Tag Archives: Under16s

Why Rushing to Ban Social Media for Under-16s Is a Mistake

Posted on by
Reply

Discover the latest in science and technology with New Scientist—a trusted source for in-depth articles and expert journalism on health, environmental issues, and much more.

In the corridors of power in the UK, a vital adage states that scientific advisers need to be grounded rather than elevated. This principle, often credited to Winston Churchill, asserts that in a democracy, it is essential for science to inform policymaking, rather than dictate it.

This idea became particularly relevant during the Covid-19 pandemic, when British leaders claimed to be “following the science.” However, many critical decisions—like paying individuals to self-isolate or shutting down schools—couldn’t rely solely on scientific guidance. Numerous questions remained unanswered, placing policymakers in a challenging position.

In stark contrast, the Trump administration has been working to dismantle established guidelines from health agencies regarding various issues, from vaccination to cell phone radiation, in pursuit of the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, all while curtailing scientific research.

“
By mid-2027, we should have stronger evidence on the harms of social media.
“

But what should policymakers do when scientific understanding is still developing and no immediate global crisis is present? The pressing question is how long they should wait for scientific clarity.

Currently, a significant debate is brewing in various nations regarding the potential ban on social media use for those under 16, as Australia implemented late last year. While public support for such a ban is high, the prevailing scientific evidence indicates that social media’s impact on teens’ mental health is minimal at a population level. Should political leaders disregard this evidence to cater to public opinion?

To do so would align with Churchill’s maxim. Yet, as we explore further, by mid-2027, more reliable evidence regarding social media’s negative influences should emerge from both a randomized trial in the UK and data stemming from Australia’s ban. Thus, the most prudent course of action is to allow scientists the time to gather concrete evidence before implementing significant policy changes. Progress in policy must stem from proactive science—not from its supremacy—and this requires adequate time.

Source: www.newscientist.com

Should YouTube Be Part of Australia’s Social Media Ban for Under-16s? Key Insights You Need to Know

Posted on by
Reply

Australia’s online safety regulators advise that YouTube should not be granted an exemption from a social media ban for individuals under 16, stating that video streaming platforms can expose children to dangerous content.

In contrast, YouTube contends that it should adhere to a proposed regulation indicating that the government will provide exemptions to the platform.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of regulating YouTube? And what implications does this have for a child watching YouTube if it becomes prohibited?

Why did the government consider exempting YouTube initially?

Last November, when Congress introduced legislation banning access to social media for children under 16, then Communications Minister Michelle Roland indicated that YouTube would be exempted.

This exemption was justified on the grounds that YouTube serves “an important purpose by providing youth with educational and health resources.”




The ban on social media in Australia for individuals under 16 is now law. Many details remain unclear – Video

This exemption came just 48 hours after revelations in April by Guardian Australia regarding the minister’s direct lobbying efforts involving the global CEO of YouTube.

This decision surprised YouTube competitors such as Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat. TikTok described it as a “special deal.” YouTube has launched vertical video products like Instagram and TikTok reels, leading its competitors to believe it should be included in the ban.

What led the eSafety Commissioner to recommend banning YouTube?

As new regulations regarding social media platforms were being formulated, the Minister consulted with eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant.

In a recent report, Inman Grant highlighted findings from a youth survey indicating that 76% of individuals aged 10 to 15 use YouTube. The survey also showed that 37% of children who experienced potentially harmful content online encountered it on YouTube.

Additionally, it was observed that increased time spent on YouTube correlates with higher levels of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among youth, according to the Black Dog Institute.

“Currently, YouTube boasts persuasive design elements associated with health risks, including features that could encourage unnecessary or excessive usage (such as autoplay, social validations, and algorithm-driven content feeds),” noted Inman Grant.

“When combined, these elements can lead to excessive engagement without breaks and heighten exposure to harmful material.”

Inman Grant concluded that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that YouTube provides exclusively beneficial experiences for children under 16.

However, it’s noted that children may still view content on YouTube even if they are logged out and thereby prohibited from using accounts.

What is YouTube’s position?

In a recent statement, Rachel Lord, YouTube’s senior public policy manager for Australia and New Zealand, commented on the eSafety Commissioner’s advice which was examined and subsequently supported by Parliament. YouTube views the findings on community opinion regarding the platform’s suitability for younger audiences as being “inconsistent with government commitments.”

YouTube has been developing age-appropriate offerings for over ten years, and in Q1 of 2025, the company removed 192,856 videos for breaching its hate speech and abusive content policies, a 22% increase from the previous year.

The platform asserts its role primarily as a video hosting service rather than a promoter of social interaction. A survey conducted among Australian teachers revealed that 84% use YouTube monthly as a resource for student learning.

YouTube also stated that the eSafety Commission and potentially the Communications Minister may be reconsidering the exemption following pressures from YouTube’s competitors.

What about YouTube Kids?

YouTube asserts that it offers a platform tailored for younger users, restricting both the uploading of content and commenting features for children.

The company does not seek exemptions solely for its children’s products.

When questioned about YouTube Kids during the National Press Club event, it was indicated that the platform is considered low-risk, designed specifically for children, and possesses adequate safety measures. However, it was stated, “I cannot respond until I have seen the regulations.”

Can children access YouTube without an account?

Yes. Inman Grant confirmed that if teachers wish to show videos to their students, they can access YouTube without needing to log in.

She noted that YouTube has “opaque algorithms that create addictive ‘rabbit holes’,” and remarked that when she accessed the site while logged out, her experience was positive, empowering users to engage without being subjected to addictive technological features.

In response to YouTube’s assertions on Thursday, Inman Grant reiterated that the call for exclusion from the ban aims to “allow young Australians to access YouTube’s diverse content.” However, she clarified that her advice does not imply that children will lose access to YouTube’s educational resources.

“The new law strictly restricts children under 16 from holding their own accounts. They will not be able to access YouTube or other services while logged out,” she added.

“There is nothing preventing educators with their own accounts from continuing to share educational content on YouTube or other platforms approved for school use.”

What are the next steps?

The Minister will finalize the guidelines and identify the social media platforms covered by the ban in the upcoming months.

A trial on age verification technology is expected to be reported to the Minister by the end of July, which will establish the technology platforms must implement to prevent access for users under 16.

The government has announced that the ban is anticipated to come into force in early December.

Source: www.theguardian.com

The panic in Silicon Valley over Australia’s social media ban for under-16s

Posted on by
Reply

HHello. Welcome to TechScape. Happy belated Thanksgiving to all my American readers. I hope you all enjoy a fun holiday party this weekend. I’m looking forward to baking gritty bunts for the Feast of St. Nicholas. This week in tech: Australia causes panic, Bluesky raises the issue of custom feeds, and we cover the online things that brought me joy over the holidays.

Australia on Thursday passed a law banning children under 16 from using social networks.

My colleague Helen Sullivan reports from Sydney: The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) would prohibit social media platforms from allowing users under the age of 16 to access their services, with penalties of up to A$50 million (A$3,200) for failure to comply. He is threatening to impose a fine of US$ 1,000,000. However, it does not contain any details about how it will work, only that companies are expected to take reasonable steps to ensure that users are over 16 years of age. Further details will be available by the time the Age Assurance Technology trials are completed in mid-2025. The bill will not take effect for another 12 months.

The bill also does not specify which companies would be subject to the ban, but Communications Minister Michel Rolland has said that Snapchat, TikTok, X, Instagram, Reddit, and Facebook are likely to be subject to the ban. YouTube is not included because it is for “important” educational purposes, she said.

The new law was drafted in response to Labor Prime Minister Anthony Albanese saying there was “a clear causal link between the rise of social media and the harm it causes to Australian youth mental health.”

Please see the full text here.

***
Opposition to this law is active and diverse.

TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and X are angry. Following the bill’s passage, Mehta said the process was “fast-tracked” and that it would take a long time to hear from young people, the steps the tech industry has already taken to protect them, and existing research on the impact of their social media use. He said he did not consider the evidence.

Australian children are not a significant user base for these companies. According to UNICEF, in 2023, there were 5.7 million people under the age of 18 living in Australia. Facebook reported 3 billion monthly users in 2023. May 2023. There are approximately 370 million Facebook users in India. Even if all Australian children were to leave social media, which is unlikely, the number of users would not decline significantly.

If countries around the world turn their young people away from social media, social media companies will face an uncertain future.

Of concern to tech companies is the precedent set by the new law. Tech companies also fiercely opposed measures in both Australia and Canada that would require them to pay for news content. The issue was not the amount requested, but what happened next. If countries around the world required people to pay for news, the financial burden it would place on Facebook and others would be enormous, as would the responsibility of determining what is news. As countries around the world turn their young people away from social media, social media companies will face an uncertain future. The pipeline of incoming users will dry up.

What tech companies want in Australia is a measure that would require parental consent, but this would be a more vague standard and one that would divide responsibility between companies and users. Mehta and others opposed a 2023 law passed in France requiring parents to approve accounts for children under 15 with far less vigor than Australia’s new law. However, in an ominous sign for Australia’s measures, local French media reports that technical challenges mean the under-15 rule has not yet been implemented. Also, does the parental consent feature work? Data from several European countries shows that it doesn’t. Nick Clegg from Meta said the company’s data shows that parents are not using parental control measures on social networks.

Australian law shows that this is indeed possible in any country. We have seen the laws of one country tilt the global governance of social networks before. In the United States, a law governing children’s privacy passed in 2000 imposed a minimum age of 13 for social media users. Social network privacy policy.

Click here for a comparison of Australia’s social media ban laws with those of other countries.

What do you want from your social feed?

Photo: Photostorm/Getty Images


Source: www.theguardian.com

UK government is not planning to ban social media for under-16s at the moment, minister states

Posted on by
Reply

Ministers have stated that the social media ban for under-16s is not currently being considered, despite teenagers urging a reconsideration of plans to restrict access to platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat following Australia’s example.

Peter Kyle, Secretary of State for Science and Technology, issued a warning to social media platforms about potential fines and prison sentences for breaching online safety laws coming into effect next year. Efforts are being made to increase prevention of online harm.

During a meeting with teenagers at NSPCC headquarters, Mr. Kyle emphasized that there are no immediate plans to ban children from using smartphones, as it is not his preferred choice.

Teenagers expressed concerns about platform addiction and difficulties in seeking help for hacked accounts or offensive content, but did not call for a ban. They highlighted the importance of social connections, support, and safety.

Mr. Kyle’s initial comments about considering a ban caused worry among teenagers, but he clarified that a ban could be a possibility depending on evidence of its effectiveness, especially in light of similar legislation in Australia.

The main focus remains on preventing child fatalities linked to social media activity, with Mr. Kyle citing instances of tragic outcomes. Efforts are ongoing to enhance age verification software to protect children from inappropriate online content.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Source: www.theguardian.com

Australian Parliament Inquiry does not fully endorse ban on social media for under-16s

Posted on by
Reply

A parliamentary committee investigating the impact of social media on Australian society has recommended empowering users to change, reset, and disable algorithms, as well as enhancing privacy protections. However, the committee also proposed a ban on social media use by individuals under 16 years old. No final recommendations have been made yet regarding access to social media.

The inquiry primarily focused on the influence of social media on young people. Both the opposition coalition and the federal government have announced plans to regulate social media for individuals under 16, pending legislation to be introduced in parliament by the year’s end in response to the current usage policy.

One of the 12 recommendations in the final report suggests enabling governments to enforce laws on digital platforms more effectively, creating a duty of care for platforms, and requiring platforms to provide data access to researchers and public interest groups. The report also suggests that users should have more control over their online experiences, understand algorithms, enhance digital literacy education, and submit age-guaranteed technology testing results to Congress.

Final report

Although there’s bipartisan support for banning social media access for those under 16, the study suggests that ensuring children’s safety may not necessarily involve outright bans until they reach an appropriate age. It emphasizes the need for collaborative efforts with young people in designing regulatory frameworks impacting them.

The Commission highlights the importance of evidence-based decisions regarding age restrictions and the necessity of involving young people in the policymaking process.

The committee suggests that a blanket ban on social media for certain age groups may not be the optimal solution and underscores the need for comprehensive digital reforms to tackle harmful online practices.

Chairperson Labor MP Sharon Claydon emphasizes the complexity of the issue and the necessity for immediate action to safeguard Australian users.

The Greens propose lifting the review of online safety laws, banning data mining of young people’s information, providing more education, and considering a digital services tax on platforms.

Source: www.theguardian.com

UK Bill Could Mandate Social Media Platforms to Develop Less Addictive Content for Under-16s

Posted on by
Reply

Legislation supported by Labor, the Conservative Party, and child protection experts will require social media companies to exclude teenagers from algorithms intended to reduce content addiction in under-16s. This new Safer Telephones Bill, introduced by Labor MPs, prioritizes reviewing mobile phone sales to teenagers and potentially implementing additional safeguards for under-16s. Health Secretary Wes Street voiced support for the bill, citing the negative impact of smartphone addiction on children’s mental health.

The bill, championed by Labor MP Josh McAllister, is receiving positive feedback from ministers, although there is hesitation around banning mobile phone sales to teens. With backing from former Conservative education secretary Kit Malthouse and education select committee chair Helen Hayes, the bill aims to address concerns about children’s excessive screen time and exposure to harmful content.

Mr. McAllister’s bill, which focuses on protecting children from online dangers, will be debated by ministers this week. The bill includes measures to raise the Internet age of majority to 16 and give regulatory powers to Ofcom for children’s online safety. The proposed legislation has garnered support from various stakeholders including former children’s minister Claire Coutinho and children’s charities.

Concerns about the impact of smartphones on children’s well-being have prompted calls for stricter regulations on access to addictive online content. While Prime Minister Keir Starmer is against a blanket ban on mobile phones for under-16s, there are ongoing discussions about how to ensure children’s safety online without restricting necessary access to technology.

The bill aims to regulate online platforms and mobile phone sales to protect young people from harmful content and addiction. Mr. McAllister’s efforts in promoting children’s digital well-being have garnered significant support from policymakers and child welfare advocates.

As the government considers the implications of the bill and the Online Safety Act, which is currently pending full implementation, efforts to protect children from online risks continue to gain momentum. It remains crucial to strike a balance between enabling technology access and safeguarding children from potential online harms.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Minister Says Ban on Social Media for Under-16s Should Be Considered Due to Potential Harm, Despite Being Speculative

Posted on by
Reply

A ban on social media use for under-16s has been branded “speculative”, but the government must “continue to consider” the need to protect children, the minister said.

Science Minister Andrew Griffiths dismissed “speculative” reports that some young people’s access to social media could be restricted as part of a “potential consultation” into the issue.

Ministers are reportedly discussing the impact of sites such as TikTok and Instagram on young people’s wellbeing, with future plans potentially forcing them to get parental permission before using social networks. It is said that there is a sex.

Asked by Sky News whether such a proposal could be enforceable, Mr Griffiths said: “Well, we’re just talking about speculation.”

He said the government had already passed online safety laws that would “make activities that were illegal offline illegal online.”

Latest politics: Businesses face ‘period of uncertainty’ over Home Office visa changes

But he went on to say that social media has had “real harm” as well as “good”.

“As a parent myself, I understand that parents feel a very strong need to protect their children from the evils of society that have been prevalent on social media in the past,” he said.

“We have already taken action and it is right to continue to consider it. I don’t think we can ever say the job is done.

“That is speculation about the possibility of talks taking place in the new year.”

Asked whether talks were taking place, he said: “I don’t think any of us know what’s going on and I’m not going to comment on any further talks at this point.”

The Online Safety Act was passed in October and aims to make the UK “the safest place online in the world”.

Under this law, regulations are imposed on businesses such as: meta and apple This is to ensure that inappropriate and potentially dangerous content is kept away from young people and vulnerable people.

Examples include content that promotes suicide or self-harm. The coroner handed down the verdict last year. that it contributed to teenagers Molly Russell to take one’s own life.

read more:
What is the Online Safety Bill? Who is for it, who is against it, and how will it be enforced?
Pornographic websites may require the use of photo ID and credit card checks to protect children

The law would also hold platforms accountable for illegal content such as child sexual abuse images, force adult websites to properly enforce age restrictions, and prevent underage children from creating social media accounts. The purpose is

Media regulator Ofcom will be responsible for enforcing the new rules, and companies that fail to do so will face fines of up to £18m or 10% of their global annual turnover, whichever is greater.

Companies and senior managers could also face criminal charges if it is determined that they are not doing enough to protect children, and in the most extreme cases, the platform’s operations in the UK could be suspended completely. There is also a possibility that it will be blocked.

Source: news.sky.com