A recent YouGov poll found that an overwhelming 77% of Australians support the new social media laws. Furthermore, a recently released Deloitte Media & Entertainment Consumer Insights Report, asked more than 2,000 Australians across five generations their thoughts on social media age restrictions. Gen Z is as supportive – if not more – of such restrictions as older generations. 91% of Gen Zs agreed that “there should be stronger restrictions on children’s access to social media.”

These findings mirror what we've heard and seen as we've visited schools. Gen-Z breathes a sigh of relief when we take away the fear of missing out and the moment by moment indication of whether or not they belong in their peer group.

The Australian government has said that the onus will be on social media platforms to enforce an effective age gate. Parents won’t be responsible, teenagers won’t be responsible and the government isn’t trying to force digital ID on you. The creators of the product will be responsible for making sure those who shouldn’t have access, don’t.

“What’s more challenging, figuring out if someone is younger than 16, or building a global real-time communication network that stores a near-infinite amount of text, video, and audio retrievable by billions of simultaneous users in milliseconds with 24/7 uptime? The social media giants know where you are, what you’re doing, how you’re feeling, and if you’re experiencing suicidal ideation … but they can’t figure out your age. You can’t make this shit up.”

The platforms could:

• Use AI to estimate when a user is likely underage based on their online behaviours, and seek age verification from at-risk people.
• Use the facial recognition capabilities already built into a device to scan a users face on account sign up and if they look underage, ask for ID, just like the bloke at the liquor store would.
• Collect sufficient information to confirm a user’s age, then wipe the information from their servers.

There is definitely an agenda to use anti-privacy rhetoric to scare us into keeping the status quo. Social media companies are already responsible for keeping our data private. That responsibility doesn’t increase or diminish with changes to the minimum age. Don’t let social media duck and weave their social responsibility.

ID checks for age verification are a safety measure, not a privacy intrusion.

The reason the platforms haven’t implemented these safety measures yet is because “it will reduce their profits, which will suppress their stock prices, and the job of a public company CEO is to increase the stock price. Period, full stop, end of strategic plan. So long as the negative impact to the stock price caused by the bad PR of teen suicide and depression is less than the positive impact of the incremental ad revenue obtained through unrestricted algorithmic manipulation of those teens, the rational, shareholder-driven thing to do is fight age-verification requirements.” - Professor Scott Galloway, NYU.

We agree that a ban alone is not a silver bullet to solve the safety of young people online. We also believe we don’t need to oppose delaying social media access in order to say yes to better education. ‘This’ vs ‘that’, or ‘legislation’ vs ‘education’, is a false dichotomy. The right answer is yes to both.

There is a direct correlation between the rise in anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self-harm and suicide amongst teenagers and the introduction of social media into their world. The situation is so bad that to keep the status quo while we work on more nuanced remedies is negligent. The best solution requires policy change AND behaviour change. One is not a substitute for the other.

We’d also love to lose the word ‘ban’ if we can. We don’t call it an ‘alcohol ban’ for teenagers, or a ban on smoking or driving before you get your license. Society has simply determined that there needs to be a level of developmental maturity in order to comprehend the risks and engage in these activities safely. Language matters.

We’re giving something up in order to gain something better. We’re losing social media in order to find social connection. It’s only 36 months, but it could change a lifetime.

Research indicates there is a significant link between feelings of loneliness and social comparison. Individuals often assess their social connections by comparing them to others. Upward social comparisons—viewing others as having better or more fulfilling relationships—can intensify feelings of loneliness. Social media, intentionally or unintentionally, trades in comparison, not belonging. Regardless of the platform’s promise of connection, the act of comparing your life to others' via your social feed is actually making you feel more lonely.

Recent data indicates that approximately 40% of Australian teenagers report feelings of loneliness. That’s two in every five teenagers. This represents a significant increase compared to past decades. In 2001, around 18.5% of young Australians were classified as lonely. In a world where teenagers have never been more digitally connected, they’ve also never been more lonely.

Social media is not community.

The goal was never to stop young people communicating via the internet or accessing entertainment or educational resources.

The components of social media that we felt qualified a service for greater regulation were:

• Gamified online interaction that makes using the service highly addictive
• Algorithms that target vulnerabilities in young people and feed unhealthy obsessions
• The ability for users to share and receive commentary from a social network, allowing online bullying to grow in the shadows of the service.

Popular apps like Snapchat, TikTok and Instagram have these features which require a level of developmental maturity in order to navigate safely. This is why we petitioned to delay access to 16.