December 3, 2025 • 9 mins
From December 10, Australia is requiring multiple major social media platforms and websites to remove underage accounts or face a hefty fine in their under-16 social media ban.
The platforms effected include Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube.
This move by the Australian Government is a world first, and has sparked conversations in other countries, including New Zealand.
But, Free Speech Union CEO Gillaine Heather calls it 'legislative virtue signalling'.
"I think the problem is real. You know, if there's predatory algorithms, if there's harm to kids from some of the social media, address the problem, but make it a proportional response," she told Matt and Tyler.
LISTEN ABOVE
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 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from news Talk zed B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
As Australia begins at social media band to under sixteen
year olds, The Free Speech Union is worn that doing
the same here would do more harm than good. To
discuss further, we're joined by Julaine Heather, Free Speech Union
Chief Executive Julaine Very good afternoon to you, Cure.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
To Tyler, Kyda, Matt, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 4 (00:33):
Do under sixteen year olds have the same rights to
free speech as the rest of us?
Speaker 3 (00:40):
No, it is our position literally as an organization, we
legislate for children all the time on a different on
a different level than adults, you know, in terms of schooling, drinking, voting,
so many, so many aspects. So they don't have the
same rights as adults. That doesn't mean they have no rights,
though I do absolutely think that taking away or banning
(01:03):
their access makes them digitally illiterate and does not set
them up for the future. But the rights are different.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
So they have some rights. And if we do remove
the sixteen year olds from social media, does this just
remove young voices from what is essentially now the public square?
Of discourse in modern societies.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
No, exactly. So look, our concerns are twofold. One of them,
the most the largest, is that any system that we
think that will be built to protect kids will actually
end up limiting lawful speech for adults, either you know, censorship,
collecting excessive personal data you know, etc. Or limiting access
for people to get on to the digital marketplace. So
(01:47):
our main concern is that we have not seen a
system that's rolled out that doesn't have false positives and
doesn't actually end up censoring and limiting freedom of expression
for adults. But then to your second point, I absolutely
think it takes well, it takes away the young voices
from their marketplace, their ability to inter rapt with each other,
(02:09):
their ability to enter into businesses, their ability to seek help,
seek information, etc. And as we all know, we're already
seeing it, it just drives them. It's funneling them to
different sites, and it will funnel them out of the light,
literally to darker and darker and dodgier sites. They're already going, right,
They're already clean in the masses.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
Seems to be the case that Australia, there are there's
some parts of it because I'll ask you about digital
anonymity in a minute, but what's been suggested in Australia
there are some safeguards around people's information, like the data
must be used only for age verification where and then
must be deleted. No, there's no central government database of
(02:50):
the information taken by these platforms to check someone the
age is and you know, strict penalties for misuse, so
people will still be allowed to be anonymous in Australia.
Do you believe those safeguards are enough that they're bring
in Australia?
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Many breaches have we seen from the UK when they
brought their acting in July already happening? Was it? How
many millions on discord? Was there a data breach? Our
data is not safe out there, and I think collecting
sensitive data for young people is literally what they term
a honeypot in terms of we've just created a holy
grail for people to go after. The government talks about data,
(03:31):
but how many data breaches literally occur almost every day
around the world here. So look, I think the problem
is real. You know, if there's predatory algorithms, if there's
farm to kids from some of the social media address
the problem, make it a proportional response, empirically verified and actually,
you know, improve the digital literacy, improve the parental tools,
(03:54):
improve the education, and go after the platforms for that
asymmetrical algorithm addicting sort of bit. It's a blunt toool
that they're doing. I think it's led to sort of
virtue signaling. I don't think it works, and we know
the kids will find a way around it.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Well, we just say to the argument Julane that they're
having over in Australia right now with this legislation, that
they know that there will be people that will bypass
the band and it's not going to be finable offense
if you do that. There's obviously some steep fines for
the platforms that don't take reasonable steps, but there's flexibility
in that law. So their argument is this is a
step in the right direction, but it's not going to
(04:32):
be iron clad. It's not going to catch every under
sixteen year old using the social media, but it's an
effort to try and change behavior.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
I think culture changes behavior. Not passing a law that
doesn't actually probably address the problem. As soon as you
prohibit something, what happens. Prohibition just doesn't work right, It
makes it almost more desirable. Look, I absolutely understand the impetus.
I understand the protective you know, sort of urge that
(05:03):
people are feeling, and I know there are real harms
out there. I just think this is a really blood
instrument that that hasn't been proved to work so far,
and we'll just drive kids into different places underground, you know,
et cetera. Look, it's the school holidays. Australia is bringing
this in at a time when kids are going to
have all the time in the world on their hands.
(05:25):
I bet you that they are not outside plane on
the eleventh of December. I bet you that they're on
the VPNs and social media figuring out a way around
or just going to new platforms right until the government
comes after those platforms.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
And it could potentially make just a whole generation of
really digitally sneaky people, yeah, you know that have trained
from a young age to circumvent regulations. Now we're hearing
this a lot, and this is a wider issue, but
we're hearing a lot on the text machine right now.
What is the problem with people using their real names online?
People say it, Well, you know, make the discourse better
(06:01):
if people have to back up what they're saying with
their reputations in real life. So is anonymity online important
for free speech in why?
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Look I believe that no exactly, Look, I believe that
it is. And look, don't get me wrong, I would
love more managed to come back in every aspect of
our lives. And I think that would absolutely help with
discourse and people knowing who you are. I think that
does give another level and sort of shuts down some
of the trolls. But the ability to criticize government, the
(06:35):
ability to criticize your employer, the ability to criticize systems
where maybe your job's at at risk, maybe you're you know,
the society that you're in doesn't doesn't you know, likes
conformity of thought. There seems to be a lot of
conformity of thought at the moment. So I think the
ability for pseudo anonymity to go on to comment on things,
to actually raise discussions that like, even during COVID for instance,
(06:59):
or you know, other periods that we've been through, for
people to actually raise real issues when otherwise they might
have felt afraid to or felt that they would be
sanction that work or shunned from their community. We need
an outlet for that. But believe you me, if we
could bring back more manners are they're big fans.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
Further that point and issues that were raised, and of
course there's been a lot of talk about how these
big tech companies engaged in censorship and with pressure from
the governments, particularly in the United States but all around
the world. Do we want tech companies to be the
gatekeepers on public discourse? And isn't this kind of what
(07:40):
we're empowering them to be that they are the people?
Because because you know this Australian law particularly puts the
onus on them. So are you comfortable with them, these
big corporations being the gatekeepers?
Speaker 3 (07:54):
I'm very uncomfortable with that sort of power in anyone
else's hands, right, except for those really bright lines of
incitement and direct harm, etc. Look, in a way, by default,
these large companies are already controlled so much of what
we see and so much of what we do, but
the government then handing them more and more power. We
(08:14):
saw that in the in the UK with the Online
Safety Actor came into effect in July and the platforms
just pulled. They were pulling news, they were pulling, you know,
factual reports and things from the universities and professors because
it referenced violence, or it referenced this or that, and
like it's that it's a blunt instrument. I don't want
(08:34):
the power in the data company. Let's go after how
they how they use the data that they have. Let's
maybe address data sovereignty. Let's look at the predatory algorithms,
and let's find a way to incentivize the companies to
you know, or misincentivize them, to incentivize them to sort
of fix those algorithms as opposed to these blunt bands
(08:54):
that that will censor adults as well. And you know,
and our supporters are very concerned that this does turn
into sort of a default you know, digital ID program,
which we did see the UK going down straight after
the the when they bought the Online Safety Act.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
Done, Julane, thank you very much for coming on I
have and chat with us and your expertise really interesting.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
For more from News Talk sed B, listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
You're listening to a podcast from news Talk zed B.
Follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:16):
As Australia begins at social media band to under sixteen
year olds, The Free Speech Union is worn that doing
the same here would do more harm than good. To
discuss further, we're joined by Julaine Heather, Free Speech Union
Chief Executive Julaine Very good afternoon to you, Cure.
Speaker 3 (00:31):
To Tyler, Kyda, Matt, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 4 (00:33):
Do under sixteen year olds have the same rights to
free speech as the rest of us?
Speaker 3 (00:40):
No, it is our position literally as an organization, we
legislate for children all the time on a different on
a different level than adults, you know, in terms of schooling, drinking, voting,
so many, so many aspects. So they don't have the
same rights as adults. That doesn't mean they have no rights,
though I do absolutely think that taking away or banning
(01:03):
their access makes them digitally illiterate and does not set
them up for the future. But the rights are different.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
So they have some rights. And if we do remove
the sixteen year olds from social media, does this just
remove young voices from what is essentially now the public square?
Of discourse in modern societies.
Speaker 3 (01:25):
No, exactly. So look, our concerns are twofold. One of them,
the most the largest, is that any system that we
think that will be built to protect kids will actually
end up limiting lawful speech for adults, either you know, censorship,
collecting excessive personal data you know, etc. Or limiting access
for people to get on to the digital marketplace. So
(01:47):
our main concern is that we have not seen a
system that's rolled out that doesn't have false positives and
doesn't actually end up censoring and limiting freedom of expression
for adults. But then to your second point, I absolutely
think it takes well, it takes away the young voices
from their marketplace, their ability to inter rapt with each other,
(02:09):
their ability to enter into businesses, their ability to seek help,
seek information, etc. And as we all know, we're already
seeing it, it just drives them. It's funneling them to
different sites, and it will funnel them out of the light,
literally to darker and darker and dodgier sites. They're already going, right,
They're already clean in the masses.
Speaker 4 (02:29):
Seems to be the case that Australia, there are there's
some parts of it because I'll ask you about digital
anonymity in a minute, but what's been suggested in Australia
there are some safeguards around people's information, like the data
must be used only for age verification where and then
must be deleted. No, there's no central government database of
(02:50):
the information taken by these platforms to check someone the
age is and you know, strict penalties for misuse, so
people will still be allowed to be anonymous in Australia.
Do you believe those safeguards are enough that they're bring
in Australia?
Speaker 3 (03:08):
Many breaches have we seen from the UK when they
brought their acting in July already happening? Was it? How
many millions on discord? Was there a data breach? Our
data is not safe out there, and I think collecting
sensitive data for young people is literally what they term
a honeypot in terms of we've just created a holy
grail for people to go after. The government talks about data,
(03:31):
but how many data breaches literally occur almost every day
around the world here. So look, I think the problem
is real. You know, if there's predatory algorithms, if there's
farm to kids from some of the social media address
the problem, make it a proportional response, empirically verified and actually,
you know, improve the digital literacy, improve the parental tools,
(03:54):
improve the education, and go after the platforms for that
asymmetrical algorithm addicting sort of bit. It's a blunt toool
that they're doing. I think it's led to sort of
virtue signaling. I don't think it works, and we know
the kids will find a way around it.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
Well, we just say to the argument Julane that they're
having over in Australia right now with this legislation, that
they know that there will be people that will bypass
the band and it's not going to be finable offense
if you do that. There's obviously some steep fines for
the platforms that don't take reasonable steps, but there's flexibility
in that law. So their argument is this is a
step in the right direction, but it's not going to
(04:32):
be iron clad. It's not going to catch every under
sixteen year old using the social media, but it's an
effort to try and change behavior.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
I think culture changes behavior. Not passing a law that
doesn't actually probably address the problem. As soon as you
prohibit something, what happens. Prohibition just doesn't work right, It
makes it almost more desirable. Look, I absolutely understand the impetus.
I understand the protective you know, sort of urge that
(05:03):
people are feeling, and I know there are real harms
out there. I just think this is a really blood
instrument that that hasn't been proved to work so far,
and we'll just drive kids into different places underground, you know,
et cetera. Look, it's the school holidays. Australia is bringing
this in at a time when kids are going to
have all the time in the world on their hands.
(05:25):
I bet you that they are not outside plane on
the eleventh of December. I bet you that they're on
the VPNs and social media figuring out a way around
or just going to new platforms right until the government
comes after those platforms.
Speaker 4 (05:39):
And it could potentially make just a whole generation of
really digitally sneaky people, yeah, you know that have trained
from a young age to circumvent regulations. Now we're hearing
this a lot, and this is a wider issue, but
we're hearing a lot on the text machine right now.
What is the problem with people using their real names online?
People say it, Well, you know, make the discourse better
(06:01):
if people have to back up what they're saying with
their reputations in real life. So is anonymity online important
for free speech in why?
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Look I believe that no exactly, Look, I believe that
it is. And look, don't get me wrong, I would
love more managed to come back in every aspect of
our lives. And I think that would absolutely help with
discourse and people knowing who you are. I think that
does give another level and sort of shuts down some
of the trolls. But the ability to criticize government, the
(06:35):
ability to criticize your employer, the ability to criticize systems
where maybe your job's at at risk, maybe you're you know,
the society that you're in doesn't doesn't you know, likes
conformity of thought. There seems to be a lot of
conformity of thought at the moment. So I think the
ability for pseudo anonymity to go on to comment on things,
to actually raise discussions that like, even during COVID for instance,
(06:59):
or you know, other periods that we've been through, for
people to actually raise real issues when otherwise they might
have felt afraid to or felt that they would be
sanction that work or shunned from their community. We need
an outlet for that. But believe you me, if we
could bring back more manners are they're big fans.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
Further that point and issues that were raised, and of
course there's been a lot of talk about how these
big tech companies engaged in censorship and with pressure from
the governments, particularly in the United States but all around
the world. Do we want tech companies to be the
gatekeepers on public discourse? And isn't this kind of what
(07:40):
we're empowering them to be that they are the people?
Because because you know this Australian law particularly puts the
onus on them. So are you comfortable with them, these
big corporations being the gatekeepers?
Speaker 3 (07:54):
I'm very uncomfortable with that sort of power in anyone
else's hands, right, except for those really bright lines of
incitement and direct harm, etc. Look, in a way, by default,
these large companies are already controlled so much of what
we see and so much of what we do, but
the government then handing them more and more power. We
(08:14):
saw that in the in the UK with the Online
Safety Actor came into effect in July and the platforms
just pulled. They were pulling news, they were pulling, you know,
factual reports and things from the universities and professors because
it referenced violence, or it referenced this or that, and
like it's that it's a blunt instrument. I don't want
(08:34):
the power in the data company. Let's go after how
they how they use the data that they have. Let's
maybe address data sovereignty. Let's look at the predatory algorithms,
and let's find a way to incentivize the companies to
you know, or misincentivize them, to incentivize them to sort
of fix those algorithms as opposed to these blunt bands
(08:54):
that that will censor adults as well. And you know,
and our supporters are very concerned that this does turn
into sort of a default you know, digital ID program,
which we did see the UK going down straight after
the the when they bought the Online Safety Act.
Speaker 2 (09:10):
Done, Julane, thank you very much for coming on I
have and chat with us and your expertise really interesting.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
For more from News Talk sed B, listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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.