Editorial: Social media giants are just not trying to protect kids

It’s a lack of will, not a lack of capability, that is enabling kids to get around social media platforms’ rules, writes the editor.

Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Our exclusive report today that children are easily circumventing existing age restrictions on social media will come as absolutely no surprise to most parents.

The eSafety Commissioner has surveyed children aged eight to 12 and found about 80 per cent accessed one or more social media services last year, suggesting about 1.3m underage users have been breaching existing limits restricting access to children aged 13 or younger.

With most platforms merely asking kids to declare their real age on sign-up, it is no wonder kids are paying no notice to their rules.

And tellingly, it’s a lack of will, not a lack of capability, that is enabling kids to get around the platforms’ rules.

As eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant told The Courier-Mail there was wilful blindness from the social media platforms.

“They are building the pipeline of young people for the future,” she said.

As we have seen time and time again, tech platforms have no desire to be good corporate citizens.

They will not play their part in keeping the communities in which they operate (and make substantial profits) safe, unless they are forced to. That much is abundantly clear.

But they are being forced to.

Under Australia’s new social media age limits taking effect at the end of this year – which came into being after sustained pressure from The Courier-Mail’s Let Them Be Kids campaign – any child who has not turned 16 by December will be blocked.

But it is it vital that the government ups the ante on the platforms to increase safeguards to stop under age kids getting access.

They must be prepared to levy the $50m fines that were legislated for noncompliance – anything less is small change to these billion-dollar companies.

As we have seen on issues such as bullying and the live-streaming of crime, social media companies need to be dragged kicking and screaming before they accept that rules that apply to other businesses also apply to them.

Ms Inman Grant said raising the social media age was about putting some “friction” in the system that makes it more of a “fair fight” for kids with developing brains to resist the deceptive, addictive and dark patterns elements of social media.

She’s right. And the simple act of having an age-limit enshrined in law gives parents a tool where they can draw a line in the sand for their kids, setting a boundary.

But they can’t do it all on their own. Each of the platforms need to have effective mechanisms to stop access for children. Mechanisms that are much more effective than they currently employ.

If they can’t come up with these mechanisms, they should not be allowed to operate in Australia.

And if there is evidence that the mechanisms aren’t working once they are in place, they should be hit with massive fines.

Thankfully, the age-limit laws enjoy bipartisan support, but whoever wins power at the federal election must ensure that the social media platforms do not squib on their responsibilities.

USE CRIME MANDATE WISELY

On Monday in this column, we pointed out that overcrowding in watch-houses could be linked to the new government’s tough-on-crime policies.

Prompted by a report that showed adults were being held in a facility meant only for children, we asked if Premier David Crisafulli had considered the wider implications of his new laws – that prisoner accommodation, as well as the capacity of the judiciary, would also need to be bolstered.

On Tuesday, we reported on the shocking case of a 14-year-old boy in an overcrowded watch-house cell, who was traumatised after being threatened with rape by a much older boy.

Today we have confirmation of our suspicions, with Queensland’s Ombudsman and Inspector of Detention Services Anthony Reilly revealing that he did not know whether the government considered the effects of new laws before it implemented them.

Mr Reilly, who is responsible for assessing complaints of inmates and ensuring the “humane containment of detainees”, was asked by Shadow Attorney-General Meaghan Scanlon whether he thought modelling should have been done to ensure there was “sufficient capacity and safety in detention facilities and watch houses”.

“I’m not aware of any modelling, I’m not privy to that,” Mr Reilly replied. “I believe it would have been useful.”

If the modelling was not done, it is lazy at best, careless at worst.

And it is a shame, as this government has a mandate to crack down on crime.

But we also expect it to consider all the implications of new laws before enacting them.

Responsibility for election comment is taken by Chris Jones, corner of Mayne Rd & Campbell St, Bowen Hills, Qld 4006. Printed and published by NEWSQUEENSLAND (ACN 009 661 778). Contact details here

Originally published as Editorial: Social media giants are just not trying to protect kids