ֱ

Australia passes landmark social media ban for under 16s

Update The legislation will be closely monitored by other countries, with many weighing whether to implement similar bans. (AFP/File)
The legislation will be closely monitored by other countries, with many weighing whether to implement similar bans. (AFP/File)
Short Url
Updated 29 November 2024

Australia passes landmark social media ban for under 16s

Australia passes landmark social media ban for under 16s
  • Aussie premier Anthony Albanese chapioned the bill in an effort to take young Australians “off their phones”
  • Critics say the ban would not “make social media safer for young people,” lacks details about its enforcement

MELBOURNE: Australian lawmakers passed landmark rules to ban under 16s from social media on Thursday, approving one of the world’s toughest crackdowns on popular sites like Facebook, Instagram and X.
The legislation ordering social media firms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent young teens from having accounts was passed in the Senate with 34 votes in favor and 19 against.
The firms — who face fines of up to Aus$50 million ($32.5 million) for failing to comply — have described the laws as “vague,” “problematic” and “rushed.”
The new rules will now return to the lower house — where lawmakers already backed the bill on Wednesday — for one final approval before it is all but certain to become law.
Speaking during the Senate debate, Greens politician Sarah Hanson-Young said the ban would not “make social media safer for young people.”
She said it was “devastating” that young people were “finding themselves addicted to these dangerous algorithms.”
Center-left Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, eyeing an election early next year, has enthusiastically championed the new rules and rallied Aussie parents to get behind it.
In the run up to the vote, he painted social media as “a platform for peer pressure, a driver of anxiety, a vehicle for scammers and, worst of all, a tool for online predators.”
He wanted young Australians “off their phones and onto the footy and cricket field, the tennis and netball courts, in the swimming pool.”
But young social media users, like 12-year-old Angus Lydom, are not impressed.
“I’d like to keep using it. And it’ll be a weird feeling to not have it, and be able to talk to all my friends at home,” he told AFP.
Many are likely to try to find ways around it.
“I’ll find a way. And so will all my other friends” Lydom said.
Similarly, 11-year-old Elsie Arkinstall said there was still a place for social media, particularly for children wanting to watch tutorials about baking or art.
“Kids and teens should be able to explore those techniques because you can’t learn all those things from books,” she added.

On paper, the ban is one of the strictest in the world.
But the current legislation offers almost no details on how the rules will be enforced — prompting concern among experts that it will simply be a symbolic piece of legislation that is unenforceable.
It will be at least 12 months before the details are worked out by regulators and the ban comes into effect.
Some companies will likely be granted exemptions, such as WhatsApp and YouTube, which teenagers may need to use for recreation, school work or other reasons.
Late amendments were introduced to ensure government-issued digital ID cannot be used as a means of age verification.
Social media expert Susan Grantham told AFP that digital literacy programs that teach children to think “critically” about what they see online should be adopted — similar to a model used in Finland.
The legislation will be closely monitored by other countries, with many weighing whether to implement similar bans.
Lawmakers from Spain to Florida have proposed social media bans for young teens, although none of the measures have been implemented yet.
China has restricted access for minors since 2021, with under-14s not allowed to spend more than 40 minutes a day on Douyin, the Chinese version of TikTok.
Online gaming time for children is also limited in China.


Trump threatens $1 billion action as BBC apologises for speech edit

Trump threatens $1 billion action as BBC apologises for speech edit
Updated 11 November 2025

Trump threatens $1 billion action as BBC apologises for speech edit

Trump threatens $1 billion action as BBC apologises for speech edit
  • Trump’s lawyers say broadcaster must retract documentary or face action
  • BBC apologizes for ‘error of judgment,’ chair Shah rejects institutional bias

LONDON: US President Donald Trump has threatened the BBC with a billion-dollar lawsuit, US sources said, as the broadcaster apologized Monday for editing a speech that gave the impression he urged “violent action” just before the 2021 assault on the US Capitol.
Trump could seek $1 billion in damages from the BBC, a source close to his legal team said, amid a growing furor that prompted the resignations Sunday of two of the broadcaster’s top brass.
The source said the British broadcaster has been given until Friday to retract the 2024 documentary and apologize for the documentary broadcast just before the 2024 US presidential election.
Trump has been accused of launching lawsuits to stifle US media. But the latest controversy has reignited a debate over the British broadcaster, cherished by many but which has faced long-standing accusations of bias, from both ends of the political spectrum.
A spokesman for Trump’s private legal team confirmed that a letter had been sent to the BBC but did not give details.
“The BBC defamed President Trump by intentionally and deceitfully editing its documentary in order to try and interfere in the presidential election,” the spokesman said in a statement to AFP.
“President Trump will continue to hold accountable those who traffic in lies, deception, and fake news.”
A BBC spokesperson said: “We will review the letter and respond directly in due course.”

‘Vital role’ 

In a letter sent to MPs, BBC chairman Samir Shah said the broadcaster accepted that the editing of Trump’s speech for the documentary “did give the impression of a direct call for violent action.”
“The BBC would like to apologize for that error of judgment,” he added, vowing to reform oversight within the broadcaster.
Director general Tim Davie and BBC News CEO Deborah Turness stepped down over the escalating backlash on Sunday.
Trump promptly celebrated, accusing BBC journalists of being “corrupt” and “dishonest.” His press secretary called the broadcaster “100-percent fake news.”
However, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesman told reporters the organization “has a vital role in an age of disinformation.”
“It’s important that the BBC acts swiftly to maintain trust and correct mistakes quickly when they occur,” he added.
The government is preparing a review of the BBC’s charter, which outlines the corporation’s governance and funding framework. The current charter ends in 2027.
The broadcaster, which has cut hundreds of jobs amid stretched finances, is funded by a license fee paid by anyone who watches live TV in Britain.
Some have welcomed the resignations as a timely reckoning for the BBC, while others fear the influence of right-wing detractors, including in the United States.
Ed Davey, leader of the centrist Liberal Democrats, urged Starmer to tell Trump to “keep his hands off” the BBC.
Former BBC journalist Karen Fowler-Watt, head of the journalism department at City St. George’s University in London, told AFP the institution was “now really in a situation of crisis.”
She noted it was “very difficult not to see this as a right-wing attack, given the media ecosystem in which we all now live.”

Controversies

In London, Britons were both critical and sympathetic.
Jimmy, who works in construction and declined to give his surname, told AFP the BBC’s reputation had been “tarnished” and it had “shown that they’re not impartial.”
But 78-year-old writer Jennifer Kavanagh said it has “always been attacked from the right and from the left.”
“They can never get it right,” she added.
Its latest crisis intensified after the right-wing Daily Telegraph newspaper reported last week that a former external standards adviser’s warnings of serious and widespread failings of impartiality and systemic bias had been ignored.
That included the editing of sections of Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech ahead of the mob attack on the US Capitol following the 2020 US presidential election.
It appeared he had told supporters he was going to walk there with them and “fight like hell,” whereas the president also told the audience in the intervening period “we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”
Earlier this year, the BBC apologized for “serious flaws” in the making of another documentary, about the Gaza war, which the UK’s media watchdog deemed “materially misleading.”
It also faced criticism for failing to pull a livestream of punk-rap duo Bob Vylan during this year’s Glastonbury festival after its frontman made anti-Israel comments.