Alright, so let's get into it.

Hi, welcome to another episode of ColdFusion.

For the better part of a decade, we've all known about the negative impacts of social media on children and youth.

To combat this, the Australian government has just introduced a bill to ban all children 16 or younger from social media.

But is everything as it seems?

Right now, there's discussion and massive vocal concerns for government privacy violations and even free speech.

So this isn't just about the privacy or collecting data about kids, this is literally everybody accessing social media.

That's how it has to work, isn't it?

Yes.

In this episode, we'll explore what's in the bill, how it's going to work and unfortunately, how this could lead to a future can of worms.

You are watching ColdFusion TV.

On the surface, this all sounds great.

There's been internal studies by Meta and a plethora of external studies confirming the negative effect of social media on kids.

Randomised trials have been conducted where young participants are split into two groups.

The control group who use social media normally and another group that reduced their social media usage for a few weeks.

And what do you know?

The group who use social media less were less lonely and depressed.

The synopsis to all of this is that a bit of social media use per day is healthy for kids but after about an hour or so, it all goes downhill.

Now in the mid-2020s, for the first time, governments are doing something about it.

The proposed bill in Australia will ban those under 16 from using social media.

It's the strictest bill of its kind in the world.

The ban will affect meta apps like Facebook and Instagram, TikTok, X and even YouTube is likely to be included.

In fact, YouTube sent me and presumably all other creators an email warning about the changes for creators.

And Google would only notify creators like this if it's a serious issue.

So what's in the law?

As Reuters reports, the legislation will include an age verification system to assist in blocking children from accessing social media platform.

A number of countries have already vowed to curb social media use by children through legislation though Australia's policy is one of the most stringent.

The bill has the highest age limit of any country, 16 and pre-existing accounts will be nuked.

And there's also no exemption for parental consent.

The ban appears to be a popular move.

According to a 2024 YouGov Australia survey, 61% of Australians polled support restricting access to social media to those younger than the age of 17.

Even the opposition party is in support.

So the big question, how will this work?

Well, Australia is trialling two methods to determine who's under the age of 16.

One method is to use a government ID and the other method is by using biometric data.

We'll get to this can of worms later, but let's see what the Australian government has said.

Australia's e-safety commissioner recommended a quote, double-blind tokenised approach, end quote.

This means that information would be provided to a verifying third party and that third party would certify the user's age and give that information to the social media platforms anonymously.

Under this system, the details about the child aren't going to be revealed.

In a 2024 Australian e-safety commissioner report, they looked to the EU for an extremely cutting-edge solution by using cryptographic encryption for a so-called, quote, age assurance token, end quote.

And these are anonymous, stored on device or in an app.

Another idea being talked about is to utilise user behavioural patterns and algorithm will then determine the rough age of the user.

Other options to filter and determine age include facial scanning, either from a camera or in the form of an ID scan.

And this is where the scepticism begins to build.

So proponents do say that this will keep children safe, encourage them to live in the real world and give them back the childhood that they were robbed of.

But there was an interesting moment during the Prime Minister's announcement of the bill.

During question time, when asked, will Australians have to be prepared to scan their faces when using social media?

The answer wasn't exactly straight.

Should Australians be prepared for having their faces scanned to use social media?

Should they be prepared to upload their documents to some sort of government database that social media companies can then tap into for age verification?

I mean, what are the options here?

As you say, the age assurance trial hasn't been finalised yet.

Well, this is exactly what the age assurance trial is informing.

But let's be clear too, these platforms know their users better than anyone.

These platforms understand their habits, their capabilities, what sort of content should be driven to them and what their behaviours are.

So in this year that we will take in terms of implementation, that will be the key focus.

And as the Prime Minister mentioned, it's very important to have privacy protections in place.

This is a complex area, but it is one that we are determined to get right.

It's one that we are determined to implement because we know what's at stake here.

Interestingly, on public TV, when discussing the issue of the bill and face scanning for all Australians, the answer is a straight no.

You're right, this is the first country in the world to do this.

We should be proud of that.

I don't think we're going to be the last.

You're saying the tech companies have to come up with a plan to prove that they're not.

So is that facial recognition, do you think?

No, I don't think it will be.

But behind the scenes in the Communication Legislation Committee, the answer seems to be yes.

Testing of using biometric information, including facial age estimation and voice analysis.

Take me through in more detail what that amounts to.

Some of the products on the market that purport to do age assurance involve estimation using facial features, voice analysis and other biometric information.

So that means like a 180 degree like you do for your face ID?

Is that what that means?

Not just a selfie?

Yeah, I can't speak with any details, but there are companies and tools in the market which purport to be able to accurately estimate a child's age using things like facial features, proportion of bone allocation, distance between eyes, etc.

I mean, there's a range of different utilising, I should say, machine learning and AI capabilities.

People with existing accounts, will they have to subject this, give this biometric information to keep their accounts?

Like a 50 year old have to do that?

Where the platform doesn't already hold the age inference data that provides them, that constitutes a reasonable step, it is possible they will be required to provide some further assurance.

Thank you.

And with that, we come to the other side of the argument.

On the other side of the aisle, people argue that banning kids under 16 is just a thinly veiled attempt at mass surveillance.

Of course, if you're testing to see if someone's 13 or 14 or 15 or 16, you're also testing to see, by definition, if they're 16 plus.

So if there's going to be age verification, everybody is going to have to go through an age verification process, won't they?

Yes. So this isn't just about the privacy or collecting data about kids.

This is literally everybody accessing social media.

That's how it has to work, isn't it?

Yes.

Digital rights activist, Meredith Whitaker, tells the Sydney Morning Herald, quote, my God, banning people under 16 from using social media will not work.

It would basically be creating a system to monitor internet usage at a whole population scale because you can't know that somebody is over the age of 16 without checking everyone.

End quote.

And this all comes to a head when Australia passed the Digital ID Bill of 2024, a national digital identity system.

Australians became familiar with scanning QR codes during the COVID pandemic, but the government says this is different.

Text is something brand new and world leading.

Labor says businesses will soon be able to opt into technology called Trust Exchange, to verify a customer's identity, allowing personal information the government already has to be shared with the tap of a phone.

Cyber experts have concerns about that record.

If the government's involved in every transaction, then they have the potential to know that I've gone to this hotel at this time.

But the government says it won't be tracking how people use the technology.

Australians would understandably want to be satisfied that the privacy issues have been thought through here.

While entering the system as voluntary at this time, it wasn't without opposition.

The Labor government introduced legislation for a digital ID into the Senate last year.

And curiously, it was passed without any debate being allowed, which should be a warning sign.

Lisa Given from the Melbourne University RMIT speaks. Some people, very cynically, are saying the ban around social media is just to push the government's decision to implement a digital ID system.

Because if a ban comes into place, and we say no one under the age of 16 can have access to a social media platform, that really means that every single user is going to have to prove that they are over 16.

So in the process, they would have to join the digital ID system of the Australian government.

And that's not all.

The Australian government is rushing through a vague bill that cracks down on misinformation.

And that's misinformation on subjects including elections and negative commentary about the economy or financial system.

This bill does cover elections and political thought, clearly in violation even of the United Nations.

And the fact that elections, referendums, and we've just had one, public health preventative measures and imminent harm to economy or financial markets are just some of the topics that will be covered by this bill is chilling.

Whether you're progressive, whether you're conservative, whether you're from the left or right, we need to rise up and oppose this bill.

The government's function is not to regulate in a free society the content of people's minds.

It isn't their role to arbitrate over the free thought and free expression and free speech of people.

And you're getting that from every quarter of Australian politics and Australian society in opposition to this bill.

It's universal.

There is no support for this bill.

And even the United Nations has said this would be a violation of the right to free speech.

With all of that context, now you can see why some Australians are raising an eyebrow about the timing of all of this.

And just a last minute update to all of this, as I was making this episode.

The misinformation bill was so heavy handed and authoritarian that not one member of the opposition signed off on it.

A bill aimed at cracking down on misinformation and disinformation on the internet has been pulled by the federal government.

The bill failed to gain support in the Senate with the Greens and Coalition against it.

So thankfully, Australians can breathe easy knowing that the misinformation bill has been scrapped.

Of course, there's still the digital ID issue.

But the craziest thing is no one voted for this.

And there's not even any debate.

But let's move on to other concerns about the banning of kids.

Others think that the legislation could just backfire altogether.

There's a possibility that young people would just use alternative apps in secret.

There could be an Australian youth exodus from apps like TikTok, YouTube and meta apps and a migration to those apps that aren't included in the ban, like Rumble, Kik and even more obscure apps.

These apps are more often the Wild West and could lead impressionable teens down an even darker path.

Another form of backfiring could come from a lack of peer support.

Social media may have many negatives, but it's also where young people go to find each other and find people going through similar things to connect.

We're just not sure of the impact taking that away could have.

And others still say that it really should be a responsibility of the parents or that these measures should be done at an app store level even before the kids get to the login screen of a social media page.

And after all of this fuss, the ban may not be effective.

Critics state that a simple VPN could bypass the Australian ban, rendering it useless.

Of course, this depends on the final implementation, but from what's proposed so far, the ban might have loopholes and may not work unless it's worldwide.

So what's next?

Well, the legislation will be introduced into the Australian Parliament this year and the laws will come into effect 12 months after being passed by lawmakers.

Another update to this story, the Under 16 Social Media Ban Bill has officially been passed.

The talk in the media now seems to be around forcing social media companies to come up with solutions in collaboration with the Australian government.

The public doesn't know how this ban is going to be implemented and at this rate I doubt the government does either.

So we're all just going to have to wait and see.

So all in all, this is the way I look at it.

The social media ban comes from a great place.

Everyone can agree that we want to protect kids online.

But we should ask ourselves, is this really the best way to do it?

Parents should be the first line of defence, not the government.

Even though it's a noble cause, I do have concerns over its effectiveness and the glaring potential for abuse by the Australian government.

But that's just my opinion.

What do you guys think?

Feel free to let me know in the comments section below.

Also feel free to send this to anyone who would be interested.

You know, when you look at the social media bill in more detail, it doesn't seem very logical, does it?

But something that definitely is logical is brilliant.org.

Brilliant is where you learn by doing, with thousands of interactive lessons in maths, science, data analytics, programming and AI.

They have courses on logic, which teach you how to think logically in a fun and entertaining way.

Each lesson on Brilliant allows you to play with concepts, a method proven to be six times more effective than watching lecture videos.

Plus, all content on Brilliant is crafted by teachers, and professionals from MIT, Caltech, Duke, Microsoft, Google, and more.

Learn at your own pace to brush up on a project for work, or just for your own self-development and curiosity.

To try everything Brilliant has to offer for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org.coldfusion.

You'll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.