Having already passed the legislation to ban social media for Australian children under the age of 16, the federal government is now undertaking what it calls a "targeted" consultation to formulate the "online safety rules" to narrow its scope.Those rules, Labor hopes, will be formulated by mid-year – allowing time for young people, parents and the industry to manage ahead of the implementation at the end of 2025.Despite the closed process being conducted by the government, three of the biggest social media platforms in the world have supplied their submissions to 9News.
Australian children under 16 will be subject to a world-first social media ban. (Getty)Facebook and Instagram's owner, Meta, along with TikTok and Snap (operators of Snapchat), issued short submissions addressing just small parts of the discussion paper.That paper was distributed, it's understood, to these platforms, along with other interested groups for the purposes of this consultation.It outlines, in just 3½ pages, the intention of the rules and the "excluded" classes of services and platforms, and seeks comments on each.The submissions from Meta, TikTok and Snap did not object or respond to the discussion questions relating to online games, or services that support health and education.But they did respond to the question "do you support YouTube being excluded from the minimum age obligation (i.e. young people should be able to have YouTube accounts)?" Unsurprisingly these platforms objected to YouTube being singled out and named in the exemptions.
The submissions from Meta, TikTok and Snap did not object or respond to the discussion questions relating to online games, or services that support health and education. (Getty)Snap's submission said "there must be a fair and impartial application of exclusions and all services should be held to the same standard". "We see no reason why preferential treatment should be given to any specific companies and services through the rules in such a way that those companies and services do not need to satisfy the grounds for exclusion that all other services must be measured by," it argued.Meta was very clear on its objection, stating "there are three key reasons why a blanket exclusion of YouTube is unjustified"."Firstly, evidence from the government's own eSafety Commissioner confirms that YouTube is the most popular social media service amongst under 16 year olds in Australia," it said.
Meta was very clear on its objection, stating "there are three key reasons why a blanket exclusion of YouTube is unjustified". (CNN)"Secondly, YouTube has the very features and harmful content that the government has cited as justifying the ban."Thirdly, the age ban law applies to the holding of accounts only. The educational benefit the government cites as warranting the blanket YouTube exclusion can easily be achieved without logging in to YouTube, which the law is not intended to capture anyway."Video platform TikTok went a step further, stating the rules simply wouldn't work."For the reasons set out in this submission, we have grave concerns that the rules, if implemented in their current form, would not work," it said. "We are particularly concerned that carving out any major platform by name – in this case, YouTube – from the minimum age obligation would result in a law that is illogical, anti-competitive, and short-sighted."Citing research by the eSafety Commissioner, the government, in its submission said YouTube had "consistently ranked as one of the top digital services used by children and young people in Australia".
Video platform TikTok went a step further, stating the rules simply wouldn't work. (AP)"While the platform undoubtedly functions as a source of entertainment and leisure, it is an important source of education and informational content, relied on by children, parents and carers, and educational institutions," it said. "This contrasts substantially with other content streaming services, which are predominantly used by young people to view short-form entertainment content"This argument that YouTube is educational, or that excluding YouTube from the ban would be beneficial for the education of young people, was challenged directly by TikTok, suggesting the same discussion paper and proposed rules allowed for exemptions based on education."If the government believed its own assertions about YouTube's unique educational value, it would fall under this category and the platform's standalone exemption would be rendered unnecessary," TikTok said.TikTok argued even if YouTube was captured by the ban "there is nothing in the bill that would prevent teachers from sharing links to YouTube content – or TikTok or Instagram content – with their students"."The act only prevents underage users from creating accounts, not from accessing content," it submitted.Meta addressed the same concern."An Australian study identified that the majority of teachers surveyed preferred to show YouTube videos on a shared projector screen rather than individual screens to facilitate learning outcomes," it said.
There are six platforms that will definitely be covered by the social media age limit. (Getty)"Even if educational content is required to be viewed on a young person's own screen, an account is not required to do this given the minimum age obligation does not affect their access to content in a 'logged-out' state."These submissions raise concerns about the effectiveness of a possible ban, given that the ban only speaks to the creation of an account by a child, not the use of the platform generally.The TikTok submission was harsh in its conclusion, stating "the government's standalone, named exemption for only one platform, is irrational and indefensible"."An exclusivity agreement like this will hand one platform unfettered access to every teenager in Australia and provide one platform with an unchecked competitive advantage in the market," it argued."A sweetheart deal for just one platform won't help the government protect kids online; it will only hurt young Australians in the long run."Meta had the same message but somewhat more reserved."While Meta is concerned about the lack of evidence and transparency on how this law was passed and is being implemented, we call on the government to ensure equal application of the law across all social media services," it said.Industry stakeholders who asked not to be named also expressed concerns, describing the consultation as rushed and closed.Communications Minister Michelle Rowland, who will devise legislative rules around the exclusion, was asked about this only last week.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland has said some platforms, like YouTube, will be exempt from the age limit. (Alex Ellinghausen)"We're undertaking this consultation process, and there's nothing arbitrary about it," she said. "We are ensuring that this meets the objective of having a robust plan in place for our social media access limits for children under the age of 16."We said that we would take the time until the end of this year to implement it, and we're undertaking that consultation right now. "Rowland said the legislation was a "world first", which was "one of the reasons why we need to get this right"."We need to ensure that there is a proper consultation process in place, and that's what is happening right now," she said.Following the release of these submissions publicly, the onus will be on the minister to explain the YouTube exemption to the Australian public.