Australia’s rationale for the teen social media ban has shifted

The Federal Government has not changed in its commitment to politics over the eight months since the law of the young social media prohibition law. However, during this time, there was a subtle change in the argument of restricting children under the age of 16 to have social media accounts. And this change is very important to understand whether the ban will be a success or failure in its own conditions – without being noticed to a large extent.

When Prime Minister Anthony spoke about the law in late 2024, repeated “Social media is socially damaging our young Australians”.

In the documents accompanying the draft of the federal government, the way of harming social media was discussed.

“The proposal to bring a minimum age for social media will reduce damage caused by young people with online negative experiences (such as cyber bullying, body image problems, eating disorders and shift dependence).

There are two types of damages in this: First, damages caused by content type on social media platforms. These “cyber bullying, body image problems, [and] Eating disorders ”. Then there is implicit damage that can lead to“ shift addiction ından from the design of platforms.

The government emphasized that both are existing risks, but the first. Social media is a world of risky content that should not be accepted that children between the ages of 13-16 should not be exposed.

However, when the government recorded the rules of the young social media ban at the end of last month, its emphasis changed.

New Communication Minister Anika Wells said that the aim of the rules is to target social media platforms with çalışturk persuasive and predatory algorithms aimed at targeting our children ”.

The rules are designed to address the dependence caused by “convincing or manipulative design characteristics, social insulation, sleep intervention, weak mental and physical health (including unhealthy social comparisons and negative body image), low life satisfaction and exposure to inappropriate and harmful content. in accordance with explanatory expression.

About a year after the preparation of the young social media ban law – in the process of developing a short and unusual policy – the government engaged in the flagship technology policy. Apparently, the main problem on social media platforms is not the content they host, but technology itself.

This change has important effects to understand the young social media ban. If the great concern is the technology itself, then it is about Meta, Tiktok or Youtube’s doing a better job in controlling platforms and doing more about the basic design of their services. Instead, focusing goes down to embedded design elements with addictive features such as push notifications and endless algorithmic recommendations. It is a more consistent policy, especially considering the rest of Australia’s internet regulations.

Furthermore, platforms are more consistent with the exemptions of the law, not about how good a job is, as children do not see open content.

However, it also reveals one of the greatest flaws of politics: there is no incentive for social media companies to make a better platform for children. There is no reason to make versions of its products without a vetoed exemption framework, without Tiktok and Meta without “convincing or manipulative design features”. If we accept the acceptance of the government that the government will skip the policy of children, we acknowledge that this policy will force young people to go to more harmful places on the Internet instead of giving reasons to offer better options to these platforms.

Most of the youth security features (such as naked image blur and silent mode) Meta -like For adults, applications are also available for young people. It can also mean a less harmful internet for children and a less harmful internet for the rest.

Australia’s changing logic for the young social media ban entered a more challenging case for government intervention. However, this objective clarity makes it clear that the prohibition in the current form without the exemptions that force technology companies to change the design of their products is a criminal policy that punishes these companies for their past sins without the chance of salvation. He misses the opportunity to reform in favor of revenge.