Posts

U16’s Censorship Bill Fails to Protect Kids from Harm

,

This is the third and final session on the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 — aka U16’s Social Media Ban – an important piece of legislation being waved through by the Liberal and Labor parties with minimal debate. The Department was called to explain the bill, which of course they defended with responses that would not hold up under closer scrutiny.  If only Senators had time to do this.

Several serious revelations emerged during the Department’s testimony, including this little pearl: it’s better for foreign-owned multinational tech platforms to control children’s internet use than for parents to supervise or manage their children’s social media and online interactions. One Nation strongly disagrees.  

I also raised concerns about the YouTube exemption, which is worded in such a way that it could apply to any video streaming site, including pornographic sites. The Department’s response was to point to other regulations and codes that “supposedly” protect children from accessing porn.   What utter nonsense! Any child in this country without a parental lock can access Pornhub by simply clicking the “Are you over 18?” box. Teachers nationwide report that even primary school students are being exposed to and influenced by pornography. If this bill accomplishes anything good, it should be to prevent children from accessing pornography, which it deliberately avoids doing.  

This bill claims to be about many things – keeping children safe is not one of them.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Could you please explain the provisions around exemptions for sites that do not require a person to have an account, meaning they can simply arrive and watch? An example would be children watching cartoons on YouTube. What’s the definition here of a site that can be viewed without an account?

Mr Irwin: I guess it goes to the obligation around holding an account, or having an account, which relates to the creation or the holding of an account. So if there is any process—

Senator ROBERTS: Is it the creator’s responsibility?

Mr Irwin: Sorry?

Senator ROBERTS: Is it the creator’s responsibility? Is the account the creator’s responsibility?

Mr Irwin: No, all responsibility is on the platform. If a platform under this definition has the facility to create an account and/or has under 16s who have an account on there already, then they will have to take reasonable steps.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the functional difference in your definition between YouTube and Porn Hub?

Mr Chisholm: One contains content that is restricted content that is prohibited to be accessed by children under law. Porn Hub is a pornographic website.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that.

Mr Chisholm: YouTube has a whole range of information, including educational content and a range of information that doesn’t really match up with a site like Porn Hub.

Mr Irwin: That was the second limb of the age-assurance trial: looking at technologies for 18 or over, looking at pornographic material for age assurance. That also goes to the matter of the codes that DIGI were talking about before. Those codes relate to access to particular types of content including pornographic content.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me try and understand—

Mr Chisholm: The design of Pornhub is to provide pornographic material to people who are permitted to watch it. That’s the difference.

Senator ROBERTS: I guessed that, but I asked for the functional difference. Pornhub is 18-plus, but apparently you don’t have to prove it. Could you show me where in the legislation, in this child protection bill, you’re actually including porn sites?

Mr Chisholm: There are separate laws in relation to pornographic material, which we can step you through. This bill is more about age limits for digital platforms, imposing a 16-year age limit for digital platforms. There are other laws that prohibit access to pornographic material online including the codes process and classification system.

Mr Irwin: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s required for someone aged 16 or 17 to get access to Pornhub?

Mr Irwin: That’s subject to the codes that industry is developing right now, which DIGI talked about, in terms of what specifically is required. There is also a whole system of classification laws that are designed to prevent access to adult content by children. On top of that, there’s the eSafety Commissioner’s administration of things like basic online safety expectations and the phase 2 codes that are under development.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m glad you raised that because I was going to raise it. You exempt gaming sites because they already carry age recommendations. In fact, some video game sites are MA 15+; they’re not 16-plus. What will have to change? Will it be your bill or the MA 15+ rating?

Mr Chisholm: The bill doesn’t require them to change—

Ms Vandenbroek: Nothing will change.

Mr Chisholm: because gaming isn’t caught by the new definition. There’s nothing that requires gaming systems to change.

Senator ROBERTS: So social media is 16-plus, but video games are 15-plus.

Mr Chisholm: The policy here is to treat games as different to social media. For some of the reasons we talked about before, they are seen as a different form of content consumption and engagement to social media.

Senator ROBERTS: Doesn’t this indicate to people that this bill’s intent is not about what the government says?

Mr Chisholm: No, the bill is definitely about what the government says. It imposes a firm age limit of 16 on account creation for social media for all of the concerns and reasons outlined about the damage that’s being done to under-16s through exposure to social media. Games are also subject to classification rules, so they have their own regime they have to comply with now.

Mr Irwin: They’re subject to the broader Online Safety Act as well.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’ll get you to wrap up.

Senator ROBERTS: I have a last question. I understand that there are parental controls that parents can buy—they’re sometimes free—in the form of apps that watch over what children are watching. What alternatives are already available for parents to control children’s social media and control their exposure? Did you evaluate them, and why don’t you just hand the authority back to where it belongs—to parents—because they can do a better job of parenting their child than government can?

Mr Chisholm: The very strong feedback that we received from parents during this consultation is that they do not want to bear the burden or responsibility of making decisions that should be better reflected in the law. At the moment, parents often refer to the 13-year age limit that’s part of the US terms of service—

Mr Irwin: For privacy reasons.

Mr Chisholm: for privacy reasons, that apply in Australia. That’s often used for parents to say to their children, ‘You can’t have a social media account until you’re 13.’ It’s really important for parents to point to a standard law, an age limit, that will apply to everybody. It’s also feedback we’ve received from a lot of children. They would rather have a universal law that applies to all children under the age of 16 instead of a situation where some children have it and some children don’t, and where all of the harms that we’re aware of from exposure to social media continue to magnify. We also don’t want a situation where there is any question the parents have some legal responsibility in relation to an age limit. The very strong view of the government is that that responsibility should be borne by the platforms, not parents.

Senator ROBERTS: We’re not going to have—

Mr Chisholm: The platforms are in a much better position to control their services than parents are.

Senator ROBERTS: So we want to put parenting in the hands of social media platforms?

Mr Chisholm: The parents have said to us that they have a very strong view that they want a 16-year age limit, and that the platforms are better placed to enforce that because it is their platforms.

Senator ROBERTS: How much notice did the parents get to give their comments? Because we got 24 hours notice of the closing of submissions.

Mr Irwin: We’ve been consulting, and I will add we do have evidence that 58 per cent of parents were not aware of social media parental monitoring, and only 36 per cent actually searched for online safety information.

Senator ROBERTS: So wouldn’t it be better to educate the parents?

Mr Chisholm: We are educating parents, too. That’s part of the digital literacy and other measures we are undertaking. Education is important, but it’s not enough.

Senator ROBERTS: I meant educating parents about the controls already available to keep the control over their children in parents’ hands, not usurping it and putting it in the government’s hands.

Mr Chisholm: I think it comes back to the point that we’ve made that the very strong view here is that platforms should bear the responsibility for imposing or following an age limit, not parents, who don’t have as much information about how these platforms operate as the platforms themselves.

/by

U16’s Censorship Bill Flawed and Overreaching

,

The Inquiry into the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 — aka U16’s Social Media Ban – heard testimony from the Digital Industry Group (DIGI), the industry body for social media companies such as Google, Meta, and X (formerly Twitter). During the session, the witness was given a torrid time by some Senators who were not receiving the answers they wanted. I commend the witness for her patience.

My questions focus on the bill’s wording, which fails to clearly define core concepts. This lack of clarity makes it impossible for social media companies to implement the legislation. Instead, what it will do is grant massive power to the eSafety Commissioner. The bill is so broadly written that the eSafety Commissioner can just about do anything she wants. This is not how legislation should be drafted.

One Nation agrees with DIGI’s testimony and supports the bill being withdrawn and redrafted with proper checks and balances, clear definitions, and then subjected to proper debate.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I’m trying to understand if YouTube will or will not be included in this bill. Section 63C defines age-restricted social media platforms as ones where the service allows users to interact, which YouTube does in the comments, or allows users to post material, which YouTube does, ora significant part of the purpose is to allow interaction, which YouTube does in some channels. Do you consider that YouTube is included in this bill?  

Ms Bose: This underscores the broader challenge of this broad definition that encompasses a range of services and also the discretion it affords the minister in relation to making those determinations. I might hand to my colleague, Dr Duxbury, who may have more to add around some of the questions we have around that discretionary determination of what is in scope.  

Dr Duxbury: Senator, you are absolutely right that the bill doesn’t make clear who is in or out of scope. To us, that is a really serious flaw in the bill. It is absolutely unclear who is in or out, and we don’t know what criteria willbe used to determine these exemptions. The explanatory memorandum suggests that some services will be out of scope, but that will not occur until a future date, and that date is unknown.  

Senator ROBERTS: Speaking of the explanatory memorandum, page 21 says that children can visit sites that do not require an account. Is that your understanding?  

Dr Duxbury: That is my understanding.  

Senator ROBERTS: You said in point 3 of your submission that parliament is being asked to pass a bill without knowing how it will work. No regulator worldwide has done age assurance successfully yet—nowhere. We’ve got almost no time to discuss this in public, so I don’t know how you are even here. Thank you for being here. You say, though the government’s trial exploration of age assurance in the bill is not yet complete, only a year ago the government concluded that these technologies were ‘immature’. Could you expand on that, please. 

Dr Duxbury: The conclusion was not only that the technologies were immature but also that there were risks about the reliability of the technology and their impact on digital inclusion. We heard earlier the fact that, because these requirements will apply to all Australians, the impact will be felt not only by young people but also by other Australians, who will be required to age-verify before they get access to a very broad range of services.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is quoting from your tabled opening statement: ‘If we are proceeding on this fasttracked timetable, what is most important is that the bill contains structures for future consultation.’ You go on to say: ‘As drafted, the bill only requires that the minister seek advice from the eSafety Commissioner before making legislative rules. However, given these expert warnings of youth harm from a social media ban, the unknown technology and the privacy implications, further consultation with the community and technical experts is vital.DIGI suggests amending section 63C of the bill to include an additional requirement for a minimum 30 days of industry and public consultation before making legislative rules.’ Could you expand on that, please. 

ACTING CHAIR: As quickly as you can. 

Dr Duxbury: Sunita, did you want to take that? 

Ms Bose: Jenny, I will hand over to you, but there is an additional reflection we had over the weekend that we didn’t have a chance to include in our submission issued on Friday evening that we might touch upon here in addition to what you’ve read there, Senator Roberts, around the need for reasons for a decision. Let me hand over to you, Jenny, to elaborate. 

Dr Duxbury: We have recommended additional consultation because we think that, in the current context, it’s quite likely that the bill will proceed and proceed quickly. We understand that this committee will only have one day to basically ponder that question. If the bill is going to proceed on its current timetable then, frankly, adding in a consultation requirement seemed to be the only thing that was likely to improve it, given the complete absence of detail as to how it will be implemented. However, another possible improvement to the bill would be to require additional transparency regarding the making of these decisions. I believe the minister has the power both to include particular services within the scope of the bill and also to exclude them. To the extent that legislative instruments are going to be made to flesh out the detail of the bill, I think additional transparency could be very helpful. 

Senator ROBERTS: ‘A complete absence of detail’—thank you. 

/by