[Bloomberg Column] A Flawed Final Ultimatum to Big Tech Is Better Than None

Australia's social networking service (SNS) age restriction measures fail to adequately protect adolescents online. While it may be possible to stop a 15-year-old from entering a burning building, it is impossible to prevent the gates of hell from opening once they turn 16. Policymakers would be wiser to focus on extinguishing the fire within.

However, this sweeping law, which restricts SNS use for those under 16 and imposes fines of up to AUD 49.5 million (approximately KRW 44.9 billion) on companies that violate it, serves as a final ultimatum to Big Tech that the current status quo is no longer acceptable. The world is watching closely.

A much-needed debate has erupted among lawmakers, companies, parents, and researchers worldwide about the best way to protect future generations coming of age in the digital era. The last time the United States passed a federal law to protect children online was in 1998. By the time lawmakers recognized the problem, a generation had already grown up on the internet.

Australia's ban clearly has flaws, but seeking solutions through such conversations may be better than doing nothing. Moreover, this measure is one of the most extensive restrictions imposed on SNS platforms outside of China, and despite the government providing little explanation on how the law will be enforced, 77% of Australians support the age restrictions.

I have written about this new law before. I still believe that while well-intentioned, it approaches a complex issue with a simplistic solution and has its shortcomings. Research shows that a blanket age ban ignores the varying maturity levels of adolescents and is ineffective in preventing the negative emotional impacts of the internet on youth development. Although it may appear attractive to parents.

In particular, it disregards the dazzling reality of adolescents growing up in modern society, where education, work, and social activities have increasingly moved online due to the pandemic. Completely blocking adolescents from online communities could sever lifelines for marginalized groups within Australia and, in the long term, delay more complex policy work such as developing comprehensive solutions to make these platforms safer.

Australia has stated it will not penalize parents or adolescents for violating the law, but tech-savvy teenagers are very adept at circumventing age restrictions. For example, Norway currently restricts SNS use for children under 13, yet 72% of 11-year-olds still access SNS. As part of privacy protection, Australia has given SNS platforms a one-year grace period to devise technology that verifies age without requiring identification. However, some platforms, such as messaging services, are exempt from regulation.

Opposition to Australia's overwhelmingly supported policy does not come solely from Elon Musk and Big Tech. The Australian Human Rights Commission (HRC), UN child-related agencies, and dozens of scholars and researchers advocate for alternative approaches. Concerns that Australia's policy could push adolescents into more dangerous, lawless online spaces are valid. To not only delay access to online communities by a few years but also compel companies to implement digital safeguards, more comprehensive legislation is needed. Even if Australia's SNS ban ends in failure, it has already sparked public discourse and presented numerous policy alternatives for the world to consider.

Legislators worldwide should demand greater transparency from SNS companies, allowing external researchers to examine internal operations and better understand the potential harms to adolescent mental health and emotional development. Experts need to comprehend how opaque SNS algorithms addict youth and lead them down dangerous rabbit holes, enabling them to recommend tailored remedies.

Regulatory pressure is already leading to change. About a week after Australia first announced plans to introduce a minimum SNS age, Meta Platforms, Facebook's parent company, unveiled new privacy settings for adolescents on Instagram. Of course, the company explained that these features had been in development for some time and were not a response to regulatory scrutiny.

This is not Australia's first clash with Silicon Valley. Australia has waged years-long legal battles to force tech platforms to pay news organizations, resulting in Meta and Alphabet's Google coming to the negotiating table with publishers (earlier this year, Meta announced it would not renew the agreement). Canada attempted a similar approach, but Meta responded by completely blocking news on its platform in Canada. This painful reality underscores the unintended consequences of confronting the world's most powerful tech companies and highlights the importance of global cooperation against Big Tech.

Australia has achieved what no other democratic country has. However, it now faces the test of how and whether it can enforce the new regulations. While it has not resolved the fundamental issue of how to safely protect adolescents from online risks, it has initiated a much-needed debate among stakeholders to devise more creative and effective solutions. Parents worldwide should hope that policymakers pay close attention to this issue.

Catherine Sorbek Bloomberg Opinion Columnist. Bloomberg

Catherine Sorbek Bloomerg Opinion Columnist

This article is a translation by Asia Economy of Bloomberg's column titled ‘A Flawed Ultimatum to Big Tech Is Better Than Nothing.’

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.