Australia Bans Social Media for Kids: What is the American Perspective?

Australia's decision to pass a groundbreaking law banning children under 16 from most social media platforms has sparked debates across the globe.

The legislation, passed by Australia’s Senate and House of Representatives, positions the country as a leader in imposing strict digital regulations aimed at protecting young people from online harm.

But how might this bold move resonate in the United States, where free speech, privacy, and individual rights often take precedence over sweeping government mandates?

To understand this issue through an American lens, let's delve into the key points, ask critical questions, and examine whether such a law could - or should work in the U.S.

Australia’s legislation prohibits children under 16 from accessing popular platforms like TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter). Social media companies failing to enforce these restrictions face fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million USD).

This Australian Social Media Law aims to curb online harm to minors, but critics, including tech giants and non-profits, argue it could infringe on privacy and human rights.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram cited concerns about mandatory personal identification or biometric data. Elon Musk has labeled it a potential "

The United States has long championed free speech and privacy, making a law like Australia's highly contentious. Here are some key questions Americans might ask:

1. Does this infringe on First Amendment rights?

- In the U.S., the First Amendment protects free speech, including online expression. A blanket ban on minors could be seen as unconstitutional, especially if it restricts access to educational or creative platforms.

2. How does it affect privacy?

- Requiring users to submit biometric or personal identification data to verify their age could face backlash from privacy advocates. Americans are already wary of large-scale data collection by both corporations and the government.

3. Is this the best way to protect children online?

- Critics of the Australian law, like Save the Children Australia CEO Mat Tinkler, suggest alternative solutions, such as holding companies accountable for embedding safety into their platforms. Would American lawmakers explore these avenues before considering a ban?

The Australian government justifies the law as necessary to protect children from online harms, including cyberbullying, exploitation, and exposure to harmful content. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese assured Australians that the law includes “common sense exemptions,” allowing young people to access educational and health-related services, like Google Classroom and Headspace, as well as messaging apps and online games.

Still, independent organizations and human rights groups have expressed "serious reservations." The Australian Human Rights Commission argued that there are "less restrictive alternatives," such as imposing a legal duty of care on social media companies or enhancing digital literacy education in schools.

In the U.S., protecting children online largely relies on the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), which prohibits collecting personal data from children under 13 without parental consent. However, enforcement has been inconsistent, and COPPA doesn’t address broader issues like harmful content or cyberbullying.

Unlike Australia, the U.S. leans heavily on parental responsibility and corporate self-regulation. For instance, Meta has implemented features like restricting who can contact teens and moderating teen-targeted content on Instagram. TikTok also offers parental controls to limit screen time and filter content.

But are these measures enough? Recent incidents involving harmful challenges on TikTok and exploitation on other platforms have led many Americans to call for tougher regulations. Still, a sweeping ban could face legal and cultural resistance.

Tech giant Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, has called for the bill to be delayed. In a statement posted Tuesday,

Meta said it was "concerned the government is rushing this legislation without adequate consultation or evidence and there are still many unknowns with respect to its implementation."

Polling in Australia suggests strong public backing for the law. A recent YouGov survey revealed that 77% of Australians support the ban, while 87% favor stronger penalties for non-compliant social media companies.

In contrast, American public opinion might be more divided. A Pew Research study found that while many parents are concerned about their children’s online activities, they also value the educational and social benefits of social media.

- Could a ban isolate children socially, especially in an increasingly digital world?

- How do we address the digital divide, where not all children have access to alternative resources like in-person activities or private schools?

- What role should parents play versus the government?

Q: What is the biggest concern about implementing such a law in the U.S.?

A: Privacy concerns and potential First Amendment violations would likely dominate the debate. Americans are deeply protective of their rights and wary of government overreach, which could make this law difficult to implement.

Q: Are there alternatives to a ban?

A: Yes. The Australian Human Rights Commission recommends imposing a duty of care on social media companies, akin to holding them legally accountable for user safety. Similarly, the U.S. could enforce stricter regulations on content moderation and data protection without outright banning minors.

Q: Could stronger parental controls suffice?

A: Enhanced parental controls and digital literacy programs might strike a balance between safety and freedom. However, their success would depend on robust enforcement and widespread adoption.

Q: What role does education play?

A: Teaching digital literacy and online safety in schools, as suggested by the Australian Human Rights Commission, could empower children to navigate online spaces responsibly. Expanding such programs in the U.S. could reduce reliance on restrictive laws.

Australia’s bold move highlights the growing global concern over the impact of social media on young people. However, implementing a similar ban in the United States would likely face significant legal, cultural, and political hurdles.

While Americans share Australia’s desire to protect children, the approach may differ, focusing on regulation, education, and parental responsibility rather than outright prohibition.

The Australian law raises essential questions for any democracy navigating the digital age: How do we protect our youngest citizens without compromising fundamental rights?

For Americans, the challenge lies in finding solutions that uphold the values of freedom and privacy while addressing the undeniable risks of social media.

Mark Derho is a seasoned expert in the Internet industry with over 25 years of experience in NYC's software development, digital marketing, and advertising sectors. A certified Google Partner, Mark specializes in content creation, AI chatbot development, open-source software, modern website design, and SEO/SEM marketing. He leads PR Website Agency and lives in Puerto Rico with his dog, Luno.