How will Australia apply the law that prohibits social networks for minors?

A new law in Australia, approved by Parliament on November 28, is a true social experiment. A bold decision that, according to experts, could achieve the objective that parents, schools and other governments have sought, with varying degrees of success: keeping children and teenagers off social media until they turn 16.

This attempt to swim against the various currents of modern life – such as technology, marketing, globalization and, of course, the stubbornness of a teenager – is not simple.

Like past attempts to protect young people from whatever their parents believe they are not yet ready to face, the move is ambitious but complex, especially in a world where young people are often defined and measured by social media with the which ones connect.

The ban won't come into force until next year, but how will Australia be able to enforce it? This is not yet clear – and it will not be easy. TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram are already part of the routine of so many young people that a sudden cut will be difficult.

Other questions also arise. Will the ban limit young people's freedom of expression, especially for the most vulnerable groups, isolating them and restricting their chances of connecting with the community?

How will social networks verify users' ages? Isn't it to be expected that teenagers will simply find ways around these barriers, as they often do?

We are in the 21st century, an era where social networks are the main communication tool for most people born in the last 25 years – who, in a fragmented world, look to them for trends, music, memes. What happens when these networks are suddenly taken down?

Is Australia's initiative a positive step forward that will protect the vulnerable, or could it end up becoming a well-intentioned experiment with unforeseen consequences?

PLATFORMS WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE

Leaders and parents across countries are watching Australian politics closely as many try to protect children from the dangers of the internet and each other. Each country has followed a different path, ranging from requiring parental consent to minimum age limits.

Many child safety experts, parents and even teenagers who have waited longer to use social media consider the measure a positive step. They argue there are good reasons to ensure children wait longer to enter the digital world.

“The most important thing for children and teens, as well as adults, is real human connection. Less time alone on a screen means more time to connect, not less,” says Julie Scelfo, founder of the group MAMA (Mothers Against Media Addiction), which brings together parents to combat the harm social media causes to children.

The harm caused by social media to young people has been widely documented over the past 20 years, since the launch of Facebook, which ushered in a new era in global communication.

Children who spend more time on social media are more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety, according to several studies – although it is not yet clear whether there is a causal relationship.

Many have access to age-inappropriate content, such as pornography and violence, in addition to experiencing social pressures regarding body image and aesthetics. They also suffer bullyingsexual harassment and unwanted flirting, both from peers and adult strangers.

Because teenagers' brains are not yet fully developed, especially among younger people (who are the focus of the law), they are also more susceptible to social comparisons than adults. In other words, even happy posts from friends can send them into a wave of negative thoughts.

WHAT UNPREDICTABLE DAMAGES COULD ARISE?

Many large initiatives, especially those that seek to modify social behaviors, can generate side and unforeseen effects. Could this happen in this case too? What will children end up losing when they are separated from the networks in which they are inserted?

Paul Taske, associate director of litigation at technology lobby group NetChoice, calls the ban “one of the most extreme violations of free speech on the world stage today.” “These restrictions would create a huge cultural shift,” he said.

Less alone time on screen means more time to connect, not less.

“Not only is the Australian government stopping young people from engaging with issues they are passionate about, it is doing so even if their parents agree to the use of digital services,” he argued.

Privacy advocates also raised concerns about the law's impact on the issue of anonymity on digital platforms, something fundamental to internet communication and which can protect teenagers on social media.

In May, the US Surgeon General (chief spokesperson for public health issues in the federal government), Vivek Murthy, stated that there is still not enough evidence to guarantee that social networks are safe for children.

So he called on lawmakers to address the harms of social media in the same way they regulate items like baby seats, infant formula, medications and other products used by children.

In collaboration with Laurie Kellman, Associated Press reporter

---