A barrage of human rights groups and others, including Index on Censorship, Amnesty International and Save the Children, have all criticised or opposed the ban.
Tom Sulston, head of policy at Australian charity Digital Rights Watch, told Index that they were broadly supportive of the idea that internet access is a human right. While the new law only restricts teens from accessing 10 specific sites – X, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Kick and Twitch – he said that the space these social media companies represent is enormous.
“They do occupy this space as the town square of digital society,” Sulston said. “So, is it proportionate to remove that right of access to a group of people in order to protect their safety, or under the guise of protecting their safety? We don’t think so.”
[...]
There is now an interesting legal conversation to be had about the ban, Sulston said. On 26 November, two 15-year-olds launched a legal challenge to the law, supported by rights group the Digital Freedom Project (DFP), in Australia’s High Court. They are arguing that all Australians have a constitutional implied right to freedom of political communication.
“Young people like me are the voters of tomorrow,” said one plaintiff Macy Neyland in a statement. “Why on earth should we be banned from expressing our views?” Neyland added that the situation was “like Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four”.
Noah Jones, who is also suing the government, told the media: “We’re disappointed in a lazy government that blanket-bans under-16s rather than investing in programmes to help kids be safe on social media. They should protect kids with safeguards, not silence.”
A direction hearing for the teens’ court challenge will be heard in February at the earliest.
[...]
Digital Rights Watch’s Sulston said that he was also worried about autocracies eyeing up the law. According to digital rights non-profit Access Now, 2024 was the worst year on record for internet shutdowns.
“Young people are not represented democratically, even in democratic societies. If you’re under the age to vote, then you get nothing,” Sulston said. “So being able to organise and develop political understanding and take political action online is really important for that cohort. You can see why it would be very attractive for authoritarian regimes to clamp down on that.”
But Sulston said that even though he considered the law a “disaster” and there was no evidence that it would improve children’s lives, it had already been showcased at the UN General Assembly and “deemed a great success”.
He said: “It’s really hard to see what a path to change looks like, because no matter how harmful it is, it seems we’re stuck with it.”
minorkeys @lemmy.world - 15hr
Why is every country suddenly putting age verification for the internet? Europe, US, Canada, Australia, Germany, I think. Why? Why now? Wtf are they expecting that this is suddenly a damned priority?
9
TheLunatickle @lemmy.zip - 14hr
Could be due to the rapid rise of authoritarianism, or how it's become clear that foreign actors can exert massive unchecked influence via social media.
Don't know, it can be hard to see the truth past all the cries of "Protect the Children!"
8
ikt - 14hr
because more and more evidence is showing that social media is cancer, it's a bit like asking why in the 90's there was suddenly a rush towards outlawing smoking
4
minorkeys @lemmy.world - 12hr
So ban social media. Why is age proof the barrier rather than better parental controls? Age verification comes with identification tracking liabilities across the internet. Fuck this dystopian hellscape that is forming.
3
The_Decryptor - 7hr
Same reason we still haven't banned smoking or gambling, once you're an adult you're on your own.
Unless it's drugs of course, can't have them.
1
ThePyroPython @lemmy.world - 14hr
The slow collapse will start to quicken within the next 5 years.
Hotznplotzn in australia
How Australia's social media ban threatens free expression
https://www.indexoncensorship.org/2025/12/how-australias-social-media-ban-threatens-free-expression/Archived
[...]
A barrage of human rights groups and others, including Index on Censorship, Amnesty International and Save the Children, have all criticised or opposed the ban.
Tom Sulston, head of policy at Australian charity Digital Rights Watch, told Index that they were broadly supportive of the idea that internet access is a human right. While the new law only restricts teens from accessing 10 specific sites – X, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Kick and Twitch – he said that the space these social media companies represent is enormous.
“They do occupy this space as the town square of digital society,” Sulston said. “So, is it proportionate to remove that right of access to a group of people in order to protect their safety, or under the guise of protecting their safety? We don’t think so.”
[...]
There is now an interesting legal conversation to be had about the ban, Sulston said. On 26 November, two 15-year-olds launched a legal challenge to the law, supported by rights group the Digital Freedom Project (DFP), in Australia’s High Court. They are arguing that all Australians have a constitutional implied right to freedom of political communication.
“Young people like me are the voters of tomorrow,” said one plaintiff Macy Neyland in a statement. “Why on earth should we be banned from expressing our views?” Neyland added that the situation was “like Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four”.
Noah Jones, who is also suing the government, told the media: “We’re disappointed in a lazy government that blanket-bans under-16s rather than investing in programmes to help kids be safe on social media. They should protect kids with safeguards, not silence.”
A direction hearing for the teens’ court challenge will be heard in February at the earliest.
[...]
Digital Rights Watch’s Sulston said that he was also worried about autocracies eyeing up the law. According to digital rights non-profit Access Now, 2024 was the worst year on record for internet shutdowns.
“Young people are not represented democratically, even in democratic societies. If you’re under the age to vote, then you get nothing,” Sulston said. “So being able to organise and develop political understanding and take political action online is really important for that cohort. You can see why it would be very attractive for authoritarian regimes to clamp down on that.”
But Sulston said that even though he considered the law a “disaster” and there was no evidence that it would improve children’s lives, it had already been showcased at the UN General Assembly and “deemed a great success”.
He said: “It’s really hard to see what a path to change looks like, because no matter how harmful it is, it seems we’re stuck with it.”
Why is every country suddenly putting age verification for the internet? Europe, US, Canada, Australia, Germany, I think. Why? Why now? Wtf are they expecting that this is suddenly a damned priority?
Could be due to the rapid rise of authoritarianism, or how it's become clear that foreign actors can exert massive unchecked influence via social media.
Don't know, it can be hard to see the truth past all the cries of "Protect the Children!"
because more and more evidence is showing that social media is cancer, it's a bit like asking why in the 90's there was suddenly a rush towards outlawing smoking
So ban social media. Why is age proof the barrier rather than better parental controls? Age verification comes with identification tracking liabilities across the internet. Fuck this dystopian hellscape that is forming.
Same reason we still haven't banned smoking or gambling, once you're an adult you're on your own.
Unless it's drugs of course, can't have them.
The slow collapse will start to quicken within the next 5 years.