YouTube exemption backed by group behind push for social media ban on under-16s

An advocacy group that has pushed for a ban on social media use by children and young people under 16 supports giving YouTube an exemption but warns there is still a risk that children could create accounts on the video site.

The federal government on Thursday introduced legislation to parliament banning children under 16 from using social media sites such as Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat.

However, children and teenagers will still be able to use YouTube, WhatsApp and gaming services.

This is because the government has excluded “messaging applications”, “online gaming services” and “services whose primary purpose is to support the health and education of end-users” from the ban.

36 Months campaign director Greg Atwells supported the exemption, telling the ABC that the aim is never to stop young people communicating or accessing educational and entertainment tools online, but rather to protect them from addictive algorithms and online bullying.

“I think it’s okay to use YouTube for entertainment and education… it’s a place where people basically learn how to do things. I learned how to change the oil in my car,” he said.

But he added that watching YouTube videos without logging in is very different from children being able to have an account where they can comment and upload content.

He cited American singer Rebecca Black as an example of someone who experienced online trolling after she posted her song on YouTube at the age of 13 on Friday.

He hoped that in an ideal world, YouTube itself would try to keep its site safe by requiring parental consent for children under 16 who want to create an account and by disabling commenting for children and teenagers.

Ultimately, however, he conceded that if it were included in the legislation, it would increase its complexity and likely make it more difficult to pass.

The ABC understands that teachers and even The Wiggles have been among those calling for YouTube to be spun off due to the site’s educational value.

The Senate committee is scheduled to report on Tuesday

After the legislation was published Thursday morning, senators quickly pushed for an investigation to further analyze the bill. The government has agreed to one, which must report by Tuesday.

Introducing the bill, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said social media was already causing too much harm to young people and action was needed.

“The bill places the onus on social media platforms, not parents or young people, to take reasonable steps to ensure basic safeguards,” she said.

Opposition communications spokesman David Coleman said the Coalition would work with the government to finalize the legislation, stressing the urgency of action.

“Parents lie awake at night worrying about what their children are exposed to on Snapchat, TikTok and Instagram,” he said.

“Over the last decade we have seen some very worrying trends in the mental health of Australian children, particularly girls.”

Privacy and reliability concerns remain

The government has pledged to trial age checking technology to help check a user’s age, but Toby Murray, an associate professor at the University of Melbourne’s school of computer science, questions its effectiveness.

“The method of enforcing this ban is not at all obvious at this stage,” he said.

“There are big concerns that this kind of technology could be really invasive in terms of privacy.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese admitted the ban would not be perfect – repeatedly likening it to some children under 18 finding ways to access alcohol – but Dr Murray expressed particular concern about the unintended consequences the ban could have, such as children moving to “underground” platforms that are even less secure.

“Such a ban means that children who actually circumvent it and are able to access Snapchat or Instagram, even if they are under 16, may end up being less safe for those children than if such a ban had not been implemented in the first order,” he said.

This view was supported by Digital Industry Group Inc, which acts on behalf of some of the platforms. He warned against rushing into implementing the ban.

“Neither experts nor the community were consulted on the details of the regulations being issued today, and we need to hear them before they become law,” executive director Sunita Bose said in a statement.

“An absolute ban does not incentivize companies to continually improve safety because the focus is on keeping teenagers from using services rather than keeping them safe when they do use them.”

Dr. Murray also stressed that it was unclear why YouTube was deemed less harmful than Snapchat.