On 28 November 2024, the Australian Senate passed a landmark law banning children under 16 from owning social media accounts, making Australia the first country to adopt such a sweeping measure.
Policymakers have long struggled to find effective solutions for protecting kids online, and despite several measures introduced over the years, the problem persists.
Despite advances in digital literacy education designed to teach young people how to navigate the internet safely, many still fall victim to online harms such as cyberbullying, exploitation, and exposure to harmful content.
While platforms have introduced more sophisticated parental controls and moderation tools, they have proven inadequate at scale, especially in ensuring safety for millions of users across diverse regions.
However, while the intent of this law is understandable, its practical application raises important concerns about privacy, digital freedoms, and how it could reshape the future of the internet.
The law mandates that social media companies enforce age restriction, with significant penalties for non-compliance—fines of up to $32 million.
Yet, the question remains: how will such a measure be effectively implemented?
The Privacy Conundrum
While the law’s objective to protect children is clear, its reliance on robust age verification raises significant privacy concerns as the practicalities of enforcing this restriction points in one direction.
The Australian government has given platforms one year to figure out how to comply with this mandate, but it seems inevitable that this will lead to the introduction of identity verification systems—similar to Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols used in banking.
Such a move could set a dangerous precedent, paving the way for intrusive digital identity checks across the internet leading to the erosion of online anonymity.
The ability to speak freely and engage in public discourse without the threat of surveillance has been a cornerstone of the internet.
Anonymity has allowed vulnerable groups, activists, and journalists to protect their identities, especially in regions where oppressive regimes ie. all governments, monitor online activity.
A global push for digital identity verification could undermine this fundamental principle, turning the internet into a more controlled and surveilled space.
Western democracies, often framing their regulatory efforts as responses to misinformation and abuse, have found common ground with authoritarian regimes in advocating for mandatory IDs for social media users.
This troubling alignment could lead to expanded state surveillance, enabling governments to monitor, target, and potentially suppress political dissidents, journalists, and activists.
Can Age Verification Really Be Achieved in Practice?
A major challenge facing the implementation of this law will be the widespread use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs), which allow users to mask their location and potentially bypass age restrictions.
Many young people already rely on VPNs to access platforms that may otherwise be unavailable to them in their country or region.
These tools allow users to appear as if they are in different jurisdictions, thus sidestepping age verification systems that are region-specific.
So how effective will age verification truly be, particularly when young users—who are often digitally savvy—can easily circumvent these measures?
For instance, nothing stops a 15-year-old Australian from using a VPN to create an account by connecting to a server in Nigeria, where there are no age restrictions in place.
Such loopholes highlight a larger issue: enforcing a blanket ban on social media could prove much more difficult than it appears, especially as technology continues to outpace regulatory efforts.
So What Next?
This move is part of a broader global trend in which governments are attempting to rein in the perceived excesses of Big Tech.
However, the practical implications are likely to provoke intense debates in the coming months.
For Australia, the next year will be pivotal.
Platforms will need to develop systems to comply with the law, while civil liberties advocates are likely to challenge its provisions in court.
How this legal battle unfolds could shape the future of the law, as well as its broader global implications.
If upheld, this legislation could set a significant precedent for how governments regulate digital spaces in the future.
Other nations may look to Australia’s example when considering similar measures, making the coming year crucial in determining whether such a model is replicable—or whether it will serve as a cautionary tale about the unintended consequences of balancing child safety with civil liberties.
