Banning under 16s? Maybe we could try literally any less draconian measure first

Australia has become the first country in the world to attempt banning social media for children under 16. The much-contested social media ban bill passed the Senate this week, with the support of both major parties, following agreement over amendments so adults won’t need to present a government-issued ID to platforms.

While these changes were clearly aimed at addressing concerns around the loss of anonymity online, the changes ultimately cannot undo the core problem with the bill.

This new law, far from being limited to protecting children online, seems to be a sneaky way to start removing anonymity online. Inevitably, any verification requirement will be a Trojan horse for online surveillance.

In the past, Australians were wary to the point of hostility towards potential government surveillance schemes. The unhappy saga around the Australia Card in the 1980s is a prominent example.

Unfortunately, it seems the relentless press of government into every aspect of our lives has worn away this healthy scepticism.

Over time, we have become much more tolerant of government oversight and control over what we can do or say. The first prominent example were the laws justified to win a ‘war on terror’, then we had the previous government’s metadata laws.

Perhaps the starkest and most sinister aspects of this new tolerance for excessive government oversight was in evidence during the Covid lockdown era.

This government has now managed to pass an internet identification framework that could easily be twisted by vindictive, self-righteous politicians to police our language and what we post online.

The fact is, you don’t need government ID to know who someone is: a clear photo is enough. It may sound like something out of a science fiction novel, the Department of Home Affairs uses this kind of technology every day to identify individuals lodging Australian Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) applications.

Any software capable of estimating a user’s age would require data that would also allow for those individuals to be identified as effectively as if they had provided government ID. Other data such as the device they use, the locations from which they post, and their internet server, would help corroborate the facial recognition data.

As long as social media companies have an individual’s image, they can trace the person behind that profile.

And if social media companies can link a person with a profile, the government will be able to require them to turn that information over to the authorities. For example: it could be used to identify a whistleblower leaking sensitive government information, or a person posting controversial views online.

The UK has already gone done the path of holding individual citizens accountable for what they say online; including making arrests and placing criminal charges for posts deemed offensive.

Our government has form in this space too. Although they failed with their attempt to penalise social media platforms for the spread of misinformation, this bill sets up a framework that could easily be turned to allow Orwellian government to directly penalise individuals for their ‘wrong speak’.

And that is before you get to the actions of Australia’s e-safety commissioner — the self-appointed acting policewoman of the global internet.

To be clear, this bill does not authorise the police to come knocking on your door tomorrow. However, the potential end of anonymity online is a big deal, even for those who do not choose to remain anonymous.

Ironically, while technology could allow for the identification of social media users, what it won’t do is accurately identify their ages. Social media companies already regularly use facial recognition software to identify children in images and videos. However, software does not exist that can reliably distinguish between a 15.5-year-old from a 16-year-old.

Moreover, and more importantly, the appropriate authorities to enforce a ban on social media for children are their parents.

It is true that some parents find it challenging to effectively restrict their children’s social media use, either because of peer pressure or a lack of parenting skills. Others may feel such a ban is unwarranted, and that it would unfairly limit their child’s ability to interact with their peers.

There is some evidence to suggest that excessive access to social media is harmful to young people, especially young girls. Certainly, there is enough concern that parents should be actively considering severely restricting social media access for their kids.

However, while the rules of the various platforms have minimum age requirements, the bulk of kids are accessing and using social media legally. Maybe we could try literally any less draconian measure first: a blanket ban is a very heavy-handed response.

Even if you accept the need to raise the minimum age for social media use, why not put the onus on parents to police this for their kids first? Why not educate parents on the harms of social media use among children and inform them that it is against the law for their child to have an account?

Did we not learn during our decades-long failed attempt to combat internet piracy that the heavy hand of government isn’t the answer?

It’s not like any ban will be 100% effective, either. The generation growing up now, and those to come, are native users of technology. It’s laughable to think they couldn’t find a way around a facial recognition system or other verification.

On that basis, why not at least treat the adults like adults, instead of treating everyone like children — unless, of course, they prove they aren’t?