Government proposed social media ban

Senior Lecturer Julia Day from the University of New England (UNE) Law School shares her thoughts on the federal government's proposed social media ban for children under 16. Julia has spent over 20 years teaching at UNE, having previously worked in legal firms, is passionate about the intersection of technology and law, and teaches the Social Media Law unit at UNE.

The government's proposed ban would prevent children under 16 from accessing social media platforms, with companies required to adapt their systems within a year of the legislation's passing. "This definition of social media is broad, meaning the ban could affect not only platforms like Facebook and Instagram but also YouTube and gaming sites like Roblox," notes Julia. "If companies don't comply, they would face significant fines, although details on the fine structure have not been disclosed."

^{Senior Lecturer in Law, Julia Day.}

"The legislation," says Julia, "is intended to address concerns around the effects of social media on young people's mental health.

"These concerns include the perceived link between social media and mental health struggles, issues of self-esteem among girls, and the influence of problematic online figures such as Andrew Tate. Proponents of the ban argue that it could encourage kids to spend more time on healthier offline activities, such as sports and other hobbies."

Proponents of the ban argue that it could encourage kids to spend more time on healthier offline activities, such as sports and other hobbies.

However, Julia argues that the proposed ban is unlikely to achieve these goals. "In my opinion, the ban will be ineffective and will not fix the problem," she says. Rather, she believes that the government's approach is a "moral panic"-a reaction she notes has accompanied many new technologies, comparing it to the public fears surrounding the impact of television in its early years.

^{Julia with sons, Chris and Alex.}

Julia also sees positive aspects of social media that the ban might overlook. "There are many positive aspects of social media usage for children," she explains. "Some of these include feeling part of a community and getting access to educational and perhaps 'self-help' material from influencers or others who they will listen to." She points out that much of the harmful content cited as a reason for the ban can still be accessed elsewhere, asking rhetorically, "Will there next be a call for banning the internet for children under 16?"

^{Julia with Calrossy High school students.}

Enforceability and effectiveness are key concerns for Julia, who doubts that the ban will have its desired impact. "Kids are generally smarter than adults when it comes to technology, so I suspect they will come up with other alternatives to circumvent this ban," she says, adding that many young people, especially those who are neurodivergent or shy, may find social media a valuable way to engage in a community they might not otherwise have.

Kids are generally smarter than adults when it comes to technology, so I suspect they will come up with other alternatives to circumvent this ban.

The legislation also raises questions around implementation, especially concerning age verification. Julia mentions potential methods like face-scanning or digital IDs, which could pose privacy issues. She acknowledges that "there is still a lot of detail which needs to be worked through."

For now, Julia advises parents and young people to stay informed as the specifics of the ban and its enforcement are developed. While she recognises that some children might benefit from more offline engagement, she believes that the proposed ban may ultimately fail to address the deeper social and psychological issues surrounding young people's use of technology.

^{Julia with UNE Law School's Professor Mark Perry and Dr Andrew Lawson.}

• Contact:
• UNE Social Media Team
• +61 2 6773 5114
• [email protected]