The Australian government is hitting the gas in its drive to require age verification measures for social media and porn sites, and critics are crying foul, saying the age assurance legislation is being rushed.
Although data from age verification trials is not expected until mid-2025, when the Age Check Certification Scheme will deliver its assessment of tech such as digital ID, biometrics and facial age estimation, the government of prime minister Anthony Albanese wants to pass the bill amending the Online Safety Act this week, before Parliament adjourns for the summer.
It would make porn sites accountable for verifying that users are 18 or over through the collection of “personal identification or biometric data.” Social platforms on the hook to make sure their users are at least 16. Fines for noncompliance could be as high as $50 million (US$32.5m).
Australians concerned about privacy, security
The news has made headlines across Asia-Pacific and even roped in the world’s richest man. Elon Musk weighed in on his social media network, X, replying to a post from the Albanese government with the suggestion that the age checks for porn and social platforms are “a backdoor way to control access to the Internet for all Australians.”
While Musk’s opinions on freedom have recently sent millions of X users to rival Bluesky in search of a tamer online environment, there are clearly real concerns among Australians about what the age assurance laws mean for privacy and security. A hearing that invited community consultation on the law received 15,000 submissions in a single day – an unusually high number.
According to InnovationAus, a Senate committee has been given just four days to produce a report that factors in the feedback, which was limited to 24 hours. One submission by experts from the University of Sydney called it “an outrageous abuse of process, and one that is not conducive to making evidence-based, informed decisions in a democracy.”
CEOs, academics, even The Wiggles: everyone weighs in on age law
Central to the debate is the question of just how bad social media is for kids – and conversely, just how important is the internet. Stats show that over 90 percent of Australian adolescents use social media daily. Yet there is no single agreed-upon answer to either question, and the various views on the issue make for a complex webwork of alignments and alliances.
Some academics say social media is nothing but bad for kids, while others say they have found no conclusive evidence of a link between social media and mental health.
Unsurprisingly, huge social media sites (many of which host millions of users under 16) are united in opposition to the bill. Meta runs Facebook and Instagram, whose user bases skew older than newer platforms like TikTok; statistics show that only 8 percent of Instagram’s users are between 13 and 16, and your grandpa probably uses Facebook. Still, the company has expressed concern about age verification, saying “there are still many unknowns with respect to its implementation.”
(This despite being a customer of Yoti’s age estimation tools.)
Digital rights groups, meanwhile, believe the bill threatens children’s online safety in that it will push them to so-called “fringe” social media sites that may be less policed. They say parents’ anxieties are being leveraged to impose laws that stifle free access and violate privacy rights, while making the online world more dangerous for kids. The law, they say, will not be effective in addressing real harms.
Human Rights Law Centre senior lawyer David Mejia-Canales argues that “instead of piecemeal age restrictions, we need an overarching duty of care that ensures digital platforms prioritise the safety, privacy, and wellbeing of all their users, not just the youngest.”
There is uncertainty around coverage, as well, with YouTube presenting a particular question. Namely, does it count as “social media”? The answer appears to be no, or at least yes but with an exception, as lobbying (in part by kids’ entertainers The Wiggles) convinced the government to include it in an exempted category with messenger services, online games and “services that significantly function to support the health of users”.
Online gambling is another blurry area, intended to be determined following the ACCS age assurance trial.
Govt says digital duty of care is coming, critics say then get to it
The government says it is listening. Albanese has tried to assuage privacy fears by confirming that social media firms will have an obligation to destroy information provided once age assurance has been completed.
And the government has pledged to introduce a duty of care in response to the review of the Online Safety Act.
Still, there is even concern among government coalition members that the law will grant too much power to the eSaefty Commission in overseeing enforcement. Some agree with Musk that it is a secret ploy to impose draconian digital control over the populace. Meetings have been held to calm the troops and field questions from critical voices.
Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has echoed calls for a “digital duty of care” that would legislate social media companies’ obligations to protect their users – in her words, “stronger action backed by evidence to tackle the toxic algorithms and insidious business model of these giant corporations.”
“You don’t make platforms safer,” she says, “by just locking young people out.”
Article Topics
Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS) | age verification | Australia | biometrics | children | digital identity | face biometrics | legislation | Online Safety Act (Australia) | social media
