Australia's social media ban for teens is not working
What's the story
A recent study has revealed that Australia's new law mandating age checks on social media platforms is failing at the first hurdle. The research, conducted by a team that advised the government on implementing these restrictions, found that many platforms are not even asking users to verify their age. This loophole makes the world-first ban on teen access to social media largely ineffective.
Legislation details
Australia mandates age checks on social media
Since December, Australia's new social media law has required platforms like Instagram, Snapchat, and YouTube to prevent users under 16 from creating accounts. The government recommended using multiple checks to verify users' ages. However, the ban has been widely criticized as studies show that most under-16s can still access these platforms. In response, Australia doubled the maximum fine last month and threatened court action against non-compliant tech giants.
Research findings
Platforms did not ask for age proof
The study, conducted by software testers who tested age-assurance software on over 1,000 Australians last year, found that platforms did not ask for age proof on any of the 50 accounts it opened after the law came into effect. The researchers said they declared their age as 16 but were never asked to verify it or use age-assurance measures. This highlights a major flaw in the current process: it focuses more on photo-based age-assurance software than initial vetting stages.
Compliance efforts
Test accounts distributed across multiple platforms
All 50 test accounts are active and have been distributed among nine of the 10 platforms subject to age restrictions. These include Meta's Instagram, Snap's Snapchat, TikTok, and Alphabet's YouTube. While none of the platforms allowed users to sign up if they declared themselves under 16, only one - Australia-based live-streaming platform Kick - refused account creation without proof of age.
Defense strategies
Meta, Kick respond to study findings
A Meta spokesperson said the findings of the shadow trial were inconsistent with the regulator's guidance. They added that the dummy accounts were declared as over the minimum age and it was unclear if they had "posted content or engaged in a way a true under-16-year-old user would." Meanwhile, a Kick spokesperson said relying on age inference wasn't feasible due to lack of data on user behavior.
Regulatory confidence
eSafety commissioner confident in technology's effectiveness
An eSafety commissioner spokesperson said they "remains confident that age-restricted platforms have the technology and resources they need to prevent Australian children under 16 from having accounts." They added that the recommended approach of increasingly robust checks, if implemented correctly, ensures there is no single point of failure. This comes amid criticism over the effectiveness of Australia's social media ban.