The Australian government is on the verge of a landmark decision, one that reflects a fundamental shift in the media landscape. The upcoming ban on social media for under-16s, set to take effect in December, is the culmination of a decades-long evolution in how information and commerce are intertwined.
Thirty years ago, the internet began its ascendancy, displacing television and radio as the primary advertising and information medium. This was just the beginning. The advent of mobile phones with internet access and integrated payment functions transformed devices into digital wallets, blurring the lines between communication and commerce. Video streaming, in particular, has become an exceptionally lucrative sector, creating a new class of powerful tech giants fiercely protective of their vested interests—even when facing ethical scrutiny.
This is the backdrop to the current battle. The Social Services Minister, Tanya Plibersek, has made it clear the government will not be “bullied out of taking action by any social media giant.” But these companies, with their immense resources and influence, are putting up a fight.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, is employing a familiar playbook of public relations. Through “screen smart” events for “parent creators” and the announcement of new safety features like DM blocking and image censoring, Meta is subtly arguing that its platforms are responsible and safe for teens. This strategy aims to demonstrate proactive self-regulation, hoping to secure an exemption from the ban.
However, the most aggressive pushback is coming from YouTube. The platform, which was initially promised an exemption by former communications minister Michelle Rowland, is now fighting to avoid being included in the ban. A recommendation from the eSafety commissioner, prompted by research showing YouTube is the platform where children most frequently encounter harmful material, has put the company on the defensive.
In a full-court press, YouTube has launched a lobbying blitz, featuring full-page newspaper ads and billboards touting itself as a “category of one.” The company has also sent a letter to the current Communications Minister, Anika Wells, raising the threat of a high court challenge. The message is clear: YouTube, with its vast library of free, high-quality content, sees itself as a video-sharing platform, not a social media service. But the government, backed by the eSafety commissioner, appears unconvinced, and the ban will include major platforms like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, and YouTube.
This is more than just a regulatory dispute. It is a clash between government policy aimed at protecting a vulnerable generation and the unwavering business models of tech giants who have built their empires on a seamless integration of content and commerce, and will not willingly relinquish their foothold, particularly among the youth who represent their future market.
As Australia’s teen social media ban looms, here’s how the platforms are lobbying for an exemption
Comments