July 30, 2025 • 17 mins
The Federal Government has confirmed that YouTube will be included in its social media ban for children under 16.
The video streaming platform was originally going to be exempt from the ban, but – following mounting pressure from Australia’s eSafety commissioner – the Government has changed its mind.
The move has drawn criticism from the Opposition, while YouTube's parent company, Google, is reportedly considering legal action against the Australian Government over the inclusion.
In today's pod we'll take you through the latest on the social media ban, and discuss whether Google's threat of legal action could succeed.
Hosts: Emma Gillespie and Billi FitzSimons
Producer: Orla Maher
Want to support The Daily Aus? That's so kind! The best way to do that is to click ‘follow’ on Spotify or Apple and to leave us a five-star review. We would be so grateful.
The Daily Aus is a media company focused on delivering accessible and digestible news to young people. We are completely independent.
Want more from TDA?
Subscribe to The Daily Aus newsletter
Subscribe to The Daily Aus’ YouTube Channel
Have feedback for us?
We’re always looking for new ways to improve what we do. If you’ve got feedback, we’re all ears. Tell us here.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Already and this is the Daily OS.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
This is the Daily ohs oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Thursday,
the thirty first of July. I'm Emma Gillespie.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
I'm Billy FitzSimons.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
The Federal government has confirmed that YouTube will be included
in its social media ban for children under sixteen. The
video streaming platform was originally going to be exempt from
the ban, but following mounting pressure from Australia's e Safety Commissioner,
the government has changed its mind. The move's drawn criticism
(00:42):
from the opposition, while YouTube's parent company Google is reportedly
considering legal action against the government over the decision.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
We'll take you through the latest on the social media
ban and discuss whether Google's threat of legal action could succeed.
Right after a quick message from our sponsor, so M
we're talking today about this social media ban for under sixteens. Now,
this is legislation that has actually already been tabled in
(01:12):
Parliament and as I understand, it has already gone through.
For anyone who missed this, because I think it happened
at the very end of last year, do you want
to just explain the context of this.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Yes. So you might remember last year it was November
when the government introduced its bill to ban under sixteen
year olds from social media. Now, that followed this kind
of intense public campaign that gained a lot of media attention,
a lot of celebrity endorsements, a lot of parents and
schools were on board, essentially saying that the government needed
to do a better job of protecting young people's mental
(01:45):
health in the online space. So, off the back of
that campaign, Australia became the first country in the world
to legislate an age specific social media ban. So under
the legislation, platforms including Snapchat, Instagram, x TikTok, Reddit, Facebook,
they all have to block any user under sixteen from
(02:07):
having an account on their platform, and the responsibility basically
will fall on the platforms themselves. So it'll be up
to social media companies to enforce this ban, and failure
to comply will result in fines of fifty million dollars.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Okay, So, the Australian government introduces this ban for social
media for under sixteen year olds, but YouTube is exempt
from the ban. What was the government's reasoning at the
time as to why YouTube was exempt?
Speaker 3 (02:35):
So initially YouTube was not included in this legislation, as
you mentioned, Billy, predominantly because the government said it's used
for learning. YouTube is used as an educational resource. So
in a speech last year, then Communications Minister Michelle Roland said, YouTube,
as well as some other platforms like messaging platform WhatsApp,
which is also exempt quote enable young people to get
(02:57):
the education and health support they needed. So the logic
was basically that unlike Instagram, TikTok and Facebook, that YouTube
serves as more of an educational tool, so it's used
by teachers and students for tutorials, videos, documentaries, historical docos,
and scientific experiments, all these kinds of resources, rather than
(03:21):
being used as a social networking platform designed around user
generated content and social interaction. So there is a social
element to YouTube in the comments for example, but the
government basically said a lot of people come to the
platform for a use that is completely different. YouTube also
already requires children under thirteen to provide a parent or
(03:42):
guardians contact details when they create an account, and they
also have YouTube Kids, which you might have heard of.
It's a separate platform designed specifically for really young users,
and there are more content restrictions on YouTube kids.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
It's funny how different platforms are used by different people
for different things. Yeah, I have to say I do
not use YouTube for educational purposes, or if I do,
the extent of that was makeup tutorials when I was
growing up.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
But you could argue that's kind of an educational resource.
It's still a tutorial.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Yeah, that and comedy sketches. So perhaps wasn't using it
for the best thing, but hey, it was the early days,
it was, and so now the government has changed its course.
What prompted this shift.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
So there were a few key factors that seemed to
have influenced this decision to include YouTube in the ban.
And when it was first confirmed last year that YouTube
would be exempt, you can imagine that this drew a
lot of criticism from other social media companies. They argued
that it wasn't fair to have a kind of separate
set of rules for one and not the others. And
(04:45):
this year we've really seen a concerted effort from the
a Safety Commissioner. So this is Australia's top online safety advisor.
The Commissioner's name is Julie Inman Grant and in June
so last month she issued official advice to the federal government,
urging it to reconsider its stance specifically around YouTube. So
(05:05):
She pointed out that you can still access YouTube without
an account, but argued that the platform has evolved beyond
just educational content and that young people are still at
risk if they hold an account and if they are
engaging with the platform. So E Safety recommended there be
no exemptions for specific platforms under the legislation because quote
(05:26):
the relative risks and harms can change at any given
moment across different types of social media. In an addressed
to the National Press Club, Julian mcgrant said that recent
E safety research had shown four in ten children reported
being exposed to harmful content on YouTube, which was the
highest of any platform. So that research really drove this
(05:47):
push by E safety to get YouTube included in the.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Band okay so Australia's E Safety Commissioner said that in
June at the time, how did YouTube respond to those claims?
Speaker 3 (05:58):
So YouTube has rejected those claims roundly. Its public policy
senior manager Rachel Lord criticized E Safety's advice, saying the
video sharing platform is widely used in classroom teaching, and
in a statement, Lord said banning YouTube would ignore evidence
from teachers and parents that YouTube is suitable for younger users.
(06:20):
So they really leaned on that kind of community messaging
that this is not the same type of social media
as your kind of meta owned platforms and the others
got it.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Did the other social media platforms that were included in
a ban have anything to say about YouTube's exemption?
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Yes, So the criticism has broadly been that if the
government was serious about protecting children from online harms, then
the world's largest video platform shouldn't get special treatment. So TikTok,
for example, its policy director in Australia, Ella Wood's Joyce,
compared YouTube's exemption to quote banning the sale of soft
(06:56):
drinks to minors but exempting Coca cola.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Yeah, we love an analogy, sure too, Okay, So clearly
there was mounting pressure from the big social media platforms
and also the E Safety Commissioner to ensure that there
are no exemptions, and that pressure seemed to have worked,
because this week the government announced that YouTube would no
longer be exempt and now under sixteen year olds will
(07:22):
be banned from using that platform. How did this announcement
unfold this week?
Speaker 3 (07:28):
So after the E Safety Commissioner wrote to the government
in June with that advice we heard from the government.
It said that basically the Communications Minister Annika Wells was
carefully considering that advice and so that's where things stayed
out for a few weeks until Tuesday night, when the
government announced YouTube would be subject to the same age
(07:50):
restrictions as other social media platforms. We got a statement
from Prime Minister Anthony Alberesi's office which said the decision
followed extensive consultation and was in four formed by advice
from the E Safety Commissioner. The statement said online gaming,
messaging apps, health and education services though would not be
included in the ban quote because they pose fewer social
(08:12):
media harms to under sixteens or are regulated under different laws,
so that includes WhatsApp for example. WhatsApp will not be
included or affected by the ban, but the change does
mean that from December, YouTube will be subject to the
same minimum age laws that platforms like TikTok, Instagram and
Snapchat will have to adhere to, and at a press
(08:34):
conference on Wednesday, the Communications Minister Annika Wells said the
evidence of harms to young users on YouTube cannot be ignored.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
We want kids to know who they are before platforms
assume who they are. These are not set and forget
rules is a set of support rules. They are world leading.
But this is manifestly too important for us not to
have a crap.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
So you mentioned before that YouTube does have the educational
content on its platform, the ones that are much more
educational than the makeup tutorials I watched when I was sixteen.
But in terms of I know that there are you know,
documentaries there which you know, maybe teachers would even use
to help with classes that they're teaching. Yeah, did the
Communications Minister Annika Wells say anything about whether that educational
(09:21):
content will be accessible still?
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Yeah? Well, I think it's worth noting that the restriction
only applies to YouTube account holders, so under sixteen year
olds won't be allowed to log in on YouTube, but
they can still watch videos on the platform, you know,
the same way any of us can without having to
log in, So that doesn't change the classroom aspect. That
(09:43):
doesn't stop kids from watching potentially helpful videos, but it
also doesn't stop them from seeing potentially harmful content either.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
That's interesting, So here they are really just banning under
sixteens from creating an account. But YouTube is unlike something
like Twitter or x I should say, or Instagram, where
you actually need an account in order to view content
on those platforms exactly. YouTube is not like that.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
And the other really important aspect to having a YouTube
account is the algorithm that comes with that. So if
you are logged in on YouTube, then the intuitive kind
of nature of the algorithm pays attention to what you watch.
It starts to learn about your habits, it starts to
serve you videos that I think you might want to watch.
And it's that kind of rabbit hole algorithm that's been
(10:29):
really criticized in terms of promoting violence or serving videos
to young boys that could be seen as kind of
radicalizing them towards becoming violent. So the algorithm aspect is
a really big one. And if you're a casual or
more passive YouTube consumer, you're not logged in. It's not
learning about you, it's not suggesting video content to you.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
Another story that I have read about this week is
in relation to Google, which is YouTube's parent company, them
potentially considering suing the Australian government. What is that story about.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
So meanwhile, in the background of all of this We've
got reports from the Daily Telegraph that Google is threatening
legal action against the government for proceeding with including YouTube
in the ban. So we haven't seen the full details
of Google's legal arguments, but they have previously raised concerns
about the timing and the feasibility of age verification systems.
(11:26):
So this all relies on successful age verification technology, and
in submissions to Parliament last year, Google warned against introducing
the law before tested age verification systems are in place. Now,
despite the government's claims that it is running age verification
trials that have been mostly successful, Google has pointed out
that the full age verification system trial won't be finished
(11:49):
until mid next year, making the bills timing concerning in
its words. Annaka Wells has addressed this the Communications Minister,
saying the government's waiting on the Age Assurance final recommendations,
but she said that they will publish those recommendations as
soon as possible.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
So they just so I understand they are suing over
the timeline, but not necessarily the suggestion of YouTube being included.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
Well, this is all reported by the Daily Telegraph, but
the suggestion is yes, that they're considering legal action because
of the timeline, and because the technology might not have
met the timeline. And there's also a potential argument about
challenging the legislation on constitutional grounds. So the Daily Telegraph
(12:36):
reports cited a letter sent by Google to the Communications
Minister which said including YouTube in the band would diminish
the quote implied constitutional freedom of political communication, So a
free speech argument there, and how has.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
The government responded to this threat of legal action from Google?
Speaker 3 (12:54):
So Anaka Wells addressed this directly yesterday when she said
she will quote not be intimidated by legal threats when
this is a genuine fight for the well being of
Australian kids. Speaking alongside her, also yesterday, Prime Minister Anthony
Albernezi acknowledged that the ban isn't going to be a
simple or easy process, but he did say the government
(13:17):
wants this to be a cooperative one. So he essentially
dismissed claims that these platforms don't have the resources or
technology or that they're not going to be ready to
roll out age verification. Here's a little bit of what
he said.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
I know where you go, how you talk to, what
you're interested in. You know, they do keep that information
and during the election campaign if they could identify for
political parties in order to encourage us to invest on
their platforms on an issue like childcare, identifying women between
(13:53):
a particular age, in a particular seat, in a particular
demographic with particular postcodes, then they can help out here too.
They can use the capacity which we know that they have.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Has the opposition responded to the YouTube announcement, So.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
The Coalition interestingly has supported this social media ban for
under sixteen year olds. It's really very much in favor
of us exactly. They really were on board, but since
news that YouTube was going to be included, they have
been pretty critical of the government. So the Coalition are
not criticizing the ban itself, but they've said that Labor
has essentially broken a promise with this backflip. We've heard
(14:33):
from Shadow Communications Minister Melissa Macintosh, who has accused the
government of a lack of transparency. She said Labor quote
cannot hide the fact that they deliberately misled the public
at the last election by promising to keep YouTube out
of the social media age minimum. She said the Coalition
is concerned that the e Safety Commissioner as well is
testing boundaries quote which are moving beyond what Australians are
(14:56):
comfortable with.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
So in terms of what happens now, you said before
that this comes into effect on the tenth of December,
I believe you said. And so what needs to happen
between now and then.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
Yes, So, as you said, this legislation is due to
come into effect in December. The E Safety Commissioner will
be responsible for enforcing the new rules against the social
media companies, but it will be up to each platform
to roll out their own strategies to ensure they're complying
with the law. So in terms of how they do that,
we need I suppose more concrete evidence or advice on
(15:32):
age verification technology. But it is worth noting that the
legislation places the responsibility on the platforms, not the users,
so not on young people or their parents. Users are
not going to face penalties for attempting to access these platforms. Now,
in terms of the legal threat, Google may follow through
on that, and that could involve challenging this legislation in
(15:54):
the Federal court in order to avoid that. You know,
purely speculating here, but the government might end up goiating
or working with them to kind of prevent legal action
from going all the way to court, and that could
look like, you know, some flexibility on the technical implementation
of age verification or some delays. So the legal threat
could potentially delay implementation. But given the bipartisan support that
(16:17):
we've seen for this legislation and the substantial work that's
already been done on the age verification trials, the government seems,
you know, pretty sternly committed to proceeding with the December deadline.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Something tells me we are going to be hearing a
lot more about it in the months to come, exactly.
And thank you so much for explaining that. Thank you,
and thank you so much for listening to this episode
of The Daily os or you might be listening or
watching on YouTube hopefully you're over sixteen.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
Hello.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
We'll be back this afternoon with your evening headlines, but
until then, have a good day.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
My name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Arunda
Bungelung Calcuttin woman country. The Daily oz acknowledges that this
podcast is recorded on the lands of the Gadigal people
and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest Rate island
and nations. We pay our respects to the first peoples
of these countries, both past and present,
Already and this is the Daily OS.
Speaker 2 (00:03):
This is the Daily ohs oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 3 (00:14):
Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Thursday,
the thirty first of July. I'm Emma Gillespie.
Speaker 2 (00:20):
I'm Billy FitzSimons.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
The Federal government has confirmed that YouTube will be included
in its social media ban for children under sixteen. The
video streaming platform was originally going to be exempt from
the ban, but following mounting pressure from Australia's e Safety Commissioner,
the government has changed its mind. The move's drawn criticism
(00:42):
from the opposition, while YouTube's parent company Google is reportedly
considering legal action against the government over the decision.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
We'll take you through the latest on the social media
ban and discuss whether Google's threat of legal action could succeed.
Right after a quick message from our sponsor, so M
we're talking today about this social media ban for under sixteens. Now,
this is legislation that has actually already been tabled in
(01:12):
Parliament and as I understand, it has already gone through.
For anyone who missed this, because I think it happened
at the very end of last year, do you want
to just explain the context of this.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Yes. So you might remember last year it was November
when the government introduced its bill to ban under sixteen
year olds from social media. Now, that followed this kind
of intense public campaign that gained a lot of media attention,
a lot of celebrity endorsements, a lot of parents and
schools were on board, essentially saying that the government needed
to do a better job of protecting young people's mental
(01:45):
health in the online space. So, off the back of
that campaign, Australia became the first country in the world
to legislate an age specific social media ban. So under
the legislation, platforms including Snapchat, Instagram, x TikTok, Reddit, Facebook,
they all have to block any user under sixteen from
(02:07):
having an account on their platform, and the responsibility basically
will fall on the platforms themselves. So it'll be up
to social media companies to enforce this ban, and failure
to comply will result in fines of fifty million dollars.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Okay, So, the Australian government introduces this ban for social
media for under sixteen year olds, but YouTube is exempt
from the ban. What was the government's reasoning at the
time as to why YouTube was exempt?
Speaker 3 (02:35):
So initially YouTube was not included in this legislation, as
you mentioned, Billy, predominantly because the government said it's used
for learning. YouTube is used as an educational resource. So
in a speech last year, then Communications Minister Michelle Roland said, YouTube,
as well as some other platforms like messaging platform WhatsApp,
which is also exempt quote enable young people to get
(02:57):
the education and health support they needed. So the logic
was basically that unlike Instagram, TikTok and Facebook, that YouTube
serves as more of an educational tool, so it's used
by teachers and students for tutorials, videos, documentaries, historical docos,
and scientific experiments, all these kinds of resources, rather than
(03:21):
being used as a social networking platform designed around user
generated content and social interaction. So there is a social
element to YouTube in the comments for example, but the
government basically said a lot of people come to the
platform for a use that is completely different. YouTube also
already requires children under thirteen to provide a parent or
(03:42):
guardians contact details when they create an account, and they
also have YouTube Kids, which you might have heard of.
It's a separate platform designed specifically for really young users,
and there are more content restrictions on YouTube kids.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
It's funny how different platforms are used by different people
for different things. Yeah, I have to say I do
not use YouTube for educational purposes, or if I do,
the extent of that was makeup tutorials when I was
growing up.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
But you could argue that's kind of an educational resource.
It's still a tutorial.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
Yeah, that and comedy sketches. So perhaps wasn't using it
for the best thing, but hey, it was the early days,
it was, and so now the government has changed its course.
What prompted this shift.
Speaker 3 (04:25):
So there were a few key factors that seemed to
have influenced this decision to include YouTube in the ban.
And when it was first confirmed last year that YouTube
would be exempt, you can imagine that this drew a
lot of criticism from other social media companies. They argued
that it wasn't fair to have a kind of separate
set of rules for one and not the others. And
(04:45):
this year we've really seen a concerted effort from the
a Safety Commissioner. So this is Australia's top online safety advisor.
The Commissioner's name is Julie Inman Grant and in June
so last month she issued official advice to the federal government,
urging it to reconsider its stance specifically around YouTube. So
(05:05):
She pointed out that you can still access YouTube without
an account, but argued that the platform has evolved beyond
just educational content and that young people are still at
risk if they hold an account and if they are
engaging with the platform. So E Safety recommended there be
no exemptions for specific platforms under the legislation because quote
(05:26):
the relative risks and harms can change at any given
moment across different types of social media. In an addressed
to the National Press Club, Julian mcgrant said that recent
E safety research had shown four in ten children reported
being exposed to harmful content on YouTube, which was the
highest of any platform. So that research really drove this
(05:47):
push by E safety to get YouTube included in the.
Speaker 2 (05:50):
Band okay so Australia's E Safety Commissioner said that in
June at the time, how did YouTube respond to those claims?
Speaker 3 (05:58):
So YouTube has rejected those claims roundly. Its public policy
senior manager Rachel Lord criticized E Safety's advice, saying the
video sharing platform is widely used in classroom teaching, and
in a statement, Lord said banning YouTube would ignore evidence
from teachers and parents that YouTube is suitable for younger users.
(06:20):
So they really leaned on that kind of community messaging
that this is not the same type of social media
as your kind of meta owned platforms and the others
got it.
Speaker 2 (06:29):
Did the other social media platforms that were included in
a ban have anything to say about YouTube's exemption?
Speaker 3 (06:36):
Yes, So the criticism has broadly been that if the
government was serious about protecting children from online harms, then
the world's largest video platform shouldn't get special treatment. So TikTok,
for example, its policy director in Australia, Ella Wood's Joyce,
compared YouTube's exemption to quote banning the sale of soft
(06:56):
drinks to minors but exempting Coca cola.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
Yeah, we love an analogy, sure too, Okay, So clearly
there was mounting pressure from the big social media platforms
and also the E Safety Commissioner to ensure that there
are no exemptions, and that pressure seemed to have worked,
because this week the government announced that YouTube would no
longer be exempt and now under sixteen year olds will
(07:22):
be banned from using that platform. How did this announcement
unfold this week?
Speaker 3 (07:28):
So after the E Safety Commissioner wrote to the government
in June with that advice we heard from the government.
It said that basically the Communications Minister Annika Wells was
carefully considering that advice and so that's where things stayed
out for a few weeks until Tuesday night, when the
government announced YouTube would be subject to the same age
(07:50):
restrictions as other social media platforms. We got a statement
from Prime Minister Anthony Alberesi's office which said the decision
followed extensive consultation and was in four formed by advice
from the E Safety Commissioner. The statement said online gaming,
messaging apps, health and education services though would not be
included in the ban quote because they pose fewer social
(08:12):
media harms to under sixteens or are regulated under different laws,
so that includes WhatsApp for example. WhatsApp will not be
included or affected by the ban, but the change does
mean that from December, YouTube will be subject to the
same minimum age laws that platforms like TikTok, Instagram and
Snapchat will have to adhere to, and at a press
(08:34):
conference on Wednesday, the Communications Minister Annika Wells said the
evidence of harms to young users on YouTube cannot be ignored.
Speaker 1 (08:42):
We want kids to know who they are before platforms
assume who they are. These are not set and forget
rules is a set of support rules. They are world leading.
But this is manifestly too important for us not to
have a crap.
Speaker 2 (08:57):
So you mentioned before that YouTube does have the educational
content on its platform, the ones that are much more
educational than the makeup tutorials I watched when I was sixteen.
But in terms of I know that there are you know,
documentaries there which you know, maybe teachers would even use
to help with classes that they're teaching. Yeah, did the
Communications Minister Annika Wells say anything about whether that educational
(09:21):
content will be accessible still?
Speaker 3 (09:23):
Yeah? Well, I think it's worth noting that the restriction
only applies to YouTube account holders, so under sixteen year
olds won't be allowed to log in on YouTube, but
they can still watch videos on the platform, you know,
the same way any of us can without having to
log in, So that doesn't change the classroom aspect. That
(09:43):
doesn't stop kids from watching potentially helpful videos, but it
also doesn't stop them from seeing potentially harmful content either.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
That's interesting, So here they are really just banning under
sixteens from creating an account. But YouTube is unlike something
like Twitter or x I should say, or Instagram, where
you actually need an account in order to view content
on those platforms exactly. YouTube is not like that.
Speaker 3 (10:08):
And the other really important aspect to having a YouTube
account is the algorithm that comes with that. So if
you are logged in on YouTube, then the intuitive kind
of nature of the algorithm pays attention to what you watch.
It starts to learn about your habits, it starts to
serve you videos that I think you might want to watch.
And it's that kind of rabbit hole algorithm that's been
(10:29):
really criticized in terms of promoting violence or serving videos
to young boys that could be seen as kind of
radicalizing them towards becoming violent. So the algorithm aspect is
a really big one. And if you're a casual or
more passive YouTube consumer, you're not logged in. It's not
learning about you, it's not suggesting video content to you.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
Another story that I have read about this week is
in relation to Google, which is YouTube's parent company, them
potentially considering suing the Australian government. What is that story about.
Speaker 3 (11:06):
So meanwhile, in the background of all of this We've
got reports from the Daily Telegraph that Google is threatening
legal action against the government for proceeding with including YouTube
in the ban. So we haven't seen the full details
of Google's legal arguments, but they have previously raised concerns
about the timing and the feasibility of age verification systems.
(11:26):
So this all relies on successful age verification technology, and
in submissions to Parliament last year, Google warned against introducing
the law before tested age verification systems are in place. Now,
despite the government's claims that it is running age verification
trials that have been mostly successful, Google has pointed out
that the full age verification system trial won't be finished
(11:49):
until mid next year, making the bills timing concerning in
its words. Annaka Wells has addressed this the Communications Minister,
saying the government's waiting on the Age Assurance final recommendations,
but she said that they will publish those recommendations as
soon as possible.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
So they just so I understand they are suing over
the timeline, but not necessarily the suggestion of YouTube being included.
Speaker 3 (12:15):
Well, this is all reported by the Daily Telegraph, but
the suggestion is yes, that they're considering legal action because
of the timeline, and because the technology might not have
met the timeline. And there's also a potential argument about
challenging the legislation on constitutional grounds. So the Daily Telegraph
(12:36):
reports cited a letter sent by Google to the Communications
Minister which said including YouTube in the band would diminish
the quote implied constitutional freedom of political communication, So a
free speech argument there, and how has.
Speaker 2 (12:50):
The government responded to this threat of legal action from Google?
Speaker 3 (12:54):
So Anaka Wells addressed this directly yesterday when she said
she will quote not be intimidated by legal threats when
this is a genuine fight for the well being of
Australian kids. Speaking alongside her, also yesterday, Prime Minister Anthony
Albernezi acknowledged that the ban isn't going to be a
simple or easy process, but he did say the government
(13:17):
wants this to be a cooperative one. So he essentially
dismissed claims that these platforms don't have the resources or
technology or that they're not going to be ready to
roll out age verification. Here's a little bit of what
he said.
Speaker 4 (13:31):
I know where you go, how you talk to, what
you're interested in. You know, they do keep that information
and during the election campaign if they could identify for
political parties in order to encourage us to invest on
their platforms on an issue like childcare, identifying women between
(13:53):
a particular age, in a particular seat, in a particular
demographic with particular postcodes, then they can help out here too.
They can use the capacity which we know that they have.
Speaker 2 (14:05):
Has the opposition responded to the YouTube announcement, So.
Speaker 3 (14:10):
The Coalition interestingly has supported this social media ban for
under sixteen year olds. It's really very much in favor
of us exactly. They really were on board, but since
news that YouTube was going to be included, they have
been pretty critical of the government. So the Coalition are
not criticizing the ban itself, but they've said that Labor
has essentially broken a promise with this backflip. We've heard
(14:33):
from Shadow Communications Minister Melissa Macintosh, who has accused the
government of a lack of transparency. She said Labor quote
cannot hide the fact that they deliberately misled the public
at the last election by promising to keep YouTube out
of the social media age minimum. She said the Coalition
is concerned that the e Safety Commissioner as well is
testing boundaries quote which are moving beyond what Australians are
(14:56):
comfortable with.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
So in terms of what happens now, you said before
that this comes into effect on the tenth of December,
I believe you said. And so what needs to happen
between now and then.
Speaker 3 (15:08):
Yes, So, as you said, this legislation is due to
come into effect in December. The E Safety Commissioner will
be responsible for enforcing the new rules against the social
media companies, but it will be up to each platform
to roll out their own strategies to ensure they're complying
with the law. So in terms of how they do that,
we need I suppose more concrete evidence or advice on
(15:32):
age verification technology. But it is worth noting that the
legislation places the responsibility on the platforms, not the users,
so not on young people or their parents. Users are
not going to face penalties for attempting to access these platforms. Now,
in terms of the legal threat, Google may follow through
on that, and that could involve challenging this legislation in
(15:54):
the Federal court in order to avoid that. You know,
purely speculating here, but the government might end up goiating
or working with them to kind of prevent legal action
from going all the way to court, and that could
look like, you know, some flexibility on the technical implementation
of age verification or some delays. So the legal threat
could potentially delay implementation. But given the bipartisan support that
(16:17):
we've seen for this legislation and the substantial work that's
already been done on the age verification trials, the government seems,
you know, pretty sternly committed to proceeding with the December deadline.
Speaker 2 (16:29):
Something tells me we are going to be hearing a
lot more about it in the months to come, exactly.
And thank you so much for explaining that. Thank you,
and thank you so much for listening to this episode
of The Daily os or you might be listening or
watching on YouTube hopefully you're over sixteen.
Speaker 1 (16:45):
Hello.
Speaker 2 (16:47):
We'll be back this afternoon with your evening headlines, but
until then, have a good day.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
My name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Arunda
Bungelung Calcuttin woman country. The Daily oz acknowledges that this
podcast is recorded on the lands of the Gadigal people
and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest Rate island
and nations. We pay our respects to the first peoples
of these countries, both past and present,
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.