Canberra introduces the first national restrictions on access to social media, but the effectiveness of the ban will depend on how controls, platforms and unregistered content are managed. by Andrea Monti – Initially published in Italian by La Repubblica – Italian Tech
10 December is fast approaching.
From that day onwards, in Australia, social media accounts (of many) activated by children under the age of sixteen will have to cease operating: this is established by the Online Safety Amendment Act (OSA), a law passed in 2024 with the aim of “protecting minors”.
What the new Australian law really entails
The OSA would appear to be a revolutionary measure, based on an uncompromising approach that puts platforms’ backs against the wall: comply with national law even if operating from other jurisdictions, or pay (relatively) heavy penalties. However, as always when it comes to the law, the devil is in the details.
First of all, accounts subject to the law will not necessarily have to be deleted because, by exploiting loopholes in the regulations, it is possible to interpret them in such a way as to suspend them and then reactivate them once the age set by the OSA for using those platforms has been reached. So platforms must wait patiently for the age embargo to expire and then start profiling and “guiding” their users again—to quote Modugno—“as before, more than before”.
The free zones of the ban: where minors can still enter
Secondly, not everything is prohibited to minors under the age of 16 because the “access ban” applies to YouTube, X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Reddit, Twitch, Threads and Kick, while platforms aimed at children, such as YouTube Kids, or intended for (theoretically) professional use, such as LinkedIn, remain accessible.
Whitelists and blacklists: when protection becomes discretionary
The problem, however, is that neither the blacklist nor the whitelist contents are predetermined by law, which means that the lists can be expanded or restricted by applying essentially discretionary criteria, within the guidelines set by law. In other words, this means that the law allows the Australian authorities to effectively influence the activities of platforms without a judge having first assessed whether their behaviour is lawful or not.
The risks of exposure to illegal content and data abuse remain
Finally, in addition to the platforms included in the whitelist, all content and services that do not require any form of user registration remain accessible.
Given these premises, it is more than legitimate to question the purpose of such a law. In fact, it does not prevent access to illegal or even inappropriate content, because it is sufficient for those who convey it not to require registration; nor does it prevent the collection of user data, because even in the absence of registration, all the information assets consisting of metadata, content usage patterns, geolocation and so on remain freely usable. In other words, it seems that the aim of this law is rather to establish direct power over platforms than to protect vulnerable sections of society.
A ban that does not educate
Even if we give the benefit of the doubt and recognise the good faith of the Australian Parliament and the authorities that welcomed the passage of this law, it must be acknowledged that the OSA is, in reality, an admission of powerlessness.
In Australia, as in other jurisdictions and in the EU, there is great difficulty in recognising that the responsibility for and education of minors is the task of parents or those exercising parental authority, and not of the state or, worse, private individuals.
The illusion of a regulatory shortcut
Deciding that this task can be delegated – or rather, transferred – by law to platforms or anyone else means taking a further step towards the removal of individual responsibility and, at the same time, towards the construction of a system in which values and principles are decided by the state and practised through platforms whose purpose is to do business, not to protect rights.
A field test
It will be extremely interesting to analyse the results of the OSA’s implementation and see whether and to what extent the Australian Parliament’s political choice will actually increase the levels of safety and security of the children it intends to protect.
Until then, opinions aside, we can only suspend judgement.