There is a "historic" law in force in Australia that prohibits children under the age of 16 from using social media

eSafety , the online security agency in Australia, has begun monitoring and implementing the new minimum age for the use of social networks on Wednesday. The new law, agreed by the Government, sets this minimum age at 16and aims to "protect families and minors". 

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has described the entry into force of the law as "historic progress , one of the greatest social and cultural changes of recent decades. "

The government says teenagers are under increasing pressure in digital environments, and early exposure to social media can exacerbate problems of anxiety, low self-esteem, or school isolation.

The Australian Communications Minister, Anika Wells, said on Wednesday that since the entry into force of the law, more than 200,000 casualties have already been recorded on TikTok alone, and that "hundreds of thousands more" are expected in the coming days.

The veto, for the time being, reaches the major social media platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Threads, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, X, Reddit, Disque, and Twitch and Kick 'streaming'. However, it is likely that in the coming months s, such as LinkedIn and Lemon8, will also be vetoed if you see that many teenagers start using them.

On the other hand, applications such as WhatsApp or Messenger , which are only considered messaging, have been excluded from the ban ; they have become a haven for many teenagers who want to be in touch with friends and family.

According to the regulations, platforms must take "reasonable measures" to verify the age of users, be they identification document verification systems, automated age analysis through AI, internal controls or blocking suspicious accounts. 

Failure to apply these appropriate verification mechanisms will pose a risk of fines to platforms, which could face fines of up to$49.5 million ($32 million US or €28 million).

PROS AND CONS

The measure has its pros and cons. Advocates argue that the measure protects the mental and emotional health of minors and reduces exposure to harmful content, harassment, digital addiction and social pressure. They believe that delaying access to networks provides a safer environment for development.

Among the risks most cited are cyberbullying, paedophile deception (grooming), access to violent or misogynistic content, and algorithmic manipulation. For the authorities, the prohibition establishes a clear framework in an area which is not sufficiently regulated.

In the debate prior to the drafting of the law, the testimonies of parents who lost their children as a result of online harassment or mental health crises, who also participated in public events organized by the Government , took a prominent place. 

Critics of the law warn that prohibition can isolate some teenagers, limit their social participation and cause digital exclusion . They also question the effectiveness of age accreditation and point out that many young people can try to circumvent the rule through fake accounts, unregulated services and private connection networks (VPNs).

A UN Youth Australian report, conducted after a face-to-face interview with 5,000 teenagers, has questioned the effectiveness of the veto and warned that  may have adverse effects on the existence of affective, cultural or family ties for adolescents dependent on social networks, especially in indigenous, rural, LGTBIQ+, adolescents in care or in communities with disabilities.