Four of the major social media platforms have conceded that under-16-year-olds are still accessing their services despite the social media ban, but say they are actively working to address the issue.
Meta—which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp—along with TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube, which is owned by Google, were giving evidence to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.
The Committee is considering the Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill.
The legislation doubles the maximum civil penalties for platforms that violate the social media ban from $49.5 million to $99 million (US$35 million to $70 million) and gives the eSafety Commissioner more power to demand evidence from third parties like app stores and age assurance providers.
Under questioning from senators, representatives from the tech companies acknowledged that, despite their best efforts, young people were finding ways around age verification.
This has been confirmed by independent research, published in the British Medical Journal, which found that more than 85 percent of surveyed teenagers were still using restricted platforms three months after the ban was introduced.
Age Detection A Work in Progress
“For us, building out an age-appropriate experience is an iterative process,” said Mia Garlick, regional director of policy for Meta.
The platform has started rolling out AI-powered detection, both text and visual, to proactively identify underage users, she said.
“One of the things … is that 16 is a globally novel age boundary, and so that’s why I think we’re all talking about these iterative approaches that we’re taking as we’re trying to build up new signals and markers,” Garlick said.
Jessika Lofstedt, head of public policy for TikTok Australia, said it was also struggling with implementing a cut-off at 16.
“These laws were a world first, and both the government and the eSafety Commissioner recognise this and have acknowledged that its implementation needs to be reiterative,” she said.
“Unfortunately, young people do try to make it back onto the platform, which is why we have this ongoing process of improvement and ongoing monitoring.”
Rachel Lord, senior manager of government affairs and public policy at YouTube, told a similar story.
“This 16 age gate is novel, and we’ve been working to expand those systems … but that work is complex,” she said.
“We are trying to do that in a way that we’re ensuring that we are detecting those users in a way that’s proportionate, that’s effective, that’s safe, and that respects user privacy as well.”
Multi-Platform Solutions
Apple has recently rolled out an age verification API (Application Programming Interface) to help app developers comply with increasingly stringent child safety laws around the world.
Meta, Snap and TikTok said they’re testing it, while YouTube is already working on incorporating it into their platform.
“I think it’s an excellent step that Apple has taken because it demonstrates … a whole-of-ecosystem assurance approach,” Garlick said.
Meta is also actively working with the Open Age Initiative, which aims to produce a vendor-neutral API that does the same thing.
None of the spokespeople expressed an opinion on the necessity or otherwise of the bill itself.
“We do take these processes seriously, but … we’ll ultimately defer to you as policymakers on whether you think these amendments are necessary,” Lord said.
X Says No Evidence to Support Ban
X, which did not appear before the committee, was critical of both the existing regime and the proposed legislation.
“The fact the [eSafety] Commissioner has been determined to have acted ultra vires [outside the law] in the past heightens the need for safeguards protecting the subjects of investigations and enforcement action,” its submission (pdf) said.
“There is no evidence or research supporting a social media ban as the most effective solution from a technical perspective, nor as the one that best balances the rights of young people and users in general.”
X said the increased penalties proposed in the bill were “entirely unjustified and disproportionate.”
“The amendment bill is not a necessary, appropriate or desirable reform,” it said.
