Looking at screens all the time rots brains
definitely! just think of all those rotted brains on this site that voted for a 34 time convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, grifter & all round orange pos.
 
Might as well add Spotify to the list, since they're taking away everything else.

"Hey kid, you wanna listen to music? Too bad."
 
I wonder how many teens will just switch to less regulated websites that simply don't care about Australia's rules. Maybe I should go to 4chan & see if there is a bunch of Aussie posting going on.
Aus government will just keep adding social media sites to the list. Remember though it has to be actual social media, message boards are not the same and don't have the same proven harm outcomes.

Alcohol and cigarettes are inherently bad for your health. Social media is not. Banning it would be the same as banning all beverages for fear someone might drink an alcoholic one.
Incorrect for under 16's. It has been proven there are significant negative outcomes for most children using social media. Some social media companies have researched it themselves, but cash is more important than kids to them.

Technically that's correct, but protecting children is not only a job of their parents, it's something everyone should be engaged with. Children (unless very small) are not under their parents supervision most of the time.

I don't know of a country where minors are allowed to buy alcohol and cigarettes. And I don't know anyone opposing that restriction, or labeling it "a massive can of worms".
Voice of sanity, bravo.
 
Back