UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper 2 -governance-mechanisms, laws, institutions and Bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of these vulnerable sections.
Introduction
Australia has introduced a minimum age rule for social media, becoming the first country to block accounts of users under 16. This rule aims to protect young users from online risks linked to harmful content, addictive design, and unsafe interactions. It demands strong action from platforms and has drawn mixed reactions from parents, teens, and tech companies. The move is now seen as a possible model for countries planning tighter online safety rules.
Key Provisions and Scope of Australia’s Minimum Age Law
- Minimum Age Rule and Platform Duties
- Australia now requires major online platforms to stop users below 16 year from holding accounts. Platforms must take reasonable steps to detect and remove underage accounts and prevent new ones.
- They must also correct mistakes to ensure no one is removed unfairly.
- Age Verification Using Multiple Tools
- Platforms have to verify age through several methods. They may use account activity patterns, interaction history, and facial or voice analysis.
- They are not allowed to rely only on government IDs due to privacy concerns.
- The aim is to build a strong verification system without forcing users into risky identification practices.
- Platforms Covered and Platforms Exempt
- Platforms under the rule include Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit, Snapchat, YouTube, X, Twitch, Kick, and Threads.
- Messaging and gaming-focused services like WhatsApp, Discord, Roblox, Messenger, Pinterest, and YouTube Kids are exempt.
- Regulators can change the list if young users move to other services.
- Penalties for Non-Compliance
- Platforms that do not take reasonable steps can face fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars (about $33 million).
- There are no penalties for children or parents who still access social media.
- Access Without an Account
- Underage users can still see posts or videos that are open to everyone without logging in.
- The government believes the main protection comes from blocking accounts, which keeps children away from harmful design features like algorithms, push notifications, and addictive feeds.
Major Concerns Related to Australia’s Minimum Age Law
- Opposition from Tech Companies: Tech companies say the law is rushed and poorly designed. They argue that removing accounts takes away safety tools such as parental controls and teen-specific settings. They believe this could make platforms less safe, not more. Snap also fears teens may shift to less safe apps.
- Resistance and Doubts Among Teenagers:
- Most teens in a national survey believe the ban will not work. Many plan to keep using social media, and downloads of similar apps rose before enforcement.
- Two teenagers have challenged the law on the grounds that it restricts freedom and participation in political communication.
- Concerns About Rights and Free Speech: Human rights groups argue that a blanket ban may restrict expression. They warn that access to online spaces is an essential part of young people’s social and political life. These concerns push the debate on whether protection can be balanced with access.
- Uncertainty About Enforcement and Impact: Although penalties are large, regulators have not fully explained how fines will be triggered. Many observers are also watching whether the law leads to evasion, migration to non-restricted apps, or new privacy issues.
Global Implications: A Possible Model for Other Countries
- A New Global Template for Regulation: Australia is the first nation to enforce such a strict minimum age. Many countries, including Denmark, Malaysia, and the European Union, are studying it closely. They see it as a guide for regulating harmful content and addictive features at scale.
- A Push for Stricter Child Safety Norms Worldwide: As over a million Australian accounts are expected to be blocked, the move signals a global shift toward protecting younger users from algorithm-driven risks and online pressures. This could influence debates on digital rights, platform design, and child safety rules across regions.
- Growing International Focus on Mental Health Risks: Australia’s decision reflects rising global concern about youth mental health, peer pressure, and the impact of constant online engagement. Other countries may follow if they see positive results in reducing harms linked to bullying, anxiety, and unsafe interactions.
How India’s Approach Differs
- No Direct Social Media Age Ban: India does not have a specific law that bans children from using social media platforms. There is no minimum age rule for holding social media accounts similar to Australia’s under-16 ban.
- Parental Consent Instead of a Minimum Age Ban: Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, tech companies must put in place a system to collect verifiable parental consent before processing the personal data of children. The law does not prescribe a specific technical method for obtaining this consent.
- Limits on Data Use and Targeted Advertising: The law directs companies not to process children’s personal data if it could have a detrimental effect on their well-being. It also prohibits tracking, behavioural monitoring, and targeted advertising directed at children.
- Different Definitions and Regulatory Pathways: India defines a child as anyone below 18, unlike Australia’s age limit of 16 year.
Conclusion
Australia’s minimum age law marks a major shift in how countries may regulate children’s online presence. It introduces strict verification rules and pressures platforms to redesign their systems. While it faces pushback from teens and tech companies, it offers a new model for global debates on digital safety. India’s consent-based system highlights an alternative path.
Question for practice:
Examine how Australia’s minimum age law for social media use seeks to protect children and how it differs from India’s approach under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.
Source: Indian Express
