Transcription
In a world first in Australia, Parliament has given a green light to a bill banning social media for users under the age of 16. Anybody out there who's got kids, listen up. The bill passed comfortably in the Senate with backing from both the government and opposition members. The law includes potential fines for social media companies if they don't take adequate steps to prevent under-16-year-olds from using their services.
Andrew Wilkie is a professor of human behavior and technology at the University of Oxford, and he joins us now from London. I have so many questions, but first and foremost, how does the Australian Government expect to be able to enforce this legislation, and what are they expecting of these social media companies? How are they going to police this?
Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I don't think anyone knows the answer to that question. There really isn't a particularly clear plan here about how you would enforce something like age targets on us. We know that the technology to estimate ages is fundamentally flawed, and I don't think anybody wants to upload their passports or their personal information, their driving licenses, to hop on Instagram. We know that there are huge problems around the use of social media and kids under the age of 18.
Let's just talk about what some of those issues are and why it is that Australia has made this move. Yes, I mean, there are some pretty concrete dangers of the Internet and dangers of social media. These are things that are very real. Some of these things are like distracted driving. You know, thousands of people are killed each year in the United States and in the EU and Australia from distracted driving using social media literally in front of their faces. Obviously, these websites are for people who want to sexually exploit and groom young people. There are some pretty dark communities in terms of things like self-harm and eating disorders.
But really, if nothing in this actually helps young people or empowers families to tackle those really tough online harms, this is much more of a feel-good measure to try to put this back on platforms. But really, there's no way for it to be effective.
What are some of the other ways that other governments around the world are trying to tackle this? We know that there is a lot of harm to teenagers from social media. We also know, and many teenagers will agree, that they wish they had no access to social media, but they do, of course. Others will say that there's a lot of good that comes from social media. How are other governments trying to address this?
Well, other countries have tried versions of what the Australians are about to implement. South Korea actually turned the Internet off for all underage teens for more than a decade, and they found that none of the technology actually worked. When it did work, there were no improvements to well-being, no changes to sleep, or school performance. Ultimately, it was shown to be unconstitutional. In China, they tried something similar with limiting young people to three hours a week of video game play. The best data we have out of that shows it hasn't worked.
I'm much more optimistic about places like here in the UK, where we're actually listening to young people and researchers like myself in terms of making online environments safer, as opposed to just sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that this social media thing is just going to go away.
So what are you suggesting as an improvement here? Should this even be in the public sphere? I mean, obviously, governments are there to help protect, but how much of this should be on social media companies themselves?
Yes, I think a huge burden needs to be placed on social media firms. First of all, they need to be forced to share data they have on young people, not with advertisers, but with researchers, so that we can actually understand the risks and benefits of these online platforms. Second, I think it's crazy that the tax these firms pay when they profit goes to filling potholes and different services. It should go to actually understanding and supporting young people, finding them where they are.
And then absolutely, we need ethical design codes. We need to be able to hold tech accountable when young people fall through the cracks. Setting a ban at 16 actually absolves tech platforms of responsibility. If something bad happens on a platform, they're going to say, "Well, it's not our fault. We put in the best technologies that exist," and they don't need to actually make their platforms safer or better.
At the end of 2024, of course, Elon Musk has tied himself to the hip of the president-elect, who will be inaugurated in America on January 20th. Earlier this month, Elon Musk posted about this very legislation in Australia, saying it seems like a backdoor way to control access to the Internet by all Australians. Is this fear by social media leaders something that could happen?
Well, I'm not sure. A broken clock is right twice a day. But no, I think there are real human rights implications for this, depending on how it's implemented. Australia is a signatory to the UN Charter of the Rights of the Child, and young people have a right to information. Upwards of 60% of young people in Australia get their news from social media. Our children have a right to play, and young people play through these online platforms.
In Korea, ultimately, their laws were repealed because they violated the Korean Constitution. I really don't see how this legislation is going to make a single kid safer. This is the equivalent of taking your shoes off at the airport; it doesn't make flying any safer. This is also theater—well-being theater.