New social media ban for children faces 'whack-a-mole' reality as teens flee
Can we expect to see heartwarming scenes of children previously surgically attached to their phones now scrambling excitedly at the front door, eager to go out and run around in the sunshine? Will hoop trundling make a comeback while Drysdalian images of happy kids whacking a ball around the street with an old kerosene jerry can for a set of stumps become the new normal?
Well, probably not. As the ban draws near, the excitable rhetoric from the government is being tempered. Earlier this year, Anika Wells likened the impending social media ban to the ban on sales of smoking products to minors. The 40-year-old Communications Minister seemed blissfully unaware that NSW prohibited sales of the dreaded durries to those under 16 in 1903.
Now the spin is about cultural change rather than comprehensive online protection. In other words, don’t expect much to change except for a few grumpy teens bumped from TikTok while the internet’s dark places continue to evolve and shapeshift.
“Yes, there will still be kids with accounts on 10 December and probably for some time after that,” Wells said on Tuesday.
“But our expectation is clear: any company that allows this is breaking the law. We know it won’t be perfect from day one but we won’t give up, and we won’t let the platforms off the hook.”
In another presser, Wells declared: “We can’t control the ocean, we can police the sharks.” Which is odd given that some platforms have been exempted where there are a lot of dorsal fins circling. At present the banned list includes Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X, YouTube, Threads, Reddit, Kick and Twitch. These platforms must implement age-assurance technology, but a specific type has not been mandated by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant.
Meanwhile teenagers are fleeing to other platforms in their droves. The government has responded that the banned list will grow. That alone provides a penetrating glimpse into the blindingly obvious: the social media bans will become a game of regulatory whack-a-mole.
Roblox, a gaming platform where users can chat and file share, ostensibly a children’s product, is not on the skull-and-crossbones list. The platform became wildly popular with children during the pandemic. In the US, about three-quarters of the total population aged between nine and 12 use the platform. Since 2018, at least 24 people have been arrested in the US for abducting or sexually abusing children groomed on Roblox.
In 2023 alone, Roblox reported more than 13,000 instances of child exploitation to authorities. There are 300 active child exploitation lawsuits against Roblox in the US alone.
Discord is another platform not on the list. It, too, is popular with gamers and experienced a surge in users during the pandemic. There are 150 million active users on the platform. A recent report from a US-based monitoring service found Discord ranked among the top five platforms for content flagged by its algorithms for severe violence, bullying, sexual content and suicidal ideation.
There is no doubt there is a big, ugly world out there and the dark corners of the internet are uglier still. I have written previously of online child exploitation networks. The now dismantled 764 – named after a Texas postcode – forced hundreds of children around the world, including in Australia, into obscene acts, with some pushed into suicide and acts of self-harm. The truly astonishing aspect of that network was that the perpetrators were children or young adults at the oldest.
We should understand, too, that child sex offenders are not limited by age, occupation, socio-economic circumstance or political ideology. Almost like the immutable laws of thermodynamics, there is one rule when it comes to child abuse. People who seek to exploit and abuse children will loiter where children are. Child sexual abuse and exploitation are society-wide problems and, be it on the internet or in-person contact, rates of offences against children are growing. The internet is merely a convenient vehicle in this ugly business.
Many people will have seen the ease with which the computer literate have got around various age verification restrictions. No matter, the government says, the platforms will remain subject to huge fines, up to $50m for breaches. It would be no great feat of soothsaying to predict these laws will be vigorously tested in the courts, especially where there had been a dedicated attempt to circumvent the age assurance technology.
The notion of comprehensive child protection on the internet is even further wiped when one considers the proliferation of virtual private networks. VPNs allow internet consumers to conceal their Internet Protocols from sight.
As of 2024, 27 per cent of Australian internet consumers have a VPN. Anecdotally, that figure has spiked in the past few months in advance of next week’s ban. For as little as $3 a month internet users can keep their activity away from prying eyes and avoid increasingly sophisticated geolocation software enabling anyone to find a user’s location with pinpoint precision.
From a privacy point of view, VPNs make perfect sense. It goes without saying, however, that if every Australian used a VPN, the social media bans would have zero impact.
Social media bans are widely supported by Australians. Some polls reveal the support as high as 80 per cent. The government thinks it is on to a winner but the practical realities of regulating the internet are beginning to emerge. One wonders how popular these shiny new laws may be in the future. The government has promised much but in all probability will have little to show for its labours in a year.
More Coverage
Sally Dowling’s battles are no good for justice
We are a week away from the social media ban for children under 16. As I write this, Meta (Facebook and Instagram) is said to be removing accounts held by minors.