Under a draft bill proposal, the SA government is considering slapping fines on social media companies if they can’t show how they’ve prevented kids from accessing their services.
Concerns around social media for kids is a hot one, but at least one state in Australia is dabbling with an idea of removing access entirely, as South Australia considers a bill that could block access for minors.
As part of a report issued by former High Court Justice Robert French, the state has the framework needed to remove social media access for children 13 and under. The idea would essentially see those services take responsibility, with the draft legislation providing a framework not just for South Australia to follow, but potentially other states, as well.
In short, it’s a ban for social media for those under a certain age, with the provision that 14 and 15 year olds — teens who aren’t yet 16 — would need approval from their parents to join in the first place.
We’re not sure the legislation necessarily reflects whether some social media services may be acceptable for younger audiences, or whether parents would be able to override the ban. While some parents may prefer a government-led approach, others may not.
There’s also the matter of bans being risky at the best of times, largely because they don’t typically work. Someone will find a way around a ban, and when it comes to technology, younger generations may be more savvy than those implementing the technological bans in the first place.
In short, it may not take much to circumvent an actual ban if one were to take place.
However, because this social media ban proposal appears to be about placing the responsibility at the hands of the social media companies, it could be slightly easier to enforce. How might that work?
How a social media ban on kids could work
When you’re a child, you don’t typically have a state or federal mandated form of security you have to carry with you. Kids can’t get a driver’s license for obvious reasons (they can’t drive), and while they can get a passport, they cost money and not everyone needs one. You don’t really need a passport unless you plan to travel internationally.
It seems unlikely that governments would invest in a new form of ID for children, and this would probably create more problems than solve them. The federal government is already working on a form of digital identification in Trust ID, but this seems focused on adults.
As it is, adults already have many forms of identity, and given that adults are parents, websites and social platforms can take advantage of national and international standards, such as a driver’s license, passport, and other forms necessary to join these dots.
It’s therefore possible a social media service would connect age verification with a parent, and require anyone without a successful form of ID to be approved by a related parent or guardian.
If that seems like jargon, imagine this hypothetical:
Harry is 10 and he wants to join Facebook. But at the point of signing up, Facebook doesn't just ask him to easily pick the right date saying he's over the age of 16, it also asks him for a form of ID verification. He doesn't have that.
Instead of being able to borrow his mum's licence while she's not looking, he has to enter her Facebook name or ID, which sends her a message for authorisation. Harry's mum decides whether she wants to authorise her child's access, and is alerted to the ways she can monitor and limit the access through various needs.
Alternatively, Harry can't sign up to a social media service because he has no form of ID that references his age as providing consent.
In this hypothetical, the parent is essentially working with the social media system to provide consent beyond a date field, which is basically what happens now. These days, registration is largely down to the sign-up page and a selection of the right date, something kids can easily lie about without any real consequence.
It wouldn’t be dramatically dissimilar from the process of signing up for Facebook Messenger for Kids, where a parent has to be involved, or even if you set up an iPad for kids where a parent has to be involved.
Placing some responsibility on the part of the parent may be beneficial in the long term, largely so they’re aware of what’s happening, which could help all involved with these social accounts.
For this approach, parents could check a box and stop their kids from receiving access from people they don’t know. They could quickly decide whether or not they have access to videos or groups and so on. Or social media giants could simply say “block” and prevent access until an age has been reached.
Overall, the government, social media, and parents could work together to find a middle ground that satisfies requirements, rather than simply banning a service at an age level.
It’s not yet known whether South Australia’s “SA Children (Social Media Safety) Bill 2024” will be put into action, but if it does, social media companies will likely need to act quickly to find a solution, lest they become the target of fines and lawsuits.
That makes it a very much a “watch this space” kind of story, with other governments set to talk about the proposal in the days and weeks to come.
