Julie Inman Grant, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, is navigating new and uncharted waters. She’s been closely involved in the government’s ongoing plan to restrict social media access for all under-16s. Grant calls this $602 billion initiative “one of the most complicated and most creative pieces of legislation” they’ve seen. The Bill’s overarching purpose is to protect young Australians from social media’s potential harms. Even with the ambitious timeline, many important questions still remain about how and if the ban will be carried out.
Just last month, the Australian government floated another, this time explicitly aimed at platforms mostly used by younger users. But at the same time, it exempted YouTube, arguing that its educational content meant it wasn’t harmful, and passed WhatsApp under a messaging service carve-out. But with the December deadline for implementation looming, Grant is eager to ensure the plan limits YouTube. But he doesn’t want to leave any detail uncovered before the finalization comes through.
Complexities of Implementation
The significance of Grant’s remarks is that they underscore the complex challenges at play in executing this social media ban. She acknowledged the evolving nature of the project, stating, “we may be building the plane a little bit as we’re flying it.” While this metaphor implies shooting fish in a barrel, it means changes are likely needed as the federal government sets the tone for regulating access for minors.
The proposal is not without controversy. Critics have been quick to point out its lack of viability, especially when it comes to the effectiveness of distinguishing users’ ages. Lisa Given, the RMIT University professor of information sciences, raises an important issue. She cautions that mistakes in misidentification may undermine the success of the ban.
“Such errors in misidentification show the ban wasn’t viable.” – Lisa Given
Grant has previously been optimistic that all required systems should be up and running in December ’21. She has been working hand-in-glove with Tech Hub’s software consultancy program, which ran accelerated trials on the proposed system. While acknowledging that the system is “far from perfect,” it has shown promise in managing user data and age verification.
Voices of Concern
As talks go on about the new ban, some stakeholders have expressed their concerns. Tim Levy, managing director of the children’s safety technology company Qoria, who recently resigned from the expert panel, pointed to the fact that important questions around how the bill will be implemented are still unanswered. This decision continues the discussion about the merits and feasibility of such legislative attempts.
It’s not just experts and policymakers who are talking about the social media ban. It’s these youth, whom we are supposed to be protecting, that are leading these discussions. A high school student passionately expressed her concern over potential limits on future social media engagement. She shared, “If I need to sit in front of YouTube Kids, I’m going to zonk out!” The bottom line is, young users are concerned about losing access to the platforms they enjoy already. These platforms are essential for their entertainment and social connection.
The Path Ahead
Julie Inman Grant takes the lead on this effort. She adeptly treads the line between protecting young people and ensuring the suggested protections don’t veer too far and become unmanageable or excessive. The government plans to release redacted data from the trials in full once a report is submitted in July. This data will provide a treasure trove of information to inform how to best tackle these issues.
There is an urgent need for transparency and understanding as to how this new social media ban will play out in practice. A lot of questions remain regarding its rollout. Grant’s call for a “temporary landing” will seem appealing to anyone who wants the full rollout of this influential policy to be more modest and gradual.
