Report Australia’s Teen Screen Lockdown: YouTube Joins Social Media Ban

[webfact]

Picture courtesy of The Keyword

 

In a groundbreaking move, Australia has included YouTube in its upcoming ban on social media access for under-16s, set to commence this December. The restriction, which initially targeted platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X, and Snapchat, will now also prevent teenagers from holding YouTube accounts. Although the restriction allows viewing, it no longer allows uploading content or interacting.

 

Google, YouTube’s parent company, had hoped for an exemption, arguing the platform provides value to young Australians, claiming it’s not true social media. However, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, highlighted the platform as a major source of harmful content for ages 10 to 15, prompting its inclusion. Amid global interest, countries like Norway are considering similar actions, with the UK contemplating involvement.

 

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese assured parents that the ban, while not a complete solution, is a significant step towards combating social harm. The move has sparked debates, with a spokesperson from YouTube expressing disappointment and hinting at continued discussions with the government. Reports even emerged of potential legal action threatened by Google to contest the ban.

 

Federal Communications Minister Anika Wells emphasised the need to protect youngsters from predatory algorithms. Despite acknowledging the usefulness of social media, she insisted this action is necessary for protecting children amidst a digital landscape comparable to "swimming in an ocean with sharks."

 

Exemptions will apply to apps related to gaming, messaging, education, and health, which are considered less harmful. Tech companies failing to adhere to these new rules could face hefty penalties, up to A$50 million (around 1.18 billion Thai Baht), should they fail to restrict youth accounts as mandated, reported BBC.

 

The new rules aim to enforce rigorous age verification and compliance strategies, ensure existing accounts are shut down, and prevent new creations. Detailed plans on the ban’s implementation are expected to be formally introduced to federal parliament imminently.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from BBC 2025-07-30

 

 

[Smokey and the Bandit]

Good, should be implemented worldwide ?

[brewsterbudgen]

Luddites.

 

 

[dinsdale]

It's ridiculous IMHO. Bit like all the stupid cencorship on YT. 

[Gsxrnz]

Just another level of soviet style government nanny state intrusion into the disappearing family unit. A strong family unit and social unity are the enemy of the state.

 

Big Brother knows what's best for you, all hail Big Brother. 

[boloaf]

They try to make out that it's to protect kids, but it isn't. it's to prevent any platform from putting out contentious material for fear of being shut down. The European and Australian governments are in bed with the mainstream media, so the only pro-right material we see comes from the social media peopl., This is the reason for this law.

[Woke to Sounds]

4 minutes ago, boloaf said:

They try to make out that it's to protect kids, but it isn't.

 

Nailed it.

 

What a laff. The kids can watch but can't upload or interact.

 

Can't have them voicing alternative opinions can we.

 

Mind you YT will give the boot to anyone who ain't parroting the scripted reality nonsense, so they're no better than the govt gnomes.

 

Yet the Wickedpedia 'fact checkers' get a free ride on there.

 

The noose of the loosh matrix ever tightens...

[Rampant Rabbit]

if they could just throw in climate change to protect the environment in with their BS that would surely do it................suckers!!

[Pla Simon]

The shortcomings of the aggressive algorithms media platforms employ  have most certainly been amplified by the "shorts" sections.

 

Predatory mechanisms of bias and control - inflammatory platforming of bots and misinformation campaigns, with little in the way of checks and balances.

 

These need banning immediately.

 

They all jumped on the band wagon after tiktok's rise in popularity / revenue.

 

Awful, soul sucking, brain deadening  tripe - inciting a doom scrolling, manipulated populace in it's wake - cashing in on rhetoric / misery. 

[carlyai]

53 minutes ago, Gsxrnz said:

Just another level of soviet style government nanny state intrusion into the disappearing family unit. A strong family unit and social unity are the enemy of the state.

 

Big Brother knows what's best for you, all hail Big Brother. 

As well as not having an EV or house Solar you don't have young children.

Children can still access Children's content.

[carlyai]

17 minutes ago, boloaf said:

They try to make out that it's to protect kids, but it isn't. it's to prevent any platform from putting out contentious material for fear of being shut down. The European and Australian governments are in bed with the mainstream media, so the only pro-right material we see comes from the social media peopl., This is the reason for this law.

No, it's to protect kids from harmful content. 

[carlyai]

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Luddites.

 

 

No Australians. Social media platforms could keep harmful content away from young children, but they don't so our forward thinking government has to do some of the job for them.

[grain]

Nothing about protecting kids, that's the BS they pull all the time when they want to bring in more controls and restrictions. They want to control what's being said on social media. So if "Big Ears" says Albo is a tosser and a commie lackey, they want to know "Big Ears" true identity to take action. Anyway, kids hardly go anywhere near FB these days, FB is mainly geriatrics posting photos of their dinners and their holidays.

[carlyai]

3 minutes ago, grain said:

Nothing about protecting kids, that's the BS they pull all the time when they want to bring in more controls and restrictions. They want to control what's being said on social media. So if "Big Ears" says Albo is a tosser and a commie lackey, they want to know "Big Ears" true identity to take action. Anyway, kids hardly go anywhere near FB these days, FB is mainly geriatrics posting photos of their dinners and their holidays.

Law's for most of the social media platforms. For children under 16.

What's harmful about that?

[angryguy]

1 hour ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

Good, should be implemented worldwide ?

Agreed. Alot of morons here disagree though and want kids mental health destroyed

[ezzra]

Too young for TikTok and YouTube but old enough to vote, Nice, makes sense.

[carlyai]

4 minutes ago, ezzra said:

Too young for TikTok and YouTube but old enough to vote, Nice, makes sense.

You talking about Australia? 

Voting age is 18.

Media ban is for children under 16.

[ezzra]

2 minutes ago, carlyai said:

You talking about Australia? 

Voting age is 18.

Media ban is for children under 16.

They're considering lowering it to 16.

[Hakuna Matata]

This is a step in the right direction! I wish Thailand had followed it as well.

[James105]

6 hours ago, webfact said:

Amid global interest, countries like Norway are considering similar actions, with the UK contemplating involvement.

 

Well of course the UK is as well.  Any dissenting voices to this absolute shambles of a government must be censored by any and all means.  Any complainers with the temerity to stick up for the concepts of "free speech" (which is essential for any country that claims to be a democracy) will be dismissed with the line "well if you don't want to protect kids you must support the predators".  This is often said without any irony whatsoever by the same people who brought us the cover up of the mass rape of tens of thousands of girls/children by the Pakistani muslim gangs.  

 

How long before Australia and the UK join the likes of China, Russia, North Korea, Iran et all before VPNs are banned as well I wonder.  

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, ezzra said:

They're considering lowering it to 16.

How could they possibly enforce that?

[dinsdale]

1 hour ago, carlyai said:

You talking about Australia? 

Voting age is 18.

Media ban is for children under 16.

Old enough to be having sex tough.

[Will B Good]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

How could they possibly enforce that?

 

 

Punitive penalties aimed at providers............. A$50 million fines.

 

They are going to have to go all in to show they've busted a gut re: age verification.

 

Of course any adult could easily sign up and give an under 16 their login details???????

[carlyai]

1 hour ago, James105 said:

 

Well of course the UK is as well.  Any dissenting voices to this absolute shambles of a government must be censored by any and all means.  Any complainers with the temerity to stick up for the concepts of "free speech" (which is essential for any country that claims to be a democracy) will be dismissed with the line "well if you don't want to protect kids you must support the predators".  This is often said without any irony whatsoever by the same people who brought us the cover up of the mass rape of tens of thousands of girls/children by the Pakistani muslim gangs.  

 

How long before Australia and the UK join the likes of China, Russia, North Korea, Iran et all before VPNs are banned as well I wonder.  

The new law is about protecting young children from inappropriate content. 

What's wrong with that?

[carlyai]

Just now, Will B Good said:

 

 

Punitive penalties aimed at providers............. A$50 million fines.

 

They are going to have to go all in to show they've busted a gut re: age verification.

 

Of course any adult could easily sign up and give an under 16 their login details???????

Yes they could and some parents probably will.

That's up to the parents. 

 

[Will B Good]

Just now, carlyai said:

Yes they could and some parents probably will.

That's up to the parents. 

 

 

Very true.

 

The platforms might also have to show serious efforts to analyse usage patterns, word/sentence structure and anything else they can think of that might ID underage users.......cat and mouse.

[carlyai]

1 minute ago, Will B Good said:

 

Very true.

 

The platforms might also have to show serious efforts to analyse usage patterns, word/sentence structure and anything else they can think of that might ID underage users.......cat and mouse.

Yes, I think facial recognition as well.

[brewsterbudgen]

11 minutes ago, carlyai said:

The new law is about protecting young children from inappropriate content. 

What's wrong with that?

But banning all social media is 'protecting' them against all content!  Why not let parents control what their children do?  Maybe it's an Australian parenting problem?

[James105]

23 minutes ago, carlyai said:

The new law is about protecting young children from inappropriate content. 

What's wrong with that?

 

No, it really isn't.   Even if it was designed with good intentions (it wasn't) it will have the opposite effect.   YouTube in this example has moderated content.  It's relatively safe.  There is no porn on it.  So if a kid wants to access it or its equivalent then they will use a VPN.  That VPN provider is outside of government control.   It could be provided by a foreign state (Russia, China etc).  That kid then provides their details to that VPN provider.  That VPN provider can see everything that kid does.   Everything that kid does or accesses is invisible to the government (pretending its censorious policy is for keeping kids safe), but transparent to the potentially malicious VPN provider.   VPNs are the gateway drug to the dark web.    So instead of using safe and moderated YouTube content now they are accessing snuff videos and the most extreme, radicalizing content the internet can provide.

 

That's what is wrong with that.   

 

But... but.. but they can outlaw VPNs you say?   Welcome to China, Iran, Russia and North Korea as that is the type of country that outlaws VPNs and are no doubt pretending to their idiot citizens it is for their "kids safety".   

[dinsdale]

The biggest problem and IMHO it's huge is device addiction and this is for all ages though mainly younger ages (below 50?) Never hear a peep about this.