As Australia prepares to implement the world\u2019s first social media ban for users under 16, Meta is already taking action\u2014removing its youngest users from Facebook, Instagram, and Threads ahead of the new law.<\/p>\n
The company announced<\/a> on Wednesday that it will start to kick existing under-16 users off its platforms from Dec. 4, notifying them through a mix of email, SMS, and in-app messages. It will also ban under-16s from creating new accounts. The ban does not cover Meta\u2019s Messenger app.<\/p>\n Facebook has more than 150,000 monthly active Australian end-users aged 13-15, while Instagram has more than 350,000, according to a report<\/a> from the country\u2019s independent online safety regulator.<\/p>\n Meta acknowledges that the ban\u2019s implementation won\u2019t be smooth. \u201cWhile we are working hard to remove all users who we understand to be under the age of 16 by Dec. 10, compliance with the law will be an ongoing and multi-layered process,\u201d the company\u2019s global head of safety, Antigone Davis, said.<\/p>\n The company\u2019s actions come as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese\u2019s government prepares to enforce sweeping, age-based restrictions across multiple social media platforms. Starting next month, Australians under 16 will also be banned from using TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, X, Reddit, and the livestreaming site Kick. Companies that fail to comply face fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars (about $32 million).<\/p>\n How the law will be enforced, however, remains unclear. Critics\u2014including tech companies and rights groups\u2014have called the restrictions \u201cvague<\/a>,\u201d \u201cproblematic,\u201d and \u201crushed<\/a>,\u201d questioning whether they will meaningfully reduce<\/a> online harms to children.<\/p>\n In a statement to TIME, a Meta spokesperson said: \u201cWhile we\u2019re committed to meeting our legal obligations, we\u2019ve consistently raised concerns about this law. Experts, youth groups, and many parents agree that blanket bans are not the solution\u2014they isolate teens from online communities and information, while providing inconsistent protection across the many apps they use.\u201d<\/p>\n Albanese has defended the plan, arguing that even an imperfect system is better than none. \u201cWe acknowledge that this won\u2019t be absolute,\u201d Albanese told TIME in February<\/a>. \u201cBut it does send a message about what society thinks and will empower parents to have those conversations with their children.\u201d<\/p>\n How Meta Plans to Enforce the Ban<\/p>\n Meta said it began notifying affected users two weeks before their access will be revoked. Those users will be able to download their data<\/a> or update contact details so the company can reach them when they turn 16. \u201cFor all our users aged 15 and under, we understand the importance of the treasured memories, connections, and content within your accounts,\u201d said Mia Garlick, Meta\u2019s regional policy director.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen you turn 16 and can access our apps again, all your content will be available exactly as you left it,\u201d Garlick added.<\/p>\n Suppose a user is wrongly flagged as being under 16; they can verify their age through Meta\u2019s third-party facial age-verification partner Yoti, by providing a government-issued ID or a video selfie. Meta says Yoti deletes all data after verification.<\/p>\n Determining who is under 16, however, poses a challenge, given how easily users can lie about their ages. Meta said it will remove users it understands to be under 16 by next month, using unspecified age assurance methods. But an Australian government report acknowledges that such methods may make mistakes<\/a>: it found that for people aged 16 and 17, false rejection rates stayed \u201cabove acceptable levels\u201d for facial age estimation, at 8.5% and 2.6% respectively.<\/p>\n Davis says Meta believes in a better approach to assess a user\u2019s age, \u201ca standard, more accurate, and privacy-preserving system,\u201d such as age-verification methods starting from the mobile app store. \u201cThis, combined with our investments in ongoing efforts to assure age and verify that signal and provide age-appropriate experiences like Teen Accounts, offers more comprehensive protection for young people online.\u201d<\/p>\n Mounting criticism of the ban<\/p>\n Beyond technological hurdles, Meta has urged the Australian government to consider an alternative to an outright ban. \u201cThere\u2019s a better way,\u201d the company spokesperson said, \u201clegislation that empowers parents to approve app downloads and verify age allows families\u2014not the government\u2014to decide which apps teens can access.\u201d<\/p>\n Meta wasn\u2019t the only social media company to question the ban. Elon Musk\u2019s X in September sought to delay the ban<\/a>, questioning the lawfulness and compatibility with Australia\u2019s other laws.<\/p>\n Teen users have also pushed back, as social media has been a crucial tool for youth groups to organize. \u201cWe rely on digital spaces to advocate for systemic change,\u201d one advocate told local broadcaster Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)<\/a>. \u201cWe use it to advocate for ourselves.\u201d Young users also raised concerns about potential social isolation<\/a> if they\u2019re kicked off the platforms.<\/p>\n And even when the ban finally takes effect, affected users have already discussed ways to flout it, including using VPNs and burner accounts. \u201cEveryone\u2019s going to get around it,\u201d one 14-year-old TikTok creator told ABC<\/a>. In the same interview, the creator\u2019s mother also disagreed with the ban, adding that young users don\u2019t even need to have any accounts to access harmful content online. \u201cShouldn\u2019t we be focusing on removing the harmful content?\u201d<\/p>\n The technology involved in detecting user activity to estimate age has also raised concerns about surveillance. \u201cAge inference works by watching what we do online over long periods to guess our age,\u201d Hassan Asghar, who teaches computer science at Macquarie University, told Australian broadcaster Special Broadcasting Service<\/a>, \u201cessentially encouraging tech companies to constantly monitor our digital behavior.\u201d<\/p>\n But the ban enjoys broad public support<\/a> and has earned recognition from other countries. New Zealand is reportedly considering similar legislation<\/a>, and a proposal for under-15s is being discussed in the Netherlands<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cWe don’t argue that these laws will be perfect in their implementation,\u201d Albanese said on Nov. 10<\/a>, around a month before the ban takes effect. \u201cWe do argue very strongly though that this is the government of Australia setting down what we expect to happen: including reminding social media companies that they have a social responsibility, and that they need to be conscious about their social license, like other businesses.\u201d<\/p>\n