So much more than a simple flick of a pen!
December 2024
This week The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, was passed by the House of Representatives and The Senate. The Bill will now continue through Royal Assent and an Act of Parliament will see the legislation enacted sometime over the next twelve months.
What happens regarding the structure, wording and enforcement of this legislation over the next twelve months is extremely important. If this legislation is not treated with the time, respect and consultation it deserves, it will have very serious ramifications on all Australians, not just those who are under the age of 16 years.
This Act is so much more than a 'new law'. The entire planet is watching us closely as a result of this bold step forward and it is crucially important we get it right. As someone who has worked at the coalface of Online Juvenile Harm for fifteen years, I am very proud of the reputation Australia has in pushing Big Tech to act more ethically. The eSafety Commission, under the leadership of Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant, is the world leader in pushing accountability on Social Media organisations. However, if our Government does not get this legislation right, the strong reputation we have built as a nation could be severely undermined.
The Albanese Government has been heavily criticised as to the rushed introduction of the Bill and the lack of transparent consultation with key players in the field of juvenile online safety (including myself). Key findings and recommendations from the recent Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society which cautioned against a Social Media ban, have clearly been ignored. This was by the exact same Government which commissioned that Parliamentary Committee. As such, I am sure you can understand why myself and a great deal many others working in the field of juvenile online harm are very concerned.
Myself and a great deal of those I collaborate with cautioned our Government against introducing 'knee jerk' and 'rushed' legislation to address what is a very complex and multi-faceted national concern. However, the Bill was introduced just seven days before being passed by both Houses, with a public consultation period of just 24 hours. It is therefore quite difficult to look at this in any other way than to assume the legislation is not being taken as seriously as it should be.
Regardless of this rushed response and whether I was for or against the ban (or undecided), I am now resolved to accept it is to be enacted. As such, I have a very strong determination to ensure our Government treats the design and construction of this legislation with the respect it deserves. If we get it right, this law may well be the first step in shifting a true onus of responsibility to Social Media organisations for the safety of children on their networks. However, if we do not get it right, I am very concerned it will be simply business as usual for those who run these networks.
I once again lead an argument with Meta under my magnifying glass. Since 2015, Mark Zuckerberg has been called to testify before no less than five US Congressional Hearings. His most recent testimony was given to the Senate Judiciary Committee into Online Child Harm in February of this year. This was the hearing where Mr Zuckerberg was requested by Senator Josh Hawley to stand and apologise to 34 parents seated behind him. Those were parents who had attended the hearing with photo's of their children who had taken their lives as a result of harm experienced on Meta platforms. Mr Zuckerberg apologised for what "those families had experienced", with an assurance to "ensure no-one else would go through what they had gone through".
This is the same hearing which the owner of DISCORD, Jason Citron refused to attend. Discord, an online chat environment once exclusively used by gamers, is now recognised as one of the largest teen and pre-teen interactive chat environments on the internet. After ignoring a subpoena to attend the hearing and having two US Marshalls visit his California office to escort him under threat of arrest, Mr Citron reluctantly took his place on the witness table beside his fellow billionaires!
In his opening address to the Senate hearing, Mr Citron then had the gall to state "I sincerely hope today is the beginning of an ongoing dialogue that results in real improvements in online safety." This from someone who moments earlier did not have the courage to attend that hearing to address the harms children are facing on his network. It was not his hope for dialogue which inspired him, but the very real threat of jail time which weakened his resolve.
Well over one hour before making his forced apology to those parents sitting behind him, Mr Zuckerberg gave his opening address to the Senate. In that address he made the following statement, "I do not support the conclusion that Social Media causes changes in adolescent mental health." Little did he know he would soon be apologising for something he did not personally believe was happening on his networks!
The reason I raise this is simple, but decisive. It has been 10 months since that hearing and nothing has changed! As tough as Senator Hawley and the other Senators appeared in front of the cameras, they have failed to do anything of note to address the concerns raised at the hearing. All five Big Tech executives walked out of the court and stepped into their limo's knowing there was nothing anyone could do to stop their cowardly behaviour. Any and all responses these Big Tech giants have had towards legislation over the years have been tokenistic or exclusive.
If they ignore governments in their own country, what are we to expect here in Australia?
WILL THEY CARE OR WILL THEY BRUSH US ASIDE?
Legislation introduced here in Australia will promote the same defiantly reactive response from Social Media networks. They are not in the habit of being told what to do by their own Governments, let alone by those overseas. My grave concern is that any response they do undertake will not be in the best interest of Australian children, but solely to negate the restrictions such legislation may have on their business models. I do not say this out of resentment or angst, but as a result of 16 years of experience dealing directly with juvenile harm on Social Media.
In reality, Australians represent approximately only 2% of global Social Media users. As such, any high ranking business person would not be too concerned about losing such a small percentage of their 'clientele'. It is therefore imperative any legislation introduced in Australia not only addresses the banning of children from joining these networks, but also places truly enforceable penalties for their lack of real time detection and/or removal of anyone under 16 who is identified or reported on a network.
WHAT MIGHT BE THE RESPONSE FROM BIG TECH?
LIMIT AGE AT ACCOUNT CREATION - The most simplistic response will be to lift the current age limit during account creation from 13 to 16 years of age. Social Media networks will be hoping this will be all they will need to do to abide by the law in it's most basic form. Unfortunately, this mechanism has already been manifestly failing for the past 15 years.
In 2024, 68% of Australian children aged 11 & 12 have created an account by simply adding a fake date of birth when they joined. This compares to just 13% in 2014. This inadequate security measure has exposed millions of children worldwide to risk and is one of the main reasons we are facing the global dilemma of juvenile harm we are today. They were allowed to wander into playgrounds which assumed they were 'of age'. The networks fed content to someone they believed was 16 or 17, when in fact they were 11! From a brain developmental perspective, this is extremely dangerous!
I am very concerned this quick fix solution by Big Tech is the response our Government is aiming for! It will appease the legislation, keep many parents who are already delaying the Social Media use of their children happy, and might be enough to delay the argument regarding required Age Verification (AV) technology. When commentators in this field make statements such as "nothing will change" and "kids will keep joining anyway", this is what they are worried about.
Ultimately, it is the term "reasonable steps" included in the legislation, which myself and other Cyber Safety advocates will be watching very closely. How this reference is defined in the legislation and (more importantly) how it is interpreted by the networks will be one of the most crucial elements of this offence. Is simply changing the age limit at account creation from 13 to 16 a "reasonable step"?
INTRODUCTION OF AGE VERIFICATION - A more active response to the legislation will be for the networks to introduce AV. If our Government is in fact truly invested in tackling the harm being experienced by Australian children, this is the type of response they should be deeming as "reasonable". Something more than just the tick of a box! This is where most in Cyber Safety are worried, and why so many of us are very concerned about this Bill being passed.
Half of me is extremely excited that kids could not join Instagram, TikTok, Discord and Snapchat and be exposed to harm, because they will not be able to satisfy the AV requirements placed on them by the network. But the other half of me is very concerned about what measures will be put in place by the networks to prove a particular users age. This dilemma is sadly dividing the Cyber Safety community and sparking massive debate across the internet. I hope you can therefore understand my caution and why I am not willing to condemn anyone who chooses a particular side of the fence.
The introduction of Age Verification should be a very real concern for all Australians using Social Media. If the networks choose to go down that road, all of us will be required to prove who we are. This is likely to be achieved in one of three ways;
PROOF OF USER ID UPON ACCOUNT CREATION
• This is my biggest concern for a number of reasons. In order to meet legislative requirements regarding the banning of U16's, all new users to Social Media in Australia will be required to provide proof of age. For most of us, this will be either a passport, drivers license or birth certificate.
There is no way I would be comfortable in supplying Meta with my passport or drivers license and even less chance I would be happy with my 16 or 17 year old child doing the same. I would also strongly discourage any Australian from supplying such personal information to an organisation which derives its primary income from the collection of user data.
We have seen a good number of Australian companies subjected to data breaches over the past few years. Such breaches have resulted in a massive number of Australians having their personal data compromised, with many having their information being used fraudulently by bad actors.
Big Tech have proven time and time again they cannot be trusted. Their business models are based solely on the collection and manipulation of user data and I am very concerned the collection, retention and storage of such private user information will not be addressed ethically.
In addition to introducing AV at an account creation level, the networks will also need to send an AV request to every other current Australian Social Media user. This may well be delayed for many users, because Artificial Intelligence (AI) will be able to easily determine if a user is an adult due to their posting history. However, it will much likely be easier for the networks to simply send out a cover-all AV request based on geographical location and IP address. Similar to the NEWS BAN Australia experienced in 2021.
FACIAL RECOGNITION UPON ACCOUNT CREATION
• Introducing Biometric Technology (BT) to scan a users face, will likely be another option for Social Media networks. Some of the networks have been trialling this technology for a few years. Many Australians might prefer a quick face scan (similar to unlocking their phone), over uploading their personal data. Big Tech are already leaning toward facial scanning technology. TikTok, Tinder, and Meta have started using it in some capacity as part of their voluntary privacy efforts, setting the stage for a wider introduction.
Though this technology is getting better and better, it is still far from perfect. A number of the algorithms being used in these technologies struggle to accurately address people of certain ethnicity. They also present high error rates for people wearing glasses, those who have facial tattoos or jewellery and facial hair. Statistics gathered by the eSafety Commissioner also reflect a much higher fail rate for females than male. I therefore believe this technology is still some way off from being deployed at a national level.
I am just as concerned with Social Media having a precise biometric copy of the face of every Australian as I am with them having their personal data. I totally get most Australians are posting photo's of their faces every day on Social Media and these images are being 'looked at' by AI in order to target them for advertising. But this is somewhat different to storing a specific biometric facial identifier of every user.
DIGITAL ID
• There may well be discussions happening in government sectors regarding introducing a 'Social Media License' under the MyGov Digital ID System. This could be an option considered by Government and presented to Social Media networks as a screening option. This will take a good deal of collaboration with IT specialists and could be a viable option if addressed with the level of security and privacy it deserves.
There would be a number of sceptics who would be concerned that our Government will know everyone in Australia's Social Media accounts, but I would not be adverse to this option if the data is not directly handled by our Government or any independent body.
AI could be used to 'view' identification documents and then provide a 'credit score' as such, which would be accepted by Social Media organisations. As an example, someone could scan their birth certificate into the MyGov Digital ID software or app. That birth certificate is not stored or captured in any form nor viewed by a real person. Once the ID is confirmed as legitimate, a code number could be provided. It is this code which could be entered into a Social Media account at creation or by a user who needs to prove ID.
This is an option I would hope our Government investigates further. Avenues to prove identification, whilst not collecting or storing such data by any party is something which should be pursued as a priority.
Our Government needs to approach the next twelve months with the caution and respect this legislation deserves. There must also be a strong level of demanded participation by the Government for the networks to help achieve an outcome which is appropriate for all Australians. This must not include impersonal correspondence via online communication, but actual sit down meetings with executives working for the networks. Our Government must not allow the same level of indifference which has been shown to the US Government.
Our Ministers and legislators do not have the knowledge, experience or front-line intelligence to progress this legislation on their own. This country has a very good number of professionals who have been working in the area of online juvenile harm for well over a decade. These are amazing people on both sides of the ban fence, who can offer defining information and knowledge which can help guide how this legislation will ultimately be introduced.
The introduction of this legislation has pushed our nation to the front of the world's stage. Whether we like it or not, everyone in the tech world is sitting down with their popcorn, eager to see what happens next. If we get this right, it may well initiate a global shift in how Social Media run their environments. This is a conversation we had to have and one which has been forced upon us due to the failings of Big Tech. I am glad it is my country which has had the courage to make the statement that we have had enough of our kids dying at the hands of faceless Social Media giants.