A social media ban for under-16s has been passed by the Australian Senate and will soon become a world-first law

MELBOURNE -A ban on social media use for children under 16s was passed by the Australian Senate on Thursday and will soon become the world’s first law.

The law will fine platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram up to A$50 million ($33 million) for systemic failures that prevent children under 16 from having accounts.

The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 34 to 19. The House of Representatives on Wednesday by an overwhelming majority of votes legislation by 102 votes to 13.

The House has not yet approved the opposition’s amendments submitted in the Senate. However, this is a formality because the government has already agreed that they will be adopted.

Platforms will have one year to find a way to implement the ban before penalties are imposed.

The changes strengthen privacy protection. Platforms could not force users to provide government-issued identification, including passports or driver’s licenses, nor could they request digital identification through a government system.

The Sejm is to adopt the amendments on Friday. Critics of the legislation fear that banning young children from using social media will impact the privacy of users, who must prove they are over 16.

While major parties support the ban, many child welfare and mental health advocates are concerned about the unintended consequences.

Senator David Shoebridge of the minority Green Party said mental health experts agreed the ban could dangerously isolate many children who use social media to find support.

“This policy will most harm vulnerable young people, particularly in regional communities, and especially the LGBTQI community, by cutting them off,” Shoebridge told the Senate.

Opposition senator Maria Kovacic said the bill was not radical, but necessary.

“The essential purpose of this legislation is simple: It requires social media companies to take reasonable steps to identify and remove underage users from their platforms,” Kovacic told the Senate.

“This is a responsibility these companies should have fulfilled long ago, but for too long they have shirked those responsibilities in favor of profit,” she added.

Internet safety activist Sonya Ryan, whose 15-year-old daughter Carly was murdered by a 50-year-old pedophile posing as the teenager online, described the Senate vote as “a monumental moment in protecting our children from terrible harm online.” “

“It is too late for my daughter Carly and the many other children who have suffered terribly and lost their lives in Australia, but let us stand together on their behalf and make this decision together,” she told the AP in an email.

Wayne Holdsworth, whose teenage son Mac took his own life after falling victim to an online sextortion scam, advocated for the age limit and was proud of its introduction.

“I have always been a proud Australian, but after today’s Senate decision I am bursting with pride,” Holdsworth told the AP in an email.

Christopher Stone, executive director of Suicide Prevention Australia, the suicide prevention industry’s governing body, said the legislation did not recognize the positive aspects of social media in supporting young people’s mental health and sense of connection.

“The government is blindfolded and is running into a brick wall by hastily introducing these regulations. Young Australians deserve evidence-based policy, not hasty decisions,” Stone said in a statement.

The platforms complained that the bill would be unenforceable and urged the Senate to delay the vote until at least June next year, when a government-commissioned assessment of age assurance technology produced a report on the possibility of excluding young children.

Critics say the government is trying to convince parents it is protecting their children ahead of the general election in May. The government hopes voters will reward it for responding to parents’ concerns about their children’s addiction to social media. Some say the new rules could do more harm than they prevent.

The criticism is that the legislation was passed quickly through parliament without adequate scrutiny, is ineffective, poses a risk to the privacy of all users and undermines the authority of parents to make decisions on behalf of their children.

Opponents also say a ban would isolate children, deprive them of the positive aspects of social media, drive them to the dark web, discourage children too young from reporting harm to social media, and reduce incentives for platforms to improve online safety.