YouTube exemption supported by group behind plea for ban on social media for under 16s

An advocacy group pushing for children and teenagers under 16 to be banned from social media has pushed for YouTube to be given an exemption, but warns there is still a risk that children can create accounts on the video site.

On Thursday, the federal government introduced legislation to Parliament to ban children under the age of 16 from social media sites such as Facebook, TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat.

But children and young teenagers are still allowed to use YouTube, WhatsApp and gaming services.

That’s because the government has excluded ‘messaging apps’, ‘online gaming services’ and ‘services whose primary purpose is to support the health and education of end users’ from the ban.

Director of the 36 Months Campaign, Greg Atwells, supported the exemption, telling the ABC that the intention was never to stop young people from communicating online or accessing educational resources and entertainment, but rather to protect them from addictive algorithms and online bullying.

“I think using YouTube for entertainment and educational purposes is fair enough. This is where people pretty much learn how to do things, I learned how to change the oil in my car,” he said.

But he added that watching YouTube videos without logging in was very different from giving children an account where they can comment on and upload content.

He cited American singer Rebecca Black as an example of someone who had experience with online trolling, after she uploaded her song Friday to YouTube at the age of 13.

In an ideal world, he hoped YouTube would try to make its site more secure on its own by requiring parental consent for children under 16 who want to create an account and by disabling commenting for children and teens.

But he ultimately acknowledged that if this were within the legislation it would have added to its complexity and likely made it more difficult to get through.

The ABC understands teachers and even The Wiggles were among those calling for a YouTube breakup over the site’s educational values.

Senate committee reports Tuesday

After the legislation was released Thursday morning, senators quickly pushed for an investigation to further examine the bill. The government has agreed to an agreement that is due to report on Tuesday.

Introducing the bill, Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said social media had already caused too much harm to young people and action was needed.

“The bill places the onus on social media platforms, not parents or young people, to take reasonable steps to ensure basic protections are provided,” she said.

Opposition communications spokesman David Coleman said the coalition would work with the government to finalize the legislation, and stressed the urgency of action.

“Parents lie awake at night worrying about what their kids are being exposed to on Snapchat, TikTok or Instagram,” he said.

“We have seen very worrying mental health trends for Australian children, especially girls, over the past decade.”

Concerns remain about privacy and reliability

The government has committed to trialing age guarantee technology to help check a user’s age, but Toby Murray, an associate professor at the University of Melbourne’s computer school, questioned how effective this would be.

“The manner in which this ban will be enforced is not at all clear at this stage,” he said.

“There’s a lot of concern that this kind of technology could be really invasive in terms of privacy.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has acknowledged the ban won’t be perfect – repeatedly comparing it to the way some children under 18 find ways to get alcohol – but Dr Murray said he was particularly concerned about the unintended consequences that the ban could have, such as moving children. to ‘underground’ platforms that are even less secure.

“A ban like this means that the children who do work around it and have access to Snapchat or Instagram, even if they are under the age of 16, that those platforms may be less safe for those children than if a ban like this were not in place been. implemented in the first place,” he said.

That position was echoed by Digital Industry Group Inc, which is advocating on behalf of some platforms. Warnings were issued against rushing the ban.

“Neither experts nor the community have been consulted on the details of the legislation being released today, and we need to hear from them before it becomes law,” chief executive Sunita Bose said in a statement.

“A blunt ban does not encourage companies to continually improve safety because the focus is on keeping teenagers out of service, rather than keeping them safe when they are there.”

Dr. Murray also emphasized that it is unclear why YouTube is considered less harmful than Snapchat.