More than 60% of Australian children are still using social media despite the country’s ban for under-16s, according to new data from the Molly Rose Foundation, casting doubt on whether governments can police such restrictions even as more countries impose them.
Three in five who had accounts on restricted platforms before the ban came into force still have access to one or more accounts, according to the study, with major platforms accused of retaining the majority of their child users.
Polling more than 1,000 Australian children between 12 and 15, the report found that over half of the now-banned child TikTok users, YouTube users, and Instagrammers are still able to access an account despite restrictions.
Campaigners claim that, in most cases, platforms “failed to identify and remove” under-16 accounts, meaning many children haven’t had to use workarounds to access restricted platforms, but even then, 70% of those using banned sites said it was ‘easy’ to circumvent controls.
Added to that, around 60% of child social media users across YouTube, Snapchat, Instagram and TikTok said that the platforms had so far taken ‘no action’ to remove or deactivate their accounts.
That is despite platforms having outlined detailed plans for policing the ban, with Snapchat, for example, previously saying it would use behavioural signals and dates of birth to place around 440,000 accounts into a ‘frozen state’.
In a compliance update last month, the country’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, said there were “significant concerns” about the compliance of Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube, with enforcement efforts and investigations having begun.
The Commissioner’s office admitted that, despite 4.7 million accounts being removed or restricted as of mid-December, a substantial number of children had retained access to banned platforms thanks to the “poor practices” of the tech firms.
“While social media platforms have taken some initial action, I am concerned through our compliance monitoring that some may not be doing enough to comply with Australian law,” said Grant.
However, in a blow to the government’s argument that the ban would “give young people a reprieve from powerful and persuasive” platforms designed to “keep them hooked”, 51% of children said the restrictions made no difference to their online safety, with one-in-seven even saying they feel less safe.
Recommended reading
The Molly Rose Foundation said that such evidence is proof that an Australia-style ban cannot immediately improve the safety of children online, despite Labour’s cautious moves to introduce one for the UK.
Instead, campaigners are urging the prime minister to commit to a new Online Safety Act that reorients regulation strictly around harm reduction and toughens the country’s legal framework to match the size of the biggest platforms.
“Parents and children deserve better than a flawed ban that delivers a false sense of safety that quickly unravels,” said Andy Burrows, chief executive of Molly Rose Foundation.
“Proponents of a ban argue that it offers an immediate and decisive firebreak, but the early evidence from Australia shows it only lets tech firms off the hook, and fails to give children the step change in online safety and wellbeing they need.
“The quickest and most decisive means to protect children is stronger regulation that finally calls time on egregious product safety failures, with a commitment to a new Online Safety Act in the upcoming King’s Speech.”
Related
