Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age)

Citation: Katina Michael with Melinda James, October 14, 2025, "Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age)", ABC Illawarra Breakfast, https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/illawarra-breakfast/breakfast/105880012

Host (Mel):
A pretty picture-perfect day after a coolish morning, and it's only getting warmer tomorrow. And then by the time we reach Thursday, 30 degrees or so, before a pretty gusty cool change sweeps through on Friday, bringing with it a high chance of showers.

Traffic:
Looking at the traffic, you'll know that schools returned today as you hit some of the congestion, particularly on the M1 Princes Motorway. For two weeks now, it's been a pretty good run. Not this morning.

It's very slow northbound around Dapto on the M1 Princes Motorway. Similarly, on your way into Sydney on the Princes Highway, there is a fair bit of congestion there, but closer to Wollongong, not too bad. Slower around Fig Tree on the motorway, but around Nowra and the Southern Highlands, things are looking pretty good this morning.

Let's talk about this social media ban.

Glenn in Bombaderry says on the text:

"Hi Mel, I think the Labor government will suffer into the future for banning kids on social media. Kids have long memories."

Reckons Glenn. Yeah, I wonder.

Well, let's hear from Albi now. Albi, you're 14, are you?

Albi:
Yeah, I'm 14.

Host (Mel):
Hey, Albi. How are you going? So, I bet you're on social media.

Albi:
Yeah.

Host (Mel):
So, what do you do? What do you think about it?

Albi:
So, I personally make videos on social media, and I just think the amount of opportunities that come from making videos and just connecting with other people online is crazy.

The positives outweigh the negatives.

I just think it's sort of a lazy approach to the ban. It's also just a creative outlet for some people.

A lot of people might get bullied at school or in real life. Some kids have communities that they can turn to online, and I think that's really important. If the government just takes that away, who knows what could happen?

Host (Mel):
How interesting, Albi. So, you say that people who are bullied in real life actually find their support through social media platforms and groups?

Albi:
Yeah. Some obviously do get bullied online, but a lot of people use social media as an outlet for them.

Host (Mel):
When you hear the government talking about—or, if you've heard the government, this is what they say anyway—the harms that social media is doing to young people, some young people in some ways, do you see evidence of that with you and your mates?

What do you think they're talking about?

Albi:
I think some people do get a lot of bullying online and do suffer a lot of harm from it.

But then again, me and my mates don't have any of that struggle personally.

I make videos online and I've had so many opportunities and been able to connect with so many people that wouldn't be possible without social media.

So, I think social media is a great place for opportunity and connecting with people.

Host (Mel):
So, Albi, you might not want to tell us what you're going to do come December when the laws come in, because you're only 14.

What do you think you and your mates will do?

Albi:
There's a lot of talk about just putting on one of those old-man masks or something, you know, that people can get around it.

Host (Mel):
Especially if you make a lot of videos on social media that get shared a lot and you've got a lot of followers, what are you going to do?

Albi:
I'm not condoning anything, but, yeah, a lot of people do talk about those masks.

But also, parent-run accounts—I think, I don't know if this is true, but parents can manage or run your account.

I think when it's banned, youth crime rates might skyrocket because kids won't have anything to do and they'll just do dumb things.

Host (Mel):
Oh, well, yeah. I wonder what will happen. It's all still a bit up in the air, isn't it, Albi? And it's only two months away.

Really appreciate your thoughts, Albi. Really interesting. Thank you.

Albi:
Yeah. Thank you.

Host (Mel):
There we go. That's Albi.

Anyone else got a view? I'd love to hear from you: 1300 973 300.

Do you know how this is going to work?

Do you agree that there are harms, that we need to stop young people being harmed by social media? Are they being harmed by what's on social media rather than just the platforms themselves?

What about Albi saying that he reckons this is a lazy approach by the government to dealing with what is a problem?

Professor Katina Michael, of course, is an expert on these things. Professor Katina Michael from the University of Wollongong, with a particular interest in how technology affects us socially.

Katina, good morning.

Katina Michael:
Good morning, Melinda.

Host (Mel):
Gee whiz. Albi saying it's a lazy approach. What do you think of his assessment of how the government and the eSafety Commission are trying to deal with what is a real problem?

We know we hear the stories about bullying, about kids being pushed by the algorithm towards really harmful content—all of these sorts of things.

We know there is a problem, but what do you think of Albi's assessment that this is a lazy approach?

Katina Michael:
What a well-spoken young man.

I'm an advocate for consultation. This is the kind of thing we need: conversation in the community and feedback to all of these governmental processes, whether it's establishing new regulations or laws or statements about what we should and shouldn't be doing.

I love the fact we're having the conversation, and I think that's the real plus here in all of this legislative change that's being proposed and allegedly will be enacted on December 10th—this social media ban through the Online Safety Amendment.

I think Albi's case is real. UNICEF Australia agrees with him. There are more pluses than negatives.

Is a ban on end users of all ages accessing particular social media services the answer, or do we need to go to the root cause?

What is the root cause of what we're discussing here? Is it companies who should be building better digital services, or is the blame on the end user?

Host (Mel):
It's interesting. There are a couple of elements to this, aren't there, Katina, that people are most concerned about?

One is the fact that people can get around this. How will the age verification work?

We've heard the eSafety Commissioner and the Minister say that these social media giants have at their disposal technology that makes these age assurances quite reasonably straightforward for them, and the onus will be on them to keep under-16-year-olds off their platforms.

But is it as straightforward as we're hearing?

Why can't anyone give us a really definitive answer, just two months before the law comes into force, about how this will work?

Katina Michael:
Yes. The government is calling it a layered approach to age assurance to minimise error rates and friction for users.

A lot of people are questioning data privacy and the privacy of the end user.

Is this blanket surveillance that's going to prompt everyone for their age? Is this something that's going to be implemented using a double-blind, tokenised approach, where there's a third party involved that transfers information between sites to assure an age while protecting the privacy of the end user?

No one knows. There's no uniform practice.

Is it going to be based on your facial biometrics? Is it going to be based on some other digital ID?

No one can say, and I think people and stakeholders are just waiting to see what kinds of enforcement mechanisms are going to be implemented post-December 10.

Some companies, like YouTube, are saying, "We're not coming to the table. We're not going to talk about this. We're excluded," and we believe we're excluded because of X or Y.

They're saying, "We're not a social media company. We're a content provider and content-creation platform."

But this $50 million warning for not meeting requirements in the Act is being sort of waved about by the government.

Let's see: will anyone be penalised for not complying, and what will compliance look like?

The eSafety Commissioner has brought out a seven-step guide to encourage stakeholders to look at definitions of what age-restricted social media platforms look like.

They've got classes of excluded services that look at things like professional networking sites, gaming sites, or educational and health and wellbeing platforms that will be excluded.

But the question is: what is the sole purpose of that social media or digital service?

And, again, we come into complications with regards to implementation.

Host (Mel):
Oh, we do. And I mean, every few years some new platform will pop up, I'm sure.

Will that then get explicitly referred to and expressly banned by the legislation?

Will some social media platforms end up being excluded from the legislation?

It's all very tricky and complex.

We're the world's first country to attempt something like this, but a lot of countries are watching it. So, people want something to be done.

Katina, is there discussion in the world of technology about whether there is a different approach?

For example, Jerry says the issue is the content, not the young adults. Facebook is awash with gratuitous violence, and when you report it, they say it doesn't go against community standards.

Everyone's talking about the content rather than the platform itself being the problem.

Is there any talk in the world of technology about how to deal with that without allowing tech giants to censor things we say, and without people being too authoritarian about what we can and cannot say?

Katina Michael:
Yes, Melinda.

I was the working group chair of a standard, an international standard, that encouraged better design of age-appropriate digital services for children. It's IEEE 2089. We built it between 2019 and 2021. It was released, and we're now going through a process of asking: how can we have companies certified to build these kinds of digital services for children to encourage wellbeing?

So, it's all about a duty of care. It's not about banning.

Rather, it's: let's get better at building things.

Let's stop nudging kids to be on platforms longer through auto-scrolling, or sharing their location, or sharing their video if they don't want to, or playing freely.

The internet and social media are about the modern-day context of play. Many children will say this to you through consultations.

But the question is: how can we address the root problem?

We need to build better technology. We need to build better digital services.

So, we identify risks before we roll out a service en masse.

We don't force children to use Snapchat and share their location. We don't force children to watch YouTube and then auto-scroll so they're going from one video to another.

We don't force single sign-on to online games where children are going from one game to another.

So, we are trying to remove the nudge through persuasive algorithms that keep people using particular software platforms and digital services, and we want to encourage responsible innovation.

Yes, this is a wonderful environment to create content and play with other children safely.

But how can we do that?

We do that through regulation, the enforcement mechanisms we have, and laws that change. But we also need to say we acknowledge the benefits of these platforms and we want to minimise the harm.

So, it's all about risk assessment towards risk mitigation, so that we have children flourishing online and not being circumvented from their rights.

There could be a constitutional challenge here for political rights and freedom of speech of children online.

We'll see what happens after December 10. Some lawyers are saying that on the human rights side.

What are the rights of children, and what are the rights of other stakeholders?

But really, the root problem here is the organisations who build these services. They need to align with the duty of care that we have for all users, not just children.

But I would say specifically here we're looking at children because, as Albi said, so many others of our listeners are thinking, "Well, we'll just use other people's accounts, or we'll get in through virtual private networks, or we'll circumvent the verification system by putting on a mask without the filters that your parents might put on," or whatever.

Host (Mel):
Yeah.

Well, look, as always, I really appreciate your expertise on this subject. Thanks so much.

Katina Michael:
Thanks, Melinda.

Host (Mel):
That's Professor Katina Michael from the University of Wollongong.

I'm very pleased that this person has raised this point as well, because I hope that no one feels I was downplaying what is clearly damage caused by social media to lots of young people, and in some instances catastrophic damage—devastating damage.

This person on the text says:

"Mel, until you've had a family member being bullied online, you have no idea. Well-spoken young people are the confident ones who have resilience and self-esteem. This is a law to help protect the vulnerable from being hurt. We have to try something."

Very pleased you made that point.

Thanks so much. You're listening to ABC Illawarra.

From Shellharbour to Stan Park, from your street to your suburbs, nobody knows the Illawarra like we do.

You're listening to ABC.

[Music]

Please keep your thoughts coming through on the social media ban. I know Amy will continue to discuss it on ABC Illawarra mornings as well.