Category: Facebook
Australia BANS key social media apps for kids under 16 — and platforms must enforce the rule
Australia will put the onus on social media platforms to limit access to children under 16 years old.
The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 amended Australia’s reigning online safety measures and gave social media companies time to age‐restrict their platforms and “take reasonable steps to prevent Australian under 16s from having account[s].”
‘No Australian will be compelled to use government identification.’
Officially taking effect on December 10, the ban includes Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, X, and YouTube’s general platform; YouTube Kids and WhatsApp do not meet the criteria for the ban.
Australia introduced its social media minimum-age framework that included a list of criteria that would result in a platform being banned for those under 16. This included if a platform’s sole purpose, or “significant purpose,” is to “enable online social interaction between two or more end‐users.”
Or if the service “allows end‐users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end‐users” and “allows end‐users to post material on the service” and “meets such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules,” it will not be available for younger Australians.
The legislation can also specify certain platforms, or classes, to not include in the ban.
Social media platforms will be responsible for enforcement, and neither children nor their parents will face punishment should they gain access. Companies face fines of up to $32 million USD or just under $50 million in Australian dollars.
RELATED: How Texas slammed the gate on Big Tech’s censorship stampede
Photo by DAVID GRAY/AFP via Getty Images
The government further defined the requirements placed upon the platforms, adding that they must “take reasonable steps to prevent” those under 16 from having accounts.
The legislation also specified that “no Australian will be compelled to use government identification (including Digital ID) to prove their age online” and that platforms must offer reasonable alternatives to its users.
According to the BBC, other countries are hot on Australia’s tail in terms of implementing their own similar bans. This includes the French government, which has begun a parliamentary inquiry into banning children under 15 years old from social media, while also implementing a “digital curfew” for those between 15 and 18.
The Spanish government has also drafted a law that would require parental consent for children under 16 to access social media.
RELATED: Conservative influencers promote Qatar as a desert paradise — but are they lying?
Photo by DAVID GRAY/AFP via Getty Images
Ruling left-wing Labour Party official Anika Wells, who serves as Australia’s communications minister (and minister of sport), said that the ban is not “perfect” and is going to “look a bit untidy on the way through.”
“Big reforms always do,” she added.
Australians under 16 will still be able to access content that is available on a website without being logged in or being a member, as there is virtually no way to prevent that without restricting access to the internet entirely.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Meta had 17-STRIKE policy for sex traffickers, ex-employee says
A former safety lead for one of Mark Zuckerberg’s social media apps alleged the company is not very strict when it comes to those who engaged in human trafficking.
The claim comes from a plaintiff’s brief filed as part of a lawsuit against Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube. The lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California alleges that the social apps “relentlessly” pursued growth at all costs and “recklessly” ignored the impacts their products have on the mental health of children.
‘You could incur 16 violations for prostitution and sexual solicitation.’
Vaishnavi Jayakumar, Instagram’s former head of safety and well-being, testified that she was shocked when she learned Meta had a “17x” strike policy toward those who reportedly engaged in “trafficking of humans for sex.”
“You could incur 16 violations for prostitution and sexual solicitation, and upon the 17th violation, your account would be suspended,” Jayakumar claimed. The former employee also said that she considered it to be a “very, very high strike threshold” in comparison to the rest of the industry and that internal documentation from Meta corroborated her claim.
As Time reported, plaintiffs in the case claim that Jayakumar raised the issue in 2020 but was told it was too difficult to address. This reportedly came at the same time it was allegedly much easier to report users for violations surrounding spam, “intellectual property violation,” and the “promotion of firearms.”
In a statement, Meta strongly denied the claims.
RELATED: Florida attorney general announces lawsuit against Snapchat for allegedly empowering child predators
Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images
“We strongly disagree with these allegations, which rely on cherry-picked quotes and misinformed opinions in an attempt to present a deliberately misleading picture,” a Meta spokesperson told Time.
“The full record will show that for over a decade, we have listened to parents, researched issues that matter most, and made real changes to protect teens — like introducing Teen Accounts with built-in protections and providing parents with controls to manage their teens’ experiences. We’re proud of the progress we’ve made, and we stand by our record.”
Still, the lawsuit claims Meta was aware of the harms its platforms caused and even knew about millions of adults who were trying to contact minors through its apps.
Moreover, the lawsuit also alleges that Meta halted internal research that would have shown those who stopped using Facebook became less depressed or anxious, NBC News reported.
The study, reportedly titled Project Mercury, was allegedly initiated in 2019 as a way to help “explore the impact” that Meta apps have on “polarization, news consumption, well-being, and daily social interactions.”
Additionally, the lawsuit compares the social media sites to “tobacco,” likening the platforms to cigarette companies marketing their products to kids.
A Google spokesperson said the lawsuit “fundamentally misunderstand how YouTube works and the allegations are simply not true.”
“YouTube is a streaming service where people come to watch everything from live sports to podcasts to their favorite creators, primarily on TV screens, not a social network where people go to catch up with friends,” the Google spokesperson stated. “We’ve also developed dedicated tools for young people, guided by child safety experts, that give families control.”
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
