A public inquiry into the Albanese government’s proposed laws to ban kids from social media was opened on Monday morning and received 15,000 submissions in just over a day.
A rush of responses was likely spurred on by X owner Elon Musk, who posted about the issue on his own social media platform.
Still, the rushed push for submissions should raise questions, as should the fact this legislation is being pushed through in the final sitting week for the year and potentially the final sitting week of this term of government.
Also raising questions is the very legitimate concerns of numerous youth advocacy and mental health groups are essentially going ignored, not just by the governments but also by the most dominant media players in the country, including the Murdoch-owned News Corp, which has seen mastheads like The Daily Telegraph running a “Let Them Be Kids” campaign for months now, raising (legitimate) concerns regarding the harms of bullying on the platform.
There have been no similar campaigns from News Corp or other large publishers regarding the impacts of climate change on kids and their futures, nor regarding state and territory proposals to lower the age of sentencing and locking up kids as young as ten, as is currently being proposed in the Northern Territory.
The social media ban legislation does not exempt those under 16 who are already on social media, nor does it allow kids to access social media with parental consent. If passed, tech companies will have 12 months to figure it out before the ban comes into effect.
These are big decisions regarding what kids can and can’t access, along with the decisions parents can and can’t make about what their kids can access online. Australia would be the first country in the world to implement such a ban, something Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was proud to note yesterday when he said people internationally were applauding the move.
It’s particularly a big decision to make quickly, in a way that seems to be largely ignoring or making it as difficult for those working in the space to share dissenting views on the effectiveness of such a ban, and potentially the added risks to kids a ban could create.
The proposal also doesn’t specify just how age verification will be managed, with privacy and human rights experts saying the only option would be for all users to verify their age when accessing the platforms. Concerns have also been raised about age verification method putting up further access barriers for marginalised communities.
Lucy Thomas OAM, Founder of Project Rocket (pictured above with sister Rosie), which has reached 650,000 students in schools to address bullying, peer support and youth leadership, appeared before the Senate on Monday morning.
She declared that “everyone here will agree that something needs to change” when it comes to young people using social media, noting key concerns about cyberbullying and body image issues for young people.
But she said, “By ignoring the broader context, we risk creating even greater harm.”
She pointed to the range of significant benefits that social media can bring young people, including a survey of 3500 young people aged 12 to 15 where 71 per cent said that overall, being online was a positive part of their lives.
ReachOut, meanwhile, reports that 73 per cent of young people turn to social media for mental health support.
“For them, social media is a vehicle for self expression, skill development, access to vital information. support services, and advocacy on issues that matter to them.
“We need to really build parents’ literacy, the general community’s and policy-maker’s literacy so we can understand what it means to them.”
“Tragically, social media has catastrophic consequences for some young people. But taking it away will have catastrophic consequences for others,” said Thomas.
Danielle Einstein, a clinical psychologist, countered the argument that social media is a place to access support by commenting, “We don’t want these sorts of communities at this age to be replacing live communities.” She declared the bill wouldn’t take away the internet for young people and that they would still be able to get information online.
These are important conversations to share and have.
But they are conversations that have happened remarkably quickly. Labor announced it would draft legislation for a social media ban on November 7, introducing the Social Media Minimum Age Bill on Thursday last week. With the inquiry into the bill expected to submit their findings on the following Tuesday (today).
Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finley told Crikey last week the bill is being “rushed” and that “there is a greater need for a broader discussion.” She has previously expressed concerns about a ban harming the most vulnerable and marginalised children and also had concerns about how a ban would restrict the rights of children.
Plenty of evidence shows that social media harms kids, just as it harms adults and democracies. Evidence shows a rise in mental health disorders, including eating disorders, in young people since the widespread adoption of social media 12 years ago.
That’s why many mental health advocates and services supporting children have been advocating for education and social media literacy over a blanket ban, including more than 100 such groups and advocates who recently wrote an open letter to the government on the ban, suggesting several other opportunities to examine.
The government and the Opposition both support the bill banning social media for kids under 16.
The Greens, however, have described it as “rushed” and “reckless”, with communications spokesperson Sarah Hanson Young recently declaring that it goes against the evidence and will not make social media safer. “It is complicated to implement and will have unintended consequences for young people she said.
Today, News Corp-owned The Daily Telegraph has a front-page story stating, “Let’s get it done” and declaring that parents are urging MPs to make it happen.
There’s not much left for parents to do. With big traditional media outlets as well as the government and Coalition already backing the bans, and leaving very little room and opportunity to hear from those suggesting other ideas, this social media ban looks set to quickly sail on through the parliament, with the finer details — and the potential added risks — to be figured out later.
“Young people are likely to bypass these measures anyway, rendering bans costly for taxpayers and easily circumvented,” Thomas said.
“And when they inevitably seek other avenues to connect online, they will land in less regulated, unsafe corners of the internet where the risks of exploitation, extremism, and exposure to harm are exponentially greater.”