The world first ban on under-16s using social media has stepped up with Australia doubling the maximum penalty for platforms.
It’s been six months since, Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube began facing A$49.5 million fines for failing to use tech to block underage access.
Their efforts have been patchy at best, so now the fines are being doubling to A$99 million (US$68 million).
Australia is now making good on the threat eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant outlined to me on the Future Media podcast.
The law was fluid and not “set and forget”, she told me. Platforms would be forced to pay if they failed to deliver “constant improvement”. Now she’s doing that.
Progress
It’s been six months since the ban began. It has been polarising, splitting academics, politicians, platforms, policymakers and millions of parents.
Most kids have found ways to evade the ban, which has supported the critics who have argued it is technically unenforceable, and isolates some sectors of children.
Supporters flag that five million underage accounts have been blocked, and platforms have been forced to admit they do know who’s underage despite vehement denials.
If you want to chat about it…
I’ve also been tracking the global rollout of similar bans.
Dozens of countries and several US states are enacting, trialling or considering bans based on the Australian blueprint.
Indonesia has followed Australia with a full ban since March. TikTok, Facebook, Instagram and Roblox accounts are being gradually deactivated.
Karnataka became the first Indian state to ban social media for under-16s in March; Goa and Andhra Pradesh are considering similar measures.
Malaysia is in the middle of implementing its ban now.
Brazil’s laws took effect in March banning addictive features and requiring under-16s to link accounts to parents.
Portugal passed a law in February requiring explicit, verified parental consent for users aged 13 to 16.
The UK has confirmed a ban is coming before Christmas.
Denmark is planning an under-15s law, before the end of the year.
France’s Senate is considering an under-15s ban.
Austria, Norway, Spain and Poland are all drafting legislation, and Germany, Italy, Greece, Ireland, New Zealand and others too.
UK moves
Days ago, the UK government committed to a ban for under-16s modelled on Australia’s approach.
The UK ban goes further, blocking live-streaming and stranger communication for under-16s.
The UK has exempted messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal, and dedicated educational platforms that support schoolwork and learning.
Overnight curfews and breaks in infinite scrolling for under-18s are being looked at and AI romantic companion chatbots will be blocked for under-18s.
Won’t work
In March, 438 security and privacy researchers across 32 countries signed a joint statement calling for a halt to the bans “until the scientific consensus settles”.
They argued kids were smart enough to swerve the bans, and they were privacy invasive because it required some level of identification.
They called it “dangerous and socially unacceptable to introduce a large-scale access control mechanism without a clear understanding of the implications”.
They suggested regulating platforms and giving parents more controls.
Last week, a British Medical Journal study reported that 85% of Australians aged 12 to 15 were still on social media three months after the law took effect.
Two-thirds said they were able to bypass the rules by self-declaring they were over 16 or posted a selfie and were waved through.
Daily use among 12 to 13-year-olds was largely unchanged, but fell slightly among 14 to 15-year-olds but rose among those 16 and over.
Whistleblowers
In December, six days into Australia’s ban, I sat down with two senior Meta execs who now regret their part in the addiction machinery and the harms they caused
Kelly Stonelake spent 15 years at Meta as a director in Mark Zuckerberg’s metaverse. She told me social media is “a breeding ground for harm”.
Brian Boland was Meta’s VP of ads and marketing until 2020, before turning whistleblower and giving evidence to the US Senate.
Both told me that harming children wasn’t a bug Meta wants to fix. “They don’t meaningfully care about user safety,” Brian told me.
Stonelake, who writes the Overturned by Kelly Stonelake Substack, added: “It’s never a matter of a lack of capability. It’s a lack of willingness.”
Kids v billionaire
Inman Grant told me: “I know the (platforms) are going to miss some. The problem won’t magically disappear overnight.”
Her assurance was that the law would force them to try. Australia’s latest actions show they do not think they are trying hard enough.
So where are we?
Meta has just lost two court cases but is arguably facing far greater risk from the ones still coming later this year.
Whistleblowers like Kelly and Brian are emerging thick and fast. Frances Haugen started it with the Facebook Papers. Sarah Wynn Williams detonated a bomb in The US Senate last year.
Journalists are sharpening their pens, like my investigation revealed Meta knowlingly connected kids with predators but chose to ignore it for profits.
The law is a start, and it’s accelerating, but the platforms will change when the incentives change.
