Australia to Enforce Strict Social Media Age Limit
As of next week, Australia is set to enforce its strict new rules on social media platforms, requiring them to report monthly how many accounts of children under the age of 16 are closed due to the country's new 16-year-old minimum age limit. The regulation aims to prevent minors from accessing online content and services.
Under the new law, popular social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and others will be required to remove accounts belonging to Australian children under 16 by December 10. Failure to comply with this rule could result in fines of up to $33 million for each platform.
However, if the eSafety regulator identifies systemic breaches of the law, platforms can face higher fines, including the maximum penalty. This means that social media companies may be subject to harsher penalties if they fail to take reasonable steps to remove accounts of under-16s.
In a statement, Communications Minister Anika Wells said that her government recognized that verifying age could take several days or weeks and therefore would send notices on December 11 demanding information about the numbers of accounts removed. Monthly reports would be required for six months.
Google announced earlier this week that it will remove its YouTube platform from users under the age of 16 starting December 10, effectively banning them from accessing features like playlists.
Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, has stated that suspected young children will be removed from these platforms starting Thursday. However, account holders 16 and older who were mistakenly removed can verify their age by providing identification documents or a video selfie.
In an effort to stop the law from taking effect next week, a Sydney-based rights group is hoping to secure an injunction in court. A hearing date has not yet been set for this matter.
This new legislation comes as several countries have implemented similar measures to prevent minors from accessing social media platforms. The Malaysian government announced its intention to ban children under 16 from using social media starting next year, and the European Commission, France, Denmark, Greece, Romania, and New Zealand are also considering setting a minimum age for social media access.
The Australian government's new regulations have sparked controversy among social media companies and online advocates. Google accused the law of misunderstanding its platform, while Meta stated that it does not fulfill its promise to make kids safer online. The Australian government will continue to defend its law in court, stating that parents across Australia have asked for greater protection against online risks.
As of next week, Australia is set to enforce its strict new rules on social media platforms, requiring them to report monthly how many accounts of children under the age of 16 are closed due to the country's new 16-year-old minimum age limit. The regulation aims to prevent minors from accessing online content and services.
Under the new law, popular social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and others will be required to remove accounts belonging to Australian children under 16 by December 10. Failure to comply with this rule could result in fines of up to $33 million for each platform.
However, if the eSafety regulator identifies systemic breaches of the law, platforms can face higher fines, including the maximum penalty. This means that social media companies may be subject to harsher penalties if they fail to take reasonable steps to remove accounts of under-16s.
In a statement, Communications Minister Anika Wells said that her government recognized that verifying age could take several days or weeks and therefore would send notices on December 11 demanding information about the numbers of accounts removed. Monthly reports would be required for six months.
Google announced earlier this week that it will remove its YouTube platform from users under the age of 16 starting December 10, effectively banning them from accessing features like playlists.
Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, has stated that suspected young children will be removed from these platforms starting Thursday. However, account holders 16 and older who were mistakenly removed can verify their age by providing identification documents or a video selfie.
In an effort to stop the law from taking effect next week, a Sydney-based rights group is hoping to secure an injunction in court. A hearing date has not yet been set for this matter.
This new legislation comes as several countries have implemented similar measures to prevent minors from accessing social media platforms. The Malaysian government announced its intention to ban children under 16 from using social media starting next year, and the European Commission, France, Denmark, Greece, Romania, and New Zealand are also considering setting a minimum age for social media access.
The Australian government's new regulations have sparked controversy among social media companies and online advocates. Google accused the law of misunderstanding its platform, while Meta stated that it does not fulfill its promise to make kids safer online. The Australian government will continue to defend its law in court, stating that parents across Australia have asked for greater protection against online risks.
I think this new rule is a good start, but we gotta consider the bigger picture here. What's the point of just removing accounts and not having some form of education or regulation around how these platforms handle minors? 
It feels like they're just kicking the can down the road without addressing the real issue.
It's all about finding that balance and having some kind of dialogue with the platforms about how they can better support parents and protect their kids online.
It's like they're trying to lock us in a box and say "oh, don't worry, we've got everything under control". Well, we know that's not true. 
. I get the idea of protecting minors from online predators and whatnot, but can't they just focus on education and awareness instead of crippling social media platforms? 
It's not like these companies aren't making billions already. This just seems like another way for the government to exert control over everything online. 
I'm not saying they shouldn't be held accountable, but come on... 
this new rule might seem strict but trust me it's a good thing. I mean think about all the dodgy content out there that can harm them. As a wellness guru, I'm all about protectin' our youth from harm and social media is just one of those platforms they're exposed to.
they're basically sayin' "hey gov, we got your back" and takin' steps to protect our young ones. And if some rights groups think the law is too harsh, well... I reckon it's a small price to pay for keepin' our kids safe online 
And don't even get me started on Meta's "systemic breaches" excuse - sounds like they just really didn't want to follow the rules. 
I guess we'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out in court... maybe we'll find out that parents are actually responsible for their kids' online activity, who knew? 
, but at the same time, I think it's kinda cool that the gov't is trying to protect them from online predators and whatnot 
. I mean, we've seen so many stories of kids getting cyberbullied or exposed to some pretty sketchy stuff online... 
! And, let's be real, it's about time we took steps to ensure our teens are being protected from the wild west of social media 
.
. But, for the record, it's still a bit annoying that they're making us adult gatekeepers 
They're trying to restrict our freedom on the internet already! I mean, who are they gonna check up on? Like, how is it even possible to track down all these kids under 16 online? And what about when they go to uni or college? Are we gonna have a social media monitoring system for them too?! 
It's like they think parents are just gonna magically know if their kiddos are using TikTok without supervision. Newsflash: it's not that easy! 
And btw, who decided that 16 is the magic age where kids should be cut off from the internet? Like, what even is that threshold?! 
. Newsflash: social media companies are already supposed to do something about it, not the government 
. And what's with all these fines and penalties? $33 million is a huge fine, like, who's gonna afford that? 
like I know some of my younger cousins are already super active on TikTok and YouTube 
so yeah, idk what else to say 
. While it's understandable that we need to protect kids from online harm, I think this might be an overreach 
instead of actually solving the problem.
. And what about all the kids who won't be on social media but might need it for school or other reasons? It's not like they can just magically turn 17 overnight 
.
.
lets hope these reports are accurate and not just an excuse for some ppl to be lazy 
! It's crazy how many kids are already getting lost in the online world and parents need more control over their safety online. 
. Either way, it'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.
. What about when you're 13 or 14 and know what you're doing online? Do they just magically disappear into oblivion 
? I think the gov's trying to address some real concerns, like cyberbullying and online predators, but this might be a bit of an overreaction 
. And what about those kids who need social media for their mental health or as part of their studies 
.
They're gonna ban our favorite memes and make us all watch educational videos on YouTube. "Oh no, we can't see TikTok, the horror!" 
. But nowadays, it's like they're missing out on so much... or being exposed to things that aren't suitable for them 
.
. And as long as these platforms are reporting their progress and taking steps to remove those unwanted accounts, I think we're on the right track 
. Of course, there will be some teething issues, but that's just part of growing into new laws, right? 
. How do they expect social media companies to keep up with this? It's just not feasible 
They gotta protect the kids from online harm tho 
But maybe they're being a bit too harsh? 
...