This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/05/australia-government-social-media-ban-youtube-exemption-criticism-statements
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 3 | Version 4 |
|---|---|
| Social media firms criticise ‘irrational’ exemption of YouTube from Australia’s under-16s ban | Social media firms criticise ‘irrational’ exemption of YouTube from Australia’s under-16s ban |
| (32 minutes later) | |
| Meta, TikTok and Snapchat release statements in campaign protesting Labor’s handling of contested legislation | Meta, TikTok and Snapchat release statements in campaign protesting Labor’s handling of contested legislation |
| Meta, TikTok and Snapchat have criticised the Albanese government’s handling of the social media ban for under-16s, launching a campaign against what they have labelled an “irrational” and “shortsighted” decision to exempt YouTube from the contested legislation. | Meta, TikTok and Snapchat have criticised the Albanese government’s handling of the social media ban for under-16s, launching a campaign against what they have labelled an “irrational” and “shortsighted” decision to exempt YouTube from the contested legislation. |
| The three tech platforms made submissions to a government consultation process on the ban – rushed through parliament at the end of 2024 with little inquiry – calling for a re-evaluation of Labor’s approach and demanding that YouTube be subject to the same restrictions they will be. | The three tech platforms made submissions to a government consultation process on the ban – rushed through parliament at the end of 2024 with little inquiry – calling for a re-evaluation of Labor’s approach and demanding that YouTube be subject to the same restrictions they will be. |
| “It is illogical to restrict two platforms while exempting the third,” TikTok’s director of public policy in Australia and New Zealand, Ella Woods-Joyce, wrote in the company’s submission. “It would be akin to banning the sale of soft drinks to minors but exempting Coca-Cola.” | “It is illogical to restrict two platforms while exempting the third,” TikTok’s director of public policy in Australia and New Zealand, Ella Woods-Joyce, wrote in the company’s submission. “It would be akin to banning the sale of soft drinks to minors but exempting Coca-Cola.” |
| Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email | Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email |
| Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email | Sign up for Guardian Australia’s breaking news email |
| YouTube was initially expected to be included in the ban but, after lobbying efforts, the Google-owned platform was exempted. In her second reading speech on the bill, the communications minister, Michelle Rowland, said exemptions would be given to services including ReachOut’s PeerChat, Kids Helpline’s MyCircle, Google Classroom, YouTube, “and other apps that can be shown to function like social media in their interactivity but operate with a significant purpose to enable young people to get the education and health support they need”. | YouTube was initially expected to be included in the ban but, after lobbying efforts, the Google-owned platform was exempted. In her second reading speech on the bill, the communications minister, Michelle Rowland, said exemptions would be given to services including ReachOut’s PeerChat, Kids Helpline’s MyCircle, Google Classroom, YouTube, “and other apps that can be shown to function like social media in their interactivity but operate with a significant purpose to enable young people to get the education and health support they need”. |
| The ban is due to come into effect in December, with social media platforms required “to take reasonable steps to prevent” under-16s holding accounts on their services. It remains unclear how the rules will be applied or enforced and what – if any – additional personal data Australians may have to hand over. | The ban is due to come into effect in December, with social media platforms required “to take reasonable steps to prevent” under-16s holding accounts on their services. It remains unclear how the rules will be applied or enforced and what – if any – additional personal data Australians may have to hand over. |
| Guardian Australia understands that an age-assurance trial, run by the government, remains in its early stages. | Guardian Australia understands that an age-assurance trial, run by the government, remains in its early stages. |
| Apple announced new technology that may be able to tell if children under 16 attempt to use certain iPhone apps. | Apple announced new technology that may be able to tell if children under 16 attempt to use certain iPhone apps. |
| Meta (which owns Instagram and Facebook), TikTok and Snapchat published statements at midnight Australian time in what appeared to be a coordinated campaign against YouTube’s exemption. | Meta (which owns Instagram and Facebook), TikTok and Snapchat published statements at midnight Australian time in what appeared to be a coordinated campaign against YouTube’s exemption. |
| It presented another front in the tech industry’s fights with the Albanese government, after criticism from the X owner, Elon Musk, over takedown notices and unrest about the news bargaining incentive. | It presented another front in the tech industry’s fights with the Albanese government, after criticism from the X owner, Elon Musk, over takedown notices and unrest about the news bargaining incentive. |
| The three tech companies argued in separate submissions to the government’s consultation process that YouTube functioned similarly to their services and should not be treated differently. | The three tech companies argued in separate submissions to the government’s consultation process that YouTube functioned similarly to their services and should not be treated differently. |
| TikTok gave the strongest criticism, calling YouTube’s carve-out a “sweetheart deal”, and saying it was “irrational and indefensible”. | TikTok gave the strongest criticism, calling YouTube’s carve-out a “sweetheart deal”, and saying it was “irrational and indefensible”. |
| “While experts may debate the merits of restricting teens’ access to social media, now that Parliament has delivered its verdict, Australians deserve a system that works and industry deserves a level playing field,” the platform’s statement said. | “While experts may debate the merits of restricting teens’ access to social media, now that Parliament has delivered its verdict, Australians deserve a system that works and industry deserves a level playing field,” the platform’s statement said. |
| “Handing one major social media platform a sweetheart deal of this nature – while subjecting every other platform in Australia to stringent compliance obligations – would be illogical, anti-competitive, and shortsighted.” | “Handing one major social media platform a sweetheart deal of this nature – while subjecting every other platform in Australia to stringent compliance obligations – would be illogical, anti-competitive, and shortsighted.” |
| TikTok’s statement suggested the government had “begun its analysis from the starting position that YouTube must be exempt and then attempted, half-heartedly, to reverse-engineer defensible supporting evidence”. | TikTok’s statement suggested the government had “begun its analysis from the starting position that YouTube must be exempt and then attempted, half-heartedly, to reverse-engineer defensible supporting evidence”. |
| Meta accused the government of a “disregard of evidence and transparency” in deciding how the ban applied, claiming YouTube’s exemption “makes a mockery of the Government’s stated intention, when passing the age ban law, to protect young people”. | Meta accused the government of a “disregard of evidence and transparency” in deciding how the ban applied, claiming YouTube’s exemption “makes a mockery of the Government’s stated intention, when passing the age ban law, to protect young people”. |
| Sign up to Breaking News Australia | Sign up to Breaking News Australia |
| Get the most important news as it breaks | Get the most important news as it breaks |
| after newsletter promotion | after newsletter promotion |
| Meta also claimed the government was breaching its commitments to public consultation. | Meta also claimed the government was breaching its commitments to public consultation. |
| The companies pointed to a February report from the eSafety Commission noting that YouTube was the most popular service among children aged 13 to 15, with 73% in that age group reporting having used YouTube in 2024. | The companies pointed to a February report from the eSafety Commission noting that YouTube was the most popular service among children aged 13 to 15, with 73% in that age group reporting having used YouTube in 2024. |
| Meta said: “Given YouTube is the most popular social media service among young Australians, its exclusion from the ban law is in direct contradiction to the government’s stated intent”. | Meta said: “Given YouTube is the most popular social media service among young Australians, its exclusion from the ban law is in direct contradiction to the government’s stated intent”. |
| A Meta spokesperson said in a separate statement that it wanted “equal application of the law”. | A Meta spokesperson said in a separate statement that it wanted “equal application of the law”. |
| “We are concerned the government’s rapid, closed-door consultation process on the minimum age law is undermining necessary discourse,” the spokesperson said. | “We are concerned the government’s rapid, closed-door consultation process on the minimum age law is undermining necessary discourse,” the spokesperson said. |
| “A young person with a YouTube account experiences the very features cited by the government to justify the law, including algorithmic content recommendations, autoplay, social interaction features, and persistent notifications, as well as exposure to harmful content.” | “A young person with a YouTube account experiences the very features cited by the government to justify the law, including algorithmic content recommendations, autoplay, social interaction features, and persistent notifications, as well as exposure to harmful content.” |
| TikTok’s statement said YouTube’s Shorts operated in a similar way to TikTok’s feed and Instagram’s story function. | TikTok’s statement said YouTube’s Shorts operated in a similar way to TikTok’s feed and Instagram’s story function. |
| “Even when YouTube as a whole is compared alongside TikTok, there is nothing that justifies the Government’s different and punitive treatment of our platform,” it said. “The Government’s arguments citing unique educative value do not survive even the most cursory of closer examinations.” | “Even when YouTube as a whole is compared alongside TikTok, there is nothing that justifies the Government’s different and punitive treatment of our platform,” it said. “The Government’s arguments citing unique educative value do not survive even the most cursory of closer examinations.” |
| Snapchat’s submission repeated its previous position that it should be treated as a messaging service, and that it supported the exclusion of messaging services from the ban. It argued that if Snapchat was captured by the rules due to its own “story” function, other platforms with “equivalent” features should be as well. | |
| “The exclusion rule for messaging services must apply a fair and impartial standard that applies equally across all messaging services,” Snap Inc said in its submission. | “The exclusion rule for messaging services must apply a fair and impartial standard that applies equally across all messaging services,” Snap Inc said in its submission. |