What happens when social media goes ‘dark’ for Australian teens

Parents across the country have been wringing their hands for months about how the social media ban will work – and more so, if it will work. So, what exactly does the ban cover? And how will it be enforced? Today, reporter Bronte Gossling on the main methods children plan on using, to circumvent what the federal government has called a “world-leading” ban. And why most Australian parents say they won’t enforce it.

Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

S1 (00:01):
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Seelinger Morris. It's Tuesday,
December 9th. Parents across the country have been wringing their
hands for months about how the social media ban will work,

(00:21):
and more so if it will work. Teenagers are already
planning ways to get around the ban, like 13 year
old Ariel from Sydney.

S2 (00:31):
I used Snapchat a lot. It's what I used to
like communicate with all my friends. And to be honest,
I'm planning on still using Snapchat. I feel like the
ban won't do much and I feel like I can
find a way around it.

S1 (00:44):
Conner, a 12 year old also from New South Wales,
said he was still able to play popular gaming platform Roblox.

S3 (00:52):
He had to scan the place if he wanted to
access the chat to talk to people on the game,
and it said that you're 15 or older and it
allowed me to use the chat.

S1 (01:07):
So what exactly does the band cover and how will
it be enforced? Today, reporter Bronte Gosling on the main
methods children plan on using to circumvent what the federal
government has called a world leading ban, and why most
Australian parents say they won't enforce it. So, Bronte, let's

(01:35):
start with the basics. What are under 16 seconds actually
going to see when they try to log on to
their social media accounts on Wednesday?

S4 (01:42):
So that's a great question, Sam. We have some idea,
but not a whole picture. So the legislation actually comes
into effect on December 10th. So that means that tech
giants need to have already implemented reasonable steps to prevent
under 16 seconds from accessing existing accounts or creating new
ones before then, so that by the time the clock

(02:04):
strikes midnight on Wednesday morning, they're already compliant with the law.
So some platforms, such as Meta's Instagram, have actually been
suspending users they have identified to be under 16 since
late November.

S5 (02:19):
Kids like me already have brands, audiences, all that. This
ban is literally cutting off our income and our opportunities.

S6 (02:26):
As someone who was personally bullied to the absolute brink.
I think this is a step in the right direction.

S7 (02:33):
I think banning teenagers from social media is going to
stop them.

S8 (02:38):
You're not mad about the social media ban because when
I was that age we had Kik. I don't know
if you guys remember Kik, but that place was lawless. Hello,
rest of the world, it's James.

S9 (02:46):
I don't know if you guys can hear me or
see me or if this is even gonna work. I
think I may have found a loophole.

S4 (02:52):
I was speaking with a 13 year old girl, Ariel,
who's from Sydney, and she had her account suspended on
November 25th. And so what she showed me was that
when she opened up her Instagram app, a notification popped
up and it said that her account had been suspended
and that it wasn't visible to other people on Instagram
at that moment, and that she can't actually use her account.

(03:14):
So the only thing that she could actually do was
click a button that said she could download a copy
of what she had shared on the platform to her
local device, and then she could click an appeal button.
Then it asked her to submit a photo of her
government ID, and it told her that the copy that
they have taken of her ID would be deleted from
the platform within 30 days. So most platforms, including TikTok,

(03:39):
will be implementing something like that, where people they have
identified as under 16 can still really open the app,
but they just can't use it without supplying information such
as facial scans. Or in Snapchat's case, they're also implementing
a bank account verification aspect. And then in certain cases,
government IDs. But there's a lot we still don't know.

(04:00):
We don't know how Elon Musk's X formerly Twitter or Reddit,
will implement any age assurance technologies or methods because they've
not publicly confirmed that they will comply with the ban.
So they haven't actually issued guidance on how age verification
will work on their platforms. So these tech giants have
had about a year to get themselves together and figure

(04:25):
out how they're going to implement their reasonable steps to prevent,
under sixteens from having accounts. Um, some of them have
been very communicative about how that's going to unfold, and
others have been resistant to providing any information to the
public in saying that there were some platforms that were
only notified a few weeks ago that they were going

(04:47):
to be included in the ban, and that was Kik
and Twitch. Um, and they have been very vocal about
how they are going to comply with the legislation, but
less forthcoming about what that's going to look like from them.
Understandably so.

S1 (05:02):
And so you've mentioned ex Reddit Instagram, TikTok. What other
platforms will come under the ban?

S4 (05:08):
Yeah, so the list is wide reaching, but it's not
as wide reaching as some parents probably would hope. Notably,
Roblox is not included, though it has implemented age assurance
methods since being called out. I think it was last
month or the month before. Google's YouTube is of course, included,
and so is Meta's Facebook and Threads, though Meta's Messenger

(05:31):
and WhatsApp is not included in the ban. Kik is
also included, as is Snapchat and Twitch. So Snapchat has
said it will comply with the legislation, but it has
also used every opportunity it can to vocalize its disagreement
with the fact that it's been included. So Snapchat chief
executive Evan Spiegel, who's actually married to Australia's very own

(05:53):
Miranda Kerr, um, he spoke with our technology editor, David Swan,
in September last year, and that was two months before
the Online Safety Amendment Act had even passed in parliament.
Spiegel said that parents are the ones that are best
placed to manage their children's screen time, and he believes
that Snapchat is fundamentally different to TikTok and Instagram. He

(06:15):
doesn't actually call Snapchat a social media platform. He just
describes it as a place where friends can privately message
each other. YouTube. Meanwhile, they also disagree with the ban. Um,
they have confirmed that they will comply. They've said that
under 16 will automatically be signed out of and barred
from logging into accounts this week, meaning no subscriptions, likes,

(06:38):
playlists or default wellbeing tools such as Take a Break
and Bedtime Reminders will be able to be accessed by them.
And that is actually what YouTube takes issue with. They
say that the social media ban is a rushed regulation
that misunderstands how YouTube works, and because you can actually
publicly access YouTube's videos and anyone can watch that without

(07:00):
an account. And so YouTube's arguing that not being able
to have an account when you're under 16 is actually unsafe.

S1 (07:07):
I just want to pipe up on behalf of the
parents who are listening. I love that you said that.
Snapchat chief executive Evan Spiegel thinks that parents are best
placed to manage their kids social media usage. I just
want to note, Bronte, you've just inspired me. I've quickly
done a Google. It appears that his kids are seven,
six and 19 months old. So I'm just going to
say on behalf of those whose kids are a bit older, um,

(07:28):
good luck to you when that time comes, Evan. And, uh,
onto my question, which is that, you know, age verification
seems to be the primary way that these platforms will
enforce the ban. So can you just tell us how
will that actually work?

S4 (07:42):
Great question. So obviously there's been security concerns from parents
and teens and critics, etc.. Um, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese
hosed that down in November. He rejected claims that any
user information would be stolen because, of course, the most
accurate way to verify someone's age is by taking a

(08:05):
copy of their government issued identification Vacation document. So the
Esafety Commissioner strongly encourages social media providers to use Non-sensitive
personal information as much as possible because of these security
concerns in their regulatory guidelines. They call it a waterfall approach,
which is the least invasive, easiest age assurance method first,

(08:26):
and then we move on to the more complex technologies
and strategies. So usually the least invasive method is behavioural data.
That's the users activity. So is this account engaging with
content that people who are usually under 16, are they
engaging with that normally? What date of birth do they
have stated on their account? And interestingly, did they change

(08:48):
their date of birth to above the age of 16
a few weeks ago? Because that indicates that they're clearly
under 16 and then facial scans and government ID documentation.
So there's actually been a bit of back and forth
over government ID. Communications Minister Anika Wells did say in
a press conference last week that the law does not

(09:09):
force you to hand over your government issued identification document,
and that is technically true. But the reality is that
the most accurate way, as I said before, to prove
someone's age is with government ID, and so some users
might actually be left with no choice if they need
to access their account and are over 16, but have
been flagged as under 16, they might have to actually

(09:30):
supply their government issued identification.

S1 (09:35):
We'll be right back. We actually had some, I think,
quite surprising polling that was published in our mastheads this week,
and it revealed that less than a third of parents
plan on enforcing this ban. So does this go to
one of the pointy issues here, which is that the

(09:56):
enforcement of the ban is really going to be lumped
onto parents in the end.

S4 (10:00):
I think that's a common misconception about the legislation. The
fact of the matter is that the onus is on
the social media giants themselves to implement these reasonable steps
to prevent children under 16 from holding or creating accounts,
and that is why they have been using every chance

(10:21):
they can to blast the ban. And they also believe
that application stores should be in charge of enforcing an
age limitation. Um, so by that, they're saying that you
should really have to prove that you're over 16 to
be able to even download an app from the App Store. Um,
and that's because if these social media giants can't prove

(10:43):
that they've taken reasonable measures to prevent children under 16
from holding or creating accounts, they risk a maximum fine
of $49.5 million if they don't comply with the legislation.
So there is a bit of trickiness when it comes
to definition of reasonable steps. So the E-safety Commissioner's regulatory

(11:05):
guidelines merely state that they need to prove they've implemented
reasonable steps. Um, and they do give best practice examples,
but reasonable steps are not actually explicitly defined. So I
foresee potential legal arguments against that. But I guess we'll
wait and see.

S1 (11:23):
Yeah, that definitely has my ears pricked up at that one.
And so I guess what about the kids themselves. Like
aren't they just going to circumvent the ban.

S4 (11:31):
Yeah. Look there has been gossip on social media platforms
in comments and videos about how kids plan on getting
around the ban. A common thread is they all think
they're going to be able to stick their older brother
or sister or mum or dad or grandma in front
of the camera and get around it. When it comes
to facial scans, but really it's a wait and see situation.

(11:53):
We really don't know what it's going to look like
on Wednesday. We can. We know that there will be
bank account verification, email address verification, behavioral data, government ID,
but what's important to know is that children and parents
won't be punished for circumventing the ban if they happen
to do so because the onus is on the tech

(12:14):
giants in the legislation. What I will say is that
the E-safety Commissioner's regulatory guidelines does state that they expect
platforms to detect when a virtual private network is used.
And so that's a VPN. It masks your IP address
and can therefore make it appear as if you're in
another location. They expect tech giants to be able to

(12:35):
detect if a VPN has been used, and if it
has been used if that user is in Australia, and
then if that user is in Australia, if they're under 16,
how that's going to work. I have no idea. The
Esafety commissioner also encourages tech giants to have reporting systems
in place so that users can flag other accounts they

(12:56):
suspect as belonging to under 16 year olds. To the
tech giants. And then the tech giant can investigate.

S1 (13:02):
Okay. Interesting, because many of us can attest to just
how resourceful kids can be. So finally, Bronte, what happens
from here? You know, how and when will we know
whether the ban will work or if it's just going
to fall to pieces?

S4 (13:16):
That's a great question. It's written into our legislation, so
I don't particularly see it falling to pieces. But in
terms of how successful it will be and if it
will actually be able to realistically keep under 16 seconds
off social media platforms. I guess, like I said, we'll

(13:36):
have to wait and see. I'm interested in what it's
going to look like on Reddit and X, because they
have been pretty quiet about it. And we are on
the eve of the legislation coming into effect. There's a
lot that we are going to have to wait and
see about. What we do know is that in New
York in September, when Anthony Albanese and Anika Wells travelled

(13:58):
to the United Nations to spruik the ban, the European
Commission president said that she was inspired by Australia's example
and she said that we in Europe are watching Australia
and clearly they are looking to us as we implement
our world leading ban, as it's been called worldwide.

S1 (14:17):
Well, thank you so much, Bronte, for your time.

S4 (14:20):
Pleasure. Thanks for having me.

S1 (14:30):
Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Julia Carcasole.
Our executive producer is Tami Mills. Tom Mackendrick is our
head of audio. To listen to our episodes as soon
as they drop, follow the Morning Edition on Apple, Spotify,
or wherever you listen to podcasts. Our newsrooms are powered
by subscriptions, so to support independent journalism, visit The Age

(14:53):
or smh.com.au. Subscribe and to stay up to date, sign
up to our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a summary
of the day's most important news in your inbox every morning.
Links are in the show. Notes. I'm Samantha Selinger. Morris,
thanks for listening.