A prominent Australian businessman claims the Albanese government’s “world-leading” legislation to ban all children under 16 from social media will “creep in a national ID card”.
Matt Barrie, chief executive of outsourcing marketplace Freelancer, said Labour’s “completely mental” plans are “literally Orwellian, it’s pretty much the definition of fascism”.
Social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and X will have just one year after the law is passed to determine how to enforce the strict age limit.
There will be no exemptions if children already have accounts, or if their parents or guardians give them permission to use the sites. Children and parents will not be reprimanded for breaking the rules, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said, but social media companies will face sanctions.
The Government has not yet explained how it expects social media platforms to enforce the age limit.
Meta, which owns Instagram and Facebook, among other apps, said it will comply with the age limit but has expressed concern that current technology is inadequate to enforce it effectively.
“The idea that you can somehow force the industry to be in a technological place that it’s not in is probably a little misinterpreted in terms of where the industry is,” the global security chief told The Guardian. by Meta, Antigone Davis. .
“The current state of age monitoring technology…requires a level of personally identifiable information to be shared.”
This would likely involve some type of facial recognition software, with a form of identification required to confirm someone’s identity.
in a interview with veteran Liberal MP Russell Broadbent, Mr Barrie He noted the far-reaching implications of banning those under 16 from using social media.
Matt Barrie, chief executive of outsourcing marketplace Freelancer, said Labour’s “completely mental” plans are “literally Orwellian, it’s pretty much the definition of fascism”.
“No one wants to be forced to charge their license to use the Internet, which is basically what this is,” he said.
“The only way to prevent children 16 years old and younger (from using) the Internet is to upload their ID to all Internet platforms where they chat or watch videos. or whatever.
“And really this is a stealthy way of introducing a national ID card.”
Barrie said his message to Albanese is: “I don’t know what you’re doing.” “I literally have no idea what you’re doing.”
“It appears to be the actions of someone who has a very weak will who wants to control the narrative on the Internet,” he said.
The Prime Minister, however, sees things very differently, saying that “social media is harming our children and I’m going to ask for time.”
He said he had spoken to “thousands of parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles” about the issue.
“They, like me, are very concerned about the safety of our children online,” Albanese said.
‘I want Australian families to know the government has their back. I want parents to be able to say, “Sorry, buddy, that’s against the law.”
In August 2023, speaking on the Neil Mitchell Asks Why podcast, Albanese went much further.
When Mitchell asked him what his first act would be if he were a dictator, he responded that he would “ban social media.”
When asked why, Albanese said there were “a couple of things.”
“One of them are keyboard warriors who can say anything anonymously and without any fear,” he said.
“The kind of things they would never tell you face to face, they can simply state as fact.”
The issue is also dividing academics, even among those at the same university.
Professor Therese Keane of La Trobe University supports the proposal to ban under-16s from using social media.
“Social media is affecting our children in many ways, from self-esteem issues to the inability to interact in person, to misinformation, harmful content and dangerous challenges on TikTok,” she said.
‘Social media companies cannot and will not self-regulate their platforms. It is a very encouraging and brave step that the government has taken to take control.
‘Social media companies have been given ample opportunities to address these issues, but it is not in their best interest to do so.
“These companies must face the reality that their products have a negative impact on children.”
But Dr Alexia Maddox, Professor Keane’s colleague at La Trobe University, disagreed with a “blanket ban”.
“While protecting young people online is crucial, recent evidence suggests that the relationship between social media use and young people’s mental health is more complex than public discourse suggests,” said Dr. Maddox. .
‘The timing of this proposal, before the election, appears to capitalize on parents’ anxieties rather than addressing the nuanced evidence base.
‘The research community is divided on this issue. Some experts advocate for access restrictions, while others emphasize digital rights and the importance of building resilience online.’
Dr Maddox called on the government to look at the situation more broadly.
“What is clear is that blanket bans can create unintended consequences, potentially driving young people into less regulated spaces or isolating them from valuable support networks,” he said.
“Instead of rushed legislation, we need evidence-based policies that address platform design, improve digital literacy, and create safer online environments for all users.”
