I'm Ruby Jones and you're listening to seven.
AM right now. TikTok is a wash with videos of how to get around the social media ban for.
Under sixteens, which is due to come into effect in a week.
At the same time, fringe apps like Yopah rockining up the Apple charts as teenagers plan where they'll go when the major platforms boot them off. There's also a court case underway challenging the government on whether the ban is even legal. Today, Associate editor at Kraichi, Cam Wilson on who is behind the lawsuit, whether they'll win, and how
this ban could change the country. It's Wednesday, December three, so can The social media ban is due to come into effect in just a few days now, but already there is a legal challenge underway. So to begin with, can you tell me about who is trying to take the social media band.
To the High Court?
The group behind the High Court challenge is this new association called the Digital Freedom Project. They're led by libertarian MLC from New South Wales, John Roddick. And not much is really known about the group. It just came out of nowhere. We don't even know the people who elected John Roddick, the president. He just said that he was.
Expecting that young Google or Elon Musk, these big tech platforms, that they would be taking this high court challenge. The other ones are facing fifty million.
Dollar five good point, where are they?
Well, they were saying they were going to do it, but I mean me and my mates sat around two months ago said well, they're not going to We're on track for no one to do anything. So we said, well, let's start the Digital Freedom Project.
But the group claims to have now thousands of supporters who are who've kind of got on board, and perhaps some of them are donating to this case. The one thing that we do know that gives us a little bit of sid into the challenge is that it is being run by a war firm that has been part of a few I would call them cultural war challenges to wars in the past. And one of their solicitors who was contacting expert witnesses to appear for this challenge
is Catherine Deves. She's a former Liberal candidate in Warringa who has a history of anti trans comments. Her background is notable because one of the groups that Digital Freedom Projects that will be most affected by this is LGBT teams. Sorry, I mean that definitely has gotten a little bit of attention on that. So they filed a challenge in court and they're hoping to get an injunction in the war
refinding out over the next couple of days. Whether either of those two applications are successful.
Interesting, okay?
And what about the two teenagers that are kind of the face of it, the names to the challenge. What do we know about them and the case that they're making here?
So there were two teenage plaintiffs in the case and the grounds of which has been challenged. Is this idea of the ban infringes on the implied right to freedom of political expression in Australia.
There is an implied right to the freedom of political communication in this country. Okay, Now it's not written in the constitution, but they've accepted it now for about three or.
Four The freedom of political communication right different in free speech.
Yes, well, the Americans have got it a lot better than us, and that's what we will.
Trains don't really have a explicit freedom of speech right as there are in some other countries, but there has kind of been one cobbled together through case war and other means, and so this is the grounds on which the band has been challenged.
Well, I'm grateful to be the plaintiff for young Australians having like the right to free speech, and I feel with this.
Band in place will be invisible.
We won't be able to share our views or opinions, and we won't be able to hear political views or opinions.
So we'll just be isolated.
And we've heard that from many teenagers.
Haven't waited the idea that this ban interferes with their freedom of political expression and might you know, hinder their ability to say what they think.
Yeah, I mean so, So the way that the band works is obviously it's cutting off a portion of the population from one of the main ways that politics is done in Australia in terms of both getting information about what's happened, but also having a say in what happens.
You know, the fact that they're not actually voters isn't necessarily an issue, and I think it's pretty fitting that you know, a lot of the discussion around the ban and a lot of the pushback a lot if it's happened online, So it's kind of almost in a way case and point that teams are using in many cases the tools that are being taken away from them to prove that hey, actually this is the thing that we use to take pun in politics.
And the Abenezy government has said that they'll stand firm that they won't be intimidated by legal challeng.
And despite the fact that we are receiving threats and legal challenges by people with ulterior motives, the Albanese government remains steadfastly on the site of parents and not of platforms.
So do you think that they have been preparing for cases like this to be brought When the.
War was initially passed, there was some discussion about a potential challenge, but really this has been on the agenda
of the government, particularly since Google. In the middle of the year, after it was announced that the government was actually going to change tact and include YouTube in the team social media ban, their response was to send through a very legal sounding letter that was in fact signed by Google's Australias head of counsel saying here are the three avenues for a legal challenge, and one of them
was a constitutionality. And so obviously when you get one of the biggest companies in the world, one who has I'm sure very well paid and very effective lawyers on side. They've been thinking about this and talking about, no doubt
preparing for this since then. And I think that's actually one of the kind of interesting things, which is, like, despite the fact that the law came into effect the last year and it's had this long runway, many of the details have taken a while to come out, and I think that that process has actually been slowed down
by the fear of a legal challenge. I think that there is like a kind of interesting question, which is, even if it is successful and this war actually is struck down, you know, the next step from the government might be doing something very similar as we saw with immigration law when there was one struck down in the High Court. So it's a bit of a game of chad and mouse, and everyone is trying to play this
out and understand what ends up happening. But you know, in all of this, the government has been really firm and saying, hey, we're sticking with this despite the legal threats, because I think fundamentally they think it plays well for them. One of the political forces behind this war is that there has been this desire in the community to crack down big tech. So the fact that there is a fight of this, oh, I'm sure it's a pain in
the neck for some government warriors. It's something that I imagine the government it relishes to take on some industry that people are excited to see tange.
Coming up. Will the ban work?
Okay?
So we'll have to wait and see how this particular legal challenge plays out. But in the meantime, we're already hearing from politicians that this ban is not going to be perfect and that we should expect there to be problems when it does come into effect on December ten.
So what are they talking about? What is likely to happen?
So, I mean in fantas to the government. They've been saying this since before the war has passed, the saying we don't expect this to be perfect. But I've noticed, particularly over the last few months, they've really made that one of the core parts of this message.
We know this law will be perfect, but it is too important not to have a crack.
And the key to understanding why all of a sudden the government is really stressing the fact that this thing that they're doing might have problems is because fundamentally this will puts the onus on these companies to be the ones who implement it, which is this funny tension where at the same time they're saying, you know, they can't be trusted, YadA ya YadA, they're also giving these companies the responsibility of forcing it right.
So tell me more then about how the platforms plan on doing that. How are they going to enforce the man We.
Know that these social media platforms are using a variety of tools. They're using everything from analyzing the data that they already have about you, Like, for example, I'm going to age myself here. I think I've had like a Facebook account for thirteen, fourteen, fifteen years. It's not going to take a genius at Meta to realize to look at when my account was created and be like, that probably belongs to someone who's more than sixteen years of age.
But if that doesn't work, if they don't have that information on you, or they're not confident in that the other men that they'll be using a things like facial
scans or uploading your government ID. Facial scans are a technology that have pretty well known flaws, particularly when it comes to distinguishing people who are over sixteen or under sixteen when you get pretty close to it, and so you know, the government is saying, hey, you might have some issues with this, either the scans not working properly and not letting you actually access to social media pound all, the band itself might not be perfect, that people will
get through the band, that they'll have workarounds, that they'll convince these systems that you are over sixteen when you're not. So either way, you know, they're trying to lower expectations to say doesn't work in progress. But where I think, as the Prime minis has said, it's worthwhile having a crack.
And there is also, I suppose the other side of this, which is that there are apps companies that aren't named and don't fall under the ban yet and people could you know, flock to them instead, and that could kind of happen indefinitely.
Right, Yeah, that's right. So I mean I noticed last week I was just the top apps on the Apple App Store, and I was like, that's an app I've never heard of. It was called yop and it stew is called YopE and it is a kind of little known social media platform that was launched in the US at the end of last year. I did a bit of research and found that teens online were already saying, hey, this band is coming up. The government has put out this list of ten platforms that will definitely need to
comply with the ban. Others might be added, but just for now, just so you know, these are the ones who would definitely be in it. YopE is not in the band. So teens trying to say what are we going to do post December ten? Where are we going to go? Meant that that app, as well as a Instagram like app that comes from the same company that
owns TikTok, which is called by Dance. That app, which is Lemonade, had also become one of the most downloaded apps in Australia over towards the end of last weekend. What is Lemonade? I keep getting these requests on TikTok saying so and so wants to follow There's an.
App called lemon eight, which we all kind of know about.
I feel like we don't really all use I just downloaded it and there's a link in my bio right now.
So I think the real question is when they go to these alternatives, what experience are they going to have on these platforms really good at taking care of young users? Do they invest in it at all? I was having a look at Yope's website. They don't even have any information about any trust and safety that they do. This is one of the scenarios that critics of the band raises a fear, because you know, the thing is online.
When you ban something, it's very easy to just kind of create something new and go there without much puzzle.
Okay, so the goal here of this legislation is to protect children from harmful content online. So what is your sense, broadly speaking of where the legislation like this can influence young people's desire to get on already existing platforms new platforms to the extent where this legislation would actually make a meaningful difference to a generation of young people.
I think it's going to make a meaningful difference. I mean, love it or hate it. This war is drastically going to change how young people use their device because the most popular platforms for young people are now supposed to be out of reach. And you know, while I definitely think there'll be workarounds on the major platforms, people will fool them. People will get their parents to vouch for them by using their face or providing their ID. I do think that a lot of teams will not, and
so there will be adaptation to that. I mean, I think the question that's been up in the air the whole time is not only will it work as well as the government has promised, but also comparing it to if we didn't do this, what else could we have done? Because a lot of the public debate has been well, we should either do the ban or not do anything
at all. But the experts that I spoke to, academics to study this, expressed to me that all the time that we spent in this, all the political capital to do something that might not be as effective as was promised. There are other options out there about ways that we can regulate with technology. Meanwhile, when this is done, will it really be a public appetite to do more regulation,
to have more discussion over it? The question is are we missing an opportunity where there is this will to do something that might be more targeted and more effective. I guess we'll say, well, Cam, thank you so much for your time, thanks for having me.
Also in the news today, recent governments have rewarded friends with plum jobs, A scathing review into political appointments has confirmed. The government commissioned the report, which has become known as the Jobs for Mates Review, in twenty twenty two and promised to release it in twenty twenty three.
It was finally released yesterday.
And said that government appointments looked like forms of patronage and nepotism that should have no place in modern Australian society. In response, the government says it has a new framework for picking appointments, but it has also rejected a number of key recommendations, and an inquiry intersexual violence in the
ADF is set to proceed. The Defense Personnel Minister Machio has confirmed it's been a year since the final report from the Royal Commission into Defense and Veterans' Suicide, when the inquiry was first recommended and agreed to. Now the government has given more detail into the scope, which includes a review of the efficacy of military justice compared with civilian justice, a look at perpetrator accountability, and barriers deterring
alleged victims from reporting their abuse. The inquiry is expected to begin mid next year.
I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am. Thanks for listening.