It may be a new year, but it marks the end of a digital era for Australians under 16.
Under a controversial new law, which comes into force at the end of 2025, children under 16 will not be permitted to hold an account on social media platforms such as Facebook, X, Instagram, Tiktok and Snapchat.
Southern Cross University Law Lecturer Yvette Holt explains how 'on paper' this new legislation proposes to protect young Australians, but how it could have unintended – and dangerous – consequences:
The Australian Government's Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 passed both houses of Parliament on 29 November 2024. This legislation is the first of its kind globally and places the obligation on social media companies, rather than parents, to ensure compliance.
Currently, platforms such as YouTube and online games such as Fortnite and Minecraft do not fall under the ban.
Children under 16 from will no longer have access to online communities which may help them avoid loneliness and isolation. The ban will also restrict their ability to mobilise politically (think Greta Thunberg and her powerful Student Strike for Climate that went global via social media in 2019).
In a recent article published in the Australian Journal for Human Rights, ' How does the consent model in Australia's Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) undermine our human right to privacy? ', Southern Cross University Law Honours student Jayne Phillips argues that greater regulation of social media platforms is required to protect adults, as well as children, from harm. In fact, greater regulation is necessary to protect our system of representative democracy itself.
Using the Cambridge Analytica scandal as a case study, Phillips argues that social media platforms should be required to ensure that the way in which they process users' personal data is compatible with deliberative democracy, rather than being simply designed to ensure maximum online engagement and profit.
In her book, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (2019), Shoshana Zubhoff has also warned that social media is a 'profoundly undemocratic social force' and requires greater regulation to prevent a slide towards what she describes as a 'market-driven coup from above'.
In the Cambridge Analytica case, sensitive personal information was transferred to the political consulting firm from Facebook via a third-party app. It was used, among other things, to micro-target individuals in an inflammatory manner for political purposes as part of the United States 2016 federal election campaign.
In relation to Australian users, the ensuing litigation against Facebook by the Australian Privacy Commissioner under the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), which was brought before the Federal Court and settled in mid-December 2024 for $50 million , approached the legal issue in the case as one of an unauthorised use or disclosure of personal information (contrary to Australian Privacy Principle 6 and Australian Privacy Principle 11) contrary to Australian privacy laws.
As Phillips points out, the case illustrates a more fundamental problem with the way social media platforms collect and use our personal information in an age of 'consent fatigue'.
Our personal, sensitive information (for example, race, sex, gender identity, disability, political opinion) is harvested on an unprecedented scale. It may be used for a range of purposes, including political micro-targeting, of which the average person is unable to conceive at the time they give formal 'consent'.
Users are required to agree to the privacy policy of each social media platform when creating an account, which can include general information about permitted secondary use, but it is unlikely the average person will fully read or understand the potential implications of the policy.
