Already and this is the Daily OS.
This is the Daily ohs oh, now it makes sense.
Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Thursday, the thirty first of July. I'm Emma Gillespie.
I'm Billy FitzSimons.
The Federal government has confirmed that YouTube will be included in its social media ban for children under sixteen. The video streaming platform was originally going to be exempt from the ban, but following mounting pressure from Australia's e Safety Commissioner, the government has changed its mind. The move's drawn criticism from the opposition, while YouTube's parent company Google is reportedly considering legal action against the government over the decision.
We'll take you through the latest on the social media ban and discuss whether Google's threat of legal action could succeed. Right after a quick message from our sponsor, so M we're talking today about this social media ban for under sixteens. Now, this is legislation that has actually already been tabled in Parliament and as I understand, it has already gone through.
For anyone who missed this, because I think it happened at the very end of last year, do you want to just explain the context of this.
Yes. So you might remember last year it was November when the government introduced its bill to ban under sixteen year olds from social media. Now, that followed this kind of intense public campaign that gained a lot of media attention, a lot of celebrity endorsements, a lot of parents and schools were on board, essentially saying that the government needed to do a better job of protecting young people's mental
health in the online space. So, off the back of that campaign, Australia became the first country in the world to legislate an age specific social media ban. So under the legislation, platforms including Snapchat, Instagram, x TikTok, Reddit, Facebook, they all have to block any user under sixteen from having an account on their platform, and the responsibility basically
will fall on the platforms themselves. So it'll be up to social media companies to enforce this ban, and failure to comply will result in fines of fifty million dollars.
Okay, So, the Australian government introduces this ban for social media for under sixteen year olds, but YouTube is exempt from the ban. What was the government's reasoning at the time as to why YouTube was exempt?
So initially YouTube was not included in this legislation, as you mentioned, Billy, predominantly because the government said it's used for learning. YouTube is used as an educational resource. So in a speech last year, then Communications Minister Michelle Roland said, YouTube, as well as some other platforms like messaging platform WhatsApp, which is also exempt quote enable young people to get
the education and health support they needed. So the logic was basically that unlike Instagram, TikTok and Facebook, that YouTube serves as more of an educational tool, so it's used by teachers and students for tutorials, videos, documentaries, historical docos, and scientific experiments, all these kinds of resources, rather than being used as a social networking platform designed around user
generated content and social interaction. So there is a social element to YouTube in the comments for example, but the government basically said a lot of people come to the platform for a use that is completely different. YouTube also already requires children under thirteen to provide a parent or guardians contact details when they create an account, and they also have YouTube Kids, which you might have heard of.
It's a separate platform designed specifically for really young users, and there are more content restrictions on YouTube kids.
It's funny how different platforms are used by different people for different things. Yeah, I have to say I do not use YouTube for educational purposes, or if I do, the extent of that was makeup tutorials when I was growing up.
But you could argue that's kind of an educational resource. It's still a tutorial.
Yeah, that and comedy sketches. So perhaps wasn't using it for the best thing, but hey, it was the early days, it was, and so now the government has changed its course. What prompted this shift.
So there were a few key factors that seemed to have influenced this decision to include YouTube in the ban. And when it was first confirmed last year that YouTube would be exempt, you can imagine that this drew a lot of criticism from other social media companies. They argued that it wasn't fair to have a kind of separate set of rules for one and not the others. And this year we've really seen a concerted effort from the a Safety Commissioner. So this is Australia's top online safety advisor.
The Commissioner's name is Julie Inman Grant and in June so last month she issued official advice to the federal government, urging it to reconsider its stance specifically around YouTube. So She pointed out that you can still access YouTube without an account, but argued that the platform has evolved beyond just educational content and that young people are still at risk if they hold an account and if they are
engaging with the platform. So E Safety recommended there be no exemptions for specific platforms under the legislation because quote the relative risks and harms can change at any given moment across different types of social media. In an addressed to the National Press Club, Julian mcgrant said that recent E safety research had shown four in ten children reported being exposed to harmful content on YouTube, which was the
highest of any platform. So that research really drove this push by E safety to get YouTube included in the.
Band okay so Australia's E Safety Commissioner said that in June at the time, how did YouTube respond to those claims?
So YouTube has rejected those claims roundly. Its public policy senior manager Rachel Lord criticized E Safety's advice, saying the video sharing platform is widely used in classroom teaching, and in a statement, Lord said banning YouTube would ignore evidence from teachers and parents that YouTube is suitable for younger users. So they really leaned on that kind of community messaging that this is not the same type of social media as your kind of meta owned platforms and the others got it.
Did the other social media platforms that were included in a ban have anything to say about YouTube's exemption?
Yes, So the criticism has broadly been that if the government was serious about protecting children from online harms, then the world's largest video platform shouldn't get special treatment. So TikTok, for example, its policy director in Australia, Ella Wood's Joyce, compared YouTube's exemption to quote banning the sale of soft drinks to minors but exempting Coca cola.
Yeah, we love an analogy, sure too, Okay, So clearly there was mounting pressure from the big social media platforms and also the E Safety Commissioner to ensure that there are no exemptions, and that pressure seemed to have worked, because this week the government announced that YouTube would no longer be exempt and now under sixteen year olds will be banned from using that platform. How did this announcement unfold this week?
So after the E Safety Commissioner wrote to the government in June with that advice we heard from the government. It said that basically the Communications Minister Annika Wells was carefully considering that advice and so that's where things stayed out for a few weeks until Tuesday night, when the government announced YouTube would be subject to the same age
restrictions as other social media platforms. We got a statement from Prime Minister Anthony Alberesi's office which said the decision followed extensive consultation and was in four formed by advice from the E Safety Commissioner. The statement said online gaming, messaging apps, health and education services though would not be included in the ban quote because they pose fewer social media harms to under sixteens or are regulated under different laws,
so that includes WhatsApp for example. WhatsApp will not be included or affected by the ban, but the change does mean that from December, YouTube will be subject to the same minimum age laws that platforms like TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat will have to adhere to, and at a press conference on Wednesday, the Communications Minister Annika Wells said the evidence of harms to young users on YouTube cannot be ignored.
We want kids to know who they are before platforms assume who they are. These are not set and forget rules is a set of support rules. They are world leading. But this is manifestly too important for us not to have a crap.
So you mentioned before that YouTube does have the educational content on its platform, the ones that are much more educational than the makeup tutorials I watched when I was sixteen. But in terms of I know that there are you know, documentaries there which you know, maybe teachers would even use to help with classes that they're teaching. Yeah, did the Communications Minister Annika Wells say anything about whether that educational content will be accessible still?
Yeah? Well, I think it's worth noting that the restriction only applies to YouTube account holders, so under sixteen year olds won't be allowed to log in on YouTube, but they can still watch videos on the platform, you know, the same way any of us can without having to log in, So that doesn't change the classroom aspect. That doesn't stop kids from watching potentially helpful videos, but it also doesn't stop them from seeing potentially harmful content either.
That's interesting, So here they are really just banning under sixteens from creating an account. But YouTube is unlike something like Twitter or x I should say, or Instagram, where you actually need an account in order to view content on those platforms exactly. YouTube is not like that.
And the other really important aspect to having a YouTube account is the algorithm that comes with that. So if you are logged in on YouTube, then the intuitive kind of nature of the algorithm pays attention to what you watch. It starts to learn about your habits, it starts to serve you videos that I think you might want to watch. And it's that kind of rabbit hole algorithm that's been really criticized in terms of promoting violence or serving videos to young boys that could be seen as kind of
radicalizing them towards becoming violent. So the algorithm aspect is a really big one. And if you're a casual or more passive YouTube consumer, you're not logged in. It's not learning about you, it's not suggesting video content to you.
Another story that I have read about this week is in relation to Google, which is YouTube's parent company, them potentially considering suing the Australian government. What is that story about.
So meanwhile, in the background of all of this We've got reports from the Daily Telegraph that Google is threatening legal action against the government for proceeding with including YouTube in the ban. So we haven't seen the full details of Google's legal arguments, but they have previously raised concerns about the timing and the feasibility of age verification systems.
So this all relies on successful age verification technology, and in submissions to Parliament last year, Google warned against introducing the law before tested age verification systems are in place. Now, despite the government's claims that it is running age verification trials that have been mostly successful, Google has pointed out that the full age verification system trial won't be finished until mid next year, making the bills timing concerning in
its words. Annaka Wells has addressed this the Communications Minister, saying the government's waiting on the Age Assurance final recommendations, but she said that they will publish those recommendations as soon as possible.
So they just so I understand they are suing over the timeline, but not necessarily the suggestion of YouTube being included.
Well, this is all reported by the Daily Telegraph, but the suggestion is yes, that they're considering legal action because of the timeline, and because the technology might not have met the timeline. And there's also a potential argument about
challenging the legislation on constitutional grounds. So the Daily Telegraph reports cited a letter sent by Google to the Communications Minister which said including YouTube in the band would diminish the quote implied constitutional freedom of political communication, So a free speech argument there, and how has.
The government responded to this threat of legal action from Google?
So Anaka Wells addressed this directly yesterday when she said she will quote not be intimidated by legal threats when this is a genuine fight for the well being of Australian kids. Speaking alongside her, also yesterday, Prime Minister Anthony Albernezi acknowledged that the ban isn't going to be a simple or easy process, but he did say the government
wants this to be a cooperative one. So he essentially dismissed claims that these platforms don't have the resources or technology or that they're not going to be ready to roll out age verification. Here's a little bit of what he said.
I know where you go, how you talk to, what you're interested in. You know, they do keep that information and during the election campaign if they could identify for political parties in order to encourage us to invest on their platforms on an issue like childcare, identifying women between a particular age, in a particular seat, in a particular demographic with particular postcodes, then they can help out here too. They can use the capacity which we know that they have.
Has the opposition responded to the YouTube announcement, So.
The Coalition interestingly has supported this social media ban for under sixteen year olds. It's really very much in favor of us exactly. They really were on board, but since news that YouTube was going to be included, they have been pretty critical of the government. So the Coalition are not criticizing the ban itself, but they've said that Labor has essentially broken a promise with this backflip. We've heard from Shadow Communications Minister Melissa Macintosh, who has accused the
government of a lack of transparency. She said Labor quote cannot hide the fact that they deliberately misled the public at the last election by promising to keep YouTube out of the social media age minimum. She said the Coalition is concerned that the e Safety Commissioner as well is testing boundaries quote which are moving beyond what Australians are comfortable with.
So in terms of what happens now, you said before that this comes into effect on the tenth of December, I believe you said. And so what needs to happen between now and then.
Yes, So, as you said, this legislation is due to come into effect in December. The E Safety Commissioner will be responsible for enforcing the new rules against the social media companies, but it will be up to each platform to roll out their own strategies to ensure they're complying with the law. So in terms of how they do that, we need I suppose more concrete evidence or advice on
age verification technology. But it is worth noting that the legislation places the responsibility on the platforms, not the users, so not on young people or their parents. Users are not going to face penalties for attempting to access these platforms. Now, in terms of the legal threat, Google may follow through on that, and that could involve challenging this legislation in
the Federal court in order to avoid that. You know, purely speculating here, but the government might end up goiating or working with them to kind of prevent legal action from going all the way to court, and that could look like, you know, some flexibility on the technical implementation of age verification or some delays. So the legal threat
could potentially delay implementation. But given the bipartisan support that we've seen for this legislation and the substantial work that's already been done on the age verification trials, the government seems, you know, pretty sternly committed to proceeding with the December deadline.
Something tells me we are going to be hearing a lot more about it in the months to come, exactly. And thank you so much for explaining that. Thank you, and thank you so much for listening to this episode of The Daily os or you might be listening or watching on YouTube hopefully you're over sixteen.
Hello.
We'll be back this afternoon with your evening headlines, but until then, have a good day.
My name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Arunda Bungelung Calcuttin woman country. The Daily oz acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the Gadigal people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest Rate island and nations. We pay our respects to the first peoples of these countries, both past and present,