Not all Australians aged under 16 will “magically disappear overnight” from social media, the nation’s online safety regulator says, amid a legal challenge to pause the start of the federal government’s ban.

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has warned that the implementation of the social media restrictions due to start on December 10 will “vary platform to platform” based on her conversations with tech companies.

The frank acknowledgement coincides with Ms Inman Grant, Communications Minister Anika Wells and the Commonwealth being named as defendants in documents lodged with the High Court in a challenge to the ban.

Commissioner tempers expectations of kids’ social media ban

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant says she is confident the implementation of laws banning young people from social media will be complete by the December deadline, but people should not expect them to work overnight. 

Ms Wells said in Question Time that the government would defend the laws.

“We stand ready to defend any legal challenges that come our way on behalf of the 120,000 Australian parents who asked us to pass this law and to protect their kids from the harms of social media,” she said.

Two 15-year-olds, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, have joined advocacy group the Digital Freedom Project in launching the challenge, arguing the laws booting young teens off platforms such as TikTok, YouTube and Instagram breach the constitution’s implied freedom of political communication.

In documents filed in the High Court’s Sydney registry, the plaintiffs are seeking the ban be declared invalid, or, as a second option, an injunction restraining Ms Inman Grant and Ms Wells from enforcing the minimum age provisions, including by issuing notices or taking compliance action against platforms.

Coalition forced to clarify position

As the start date looms the Coalition has also been forced to clarify its support for the ban, with Opposition communications spokeswoman Melissa McIntosh walking back comments that she reserved her right to oppose the laws if after a month there were problems with the implementation.

“The Coalition supports the social media ban,” she said in a statement on Thursday.

“We all want this social media ban to work and to protect children.”

‘Nudify’ services used by school students blocked

The platforms, which can be used to make real people appear nude in photos and videos, were used in several high-profile cases in Australian schools.

Ms McIntosh said the opposition did have “genuine” concerns about the implementation of the new laws, particularly around a “last-minute” decision to add extra platforms to the ban.

The eSafety commissioner said she did not expect every platform would initially, perfectly implement ban, which requires them to remove the accounts of people under the age of 16 and take “reasonable” steps to stop underage users circumventing the laws.

“Some will do this really well and really precisely and some will be a little bit slow and a little bit sloppy,” Ms Inman Grant told the ABC.

She said while penalties of $49.5 million awaited platforms who failed to comply, eSafety would still go through a “gradual and fair compliance process” before slapping fines on companies.

Ms Inman Grant said tech companies would soon be required to show evidence of deactivating Australian teenagers’ social media accounts, with the regulator likely to initially seek weekly and then monthly reports.

“We will be compelling them to provide very specific information about what they’ve done and how many accounts that they’ve deactivated or de-platformed,” she said.

Court filing claims ban goes too far

The documents lodged in the High Court on behalf of Digital Freedom Project on Thursday claim the upcoming laws will shut 13 to 15-year-olds out of essential avenues of political participation.

They argue teenagers routinely use the platforms to follow news, interact with elected representatives and participate in civic life.

They allege the government has gone too far with a blanket ban that is neither necessary or proportionate to protecting children from online harm.

The filing states the law “is not reasonably appropriate and adapted”, because less restrictive measures, such as parental oversight, safety settings or targeted regulation of platform design, are available as options.

The claim argues the breadth of the ban is “oppressive, overreaching and inappropriate” and that the ban “fails to impose any incentive” on social media companies to address harmful design features behind the risks the government is concerned about.

Loading…