Speaker 1: I'm Ruby Jones and you're listening to seven.
Speaker 2: AM right now. TikTok is a wash with videos of
Speaker 2: how to get around the social media ban for.
Speaker 1: Under sixteens, which is due to come into effect in
Speaker 1: a week.
Speaker 2: At the same time, fringe apps like Yopah rockining up
Speaker 2: the Apple charts as teenagers plan where they'll go when
Speaker 2: the major platforms boot them off. There's also a court
Speaker 2: case underway challenging the government on whether the ban is
Speaker 2: even legal. Today, Associate editor at Kraichi, Cam Wilson on
Speaker 2: who is behind the lawsuit, whether they'll win, and how
Speaker 2: this ban could change the country. It's Wednesday, December three,
Speaker 2: so can The social media ban is due to come
Speaker 2: into effect in just a few days now, but already
Speaker 2: there is a legal challenge underway. So to begin with,
Speaker 2: can you tell me about who is trying to take
Speaker 2: the social media band.
Speaker 1: To the High Court?
Speaker 3: The group behind the High Court challenge is this new
Speaker 3: association called the Digital Freedom Project. They're led by libertarian
Speaker 3: MLC from New South Wales, John Roddick. And not much
Speaker 3: is really known about the group. It just came out
Speaker 3: of nowhere. We don't even know the people who elected
Speaker 3: John Roddick, the president. He just said that he was.
Speaker 4: Expecting that young Google or Elon Musk, these big tech platforms,
Speaker 4: that they would be taking this high court challenge. The
Speaker 4: other ones are facing fifty million.
Speaker 3: Dollar five good point, where are they?
Speaker 4: Well, they were saying they were going to do it,
Speaker 4: but I mean me and my mates sat around two
Speaker 4: months ago said well, they're not going to We're on
Speaker 4: track for no one to do anything. So we said, well,
Speaker 4: let's start the Digital Freedom Project.
Speaker 3: But the group claims to have now thousands of supporters
Speaker 3: who are who've kind of got on board, and perhaps
Speaker 3: some of them are donating to this case. The one
Speaker 3: thing that we do know that gives us a little
Speaker 3: bit of sid into the challenge is that it is
Speaker 3: being run by a war firm that has been part
Speaker 3: of a few I would call them cultural war challenges
Speaker 3: to wars in the past. And one of their solicitors
Speaker 3: who was contacting expert witnesses to appear for this challenge
Speaker 3: is Catherine Deves. She's a former Liberal candidate in Warringa
Speaker 3: who has a history of anti trans comments. Her background
Speaker 3: is notable because one of the groups that Digital Freedom
Speaker 3: Projects that will be most affected by this is LGBT teams. Sorry,
Speaker 3: I mean that definitely has gotten a little bit of
Speaker 3: attention on that. So they filed a challenge in court
Speaker 3: and they're hoping to get an injunction in the war
Speaker 3: refinding out over the next couple of days. Whether either
Speaker 3: of those two applications are successful.
Speaker 1: Interesting, okay?
Speaker 2: And what about the two teenagers that are kind of
Speaker 2: the face of it, the names to the challenge. What
Speaker 2: do we know about them and the case that they're
Speaker 2: making here?
Speaker 3: So there were two teenage plaintiffs in the case and
Speaker 3: the grounds of which has been challenged. Is this idea
Speaker 3: of the ban infringes on the implied right to freedom
Speaker 3: of political expression in Australia.
Speaker 4: There is an implied right to the freedom of political
Speaker 4: communication in this country. Okay, Now it's not written in
Speaker 4: the constitution, but they've accepted it now for about three or.
Speaker 5: Four The freedom of political communication right different in free speech.
Speaker 4: Yes, well, the Americans have got it a lot better
Speaker 4: than us, and that's what we will.
Speaker 3: Trains don't really have a explicit freedom of speech right
Speaker 3: as there are in some other countries, but there has
Speaker 3: kind of been one cobbled together through case war and
Speaker 3: other means, and so this is the grounds on which
Speaker 3: the band has been challenged.
Speaker 5: Well, I'm grateful to be the plaintiff for young Australians
Speaker 5: having like the right to free speech, and I feel
Speaker 5: with this.
Speaker 3: Band in place will be invisible.
Speaker 5: We won't be able to share our views or opinions,
Speaker 5: and we won't be able to hear political views or opinions.
Speaker 3: So we'll just be isolated.
Speaker 2: And we've heard that from many teenagers.
Speaker 6: Haven't waited the idea that this ban interferes with their
Speaker 6: freedom of political expression and might you know, hinder their
Speaker 6: ability to say what they think.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean so, So the way that the band
Speaker 3: works is obviously it's cutting off a portion of the
Speaker 3: population from one of the main ways that politics is
Speaker 3: done in Australia in terms of both getting information about
Speaker 3: what's happened, but also having a say in what happens.
Speaker 3: You know, the fact that they're not actually voters isn't
Speaker 3: necessarily an issue, and I think it's pretty fitting that
Speaker 3: you know, a lot of the discussion around the ban
Speaker 3: and a lot of the pushback a lot if it's
Speaker 3: happened online, So it's kind of almost in a way
Speaker 3: case and point that teams are using in many cases
Speaker 3: the tools that are being taken away from them to
Speaker 3: prove that hey, actually this is the thing that we
Speaker 3: use to take pun in politics.
Speaker 2: And the Abenezy government has said that they'll stand firm
Speaker 2: that they won't be intimidated by legal challeng.
Speaker 7: And despite the fact that we are receiving threats and
Speaker 7: legal challenges by people with ulterior motives, the Albanese government
Speaker 7: remains steadfastly on the site of parents and not of platforms.
Speaker 2: So do you think that they have been preparing for
Speaker 2: cases like this to be brought When the.
Speaker 3: War was initially passed, there was some discussion about a
Speaker 3: potential challenge, but really this has been on the agenda
Speaker 3: of the government, particularly since Google. In the middle of
Speaker 3: the year, after it was announced that the government was
Speaker 3: actually going to change tact and include YouTube in the
Speaker 3: team social media ban, their response was to send through
Speaker 3: a very legal sounding letter that was in fact signed
Speaker 3: by Google's Australias head of counsel saying here are the
Speaker 3: three avenues for a legal challenge, and one of them
Speaker 3: was a constitutionality. And so obviously when you get one
Speaker 3: of the biggest companies in the world, one who has
Speaker 3: I'm sure very well paid and very effective lawyers on side.
Speaker 3: They've been thinking about this and talking about, no doubt
Speaker 3: preparing for this since then. And I think that's actually
Speaker 3: one of the kind of interesting things, which is, like,
Speaker 3: despite the fact that the law came into effect the
Speaker 3: last year and it's had this long runway, many of
Speaker 3: the details have taken a while to come out, and
Speaker 3: I think that that process has actually been slowed down
Speaker 3: by the fear of a legal challenge. I think that
Speaker 3: there is like a kind of interesting question, which is,
Speaker 3: even if it is successful and this war actually is
Speaker 3: struck down, you know, the next step from the government
Speaker 3: might be doing something very similar as we saw with
Speaker 3: immigration law when there was one struck down in the
Speaker 3: High Court. So it's a bit of a game of
Speaker 3: chad and mouse, and everyone is trying to play this
Speaker 3: out and understand what ends up happening. But you know,
Speaker 3: in all of this, the government has been really firm
Speaker 3: and saying, hey, we're sticking with this despite the legal threats,
Speaker 3: because I think fundamentally they think it plays well for them.
Speaker 3: One of the political forces behind this war is that
Speaker 3: there has been this desire in the community to crack
Speaker 3: down big tech. So the fact that there is a
Speaker 3: fight of this, oh, I'm sure it's a pain in
Speaker 3: the neck for some government warriors. It's something that I
Speaker 3: imagine the government it relishes to take on some industry
Speaker 3: that people are excited to see tange.
Speaker 1: Coming up. Will the ban work?
Speaker 3: Okay?
Speaker 2: So we'll have to wait and see how this particular
Speaker 2: legal challenge plays out. But in the meantime, we're already
Speaker 2: hearing from politicians that this ban is not going to
Speaker 2: be perfect and that we should expect there to be
Speaker 2: problems when it does come into effect on December ten.
Speaker 1: So what are they talking about? What is likely to happen?
Speaker 3: So, I mean in fantas to the government. They've been
Speaker 3: saying this since before the war has passed, the saying
Speaker 3: we don't expect this to be perfect. But I've noticed,
Speaker 3: particularly over the last few months, they've really made that
Speaker 3: one of the core parts of this message.
Speaker 7: We know this law will be perfect, but it is
Speaker 7: too important not to have a crack.
Speaker 3: And the key to understanding why all of a sudden
Speaker 3: the government is really stressing the fact that this thing
Speaker 3: that they're doing might have problems is because fundamentally this
Speaker 3: will puts the onus on these companies to be the
Speaker 3: ones who implement it, which is this funny tension where
Speaker 3: at the same time they're saying, you know, they can't
Speaker 3: be trusted, YadA ya YadA, they're also giving these companies
Speaker 3: the responsibility of forcing it right.
Speaker 2: So tell me more then about how the platforms plan
Speaker 2: on doing that. How are they going to enforce the
Speaker 2: man We.
Speaker 3: Know that these social media platforms are using a variety
Speaker 3: of tools. They're using everything from analyzing the data that
Speaker 3: they already have about you, Like, for example, I'm going
Speaker 3: to age myself here. I think I've had like a
Speaker 3: Facebook account for thirteen, fourteen, fifteen years. It's not going
Speaker 3: to take a genius at Meta to realize to look
Speaker 3: at when my account was created and be like, that
Speaker 3: probably belongs to someone who's more than sixteen years of age.
Speaker 3: But if that doesn't work, if they don't have that
Speaker 3: information on you, or they're not confident in that the
Speaker 3: other men that they'll be using a things like facial
Speaker 3: scans or uploading your government ID. Facial scans are a
Speaker 3: technology that have pretty well known flaws, particularly when it
Speaker 3: comes to distinguishing people who are over sixteen or under
Speaker 3: sixteen when you get pretty close to it, and so
Speaker 3: you know, the government is saying, hey, you might have
Speaker 3: some issues with this, either the scans not working properly
Speaker 3: and not letting you actually access to social media pound all,
Speaker 3: the band itself might not be perfect, that people will
Speaker 3: get through the band, that they'll have workarounds, that they'll
Speaker 3: convince these systems that you are over sixteen when you're not.
Speaker 3: So either way, you know, they're trying to lower expectations
Speaker 3: to say doesn't work in progress. But where I think,
Speaker 3: as the Prime minis has said, it's worthwhile having a crack.
Speaker 2: And there is also, I suppose the other side of this,
Speaker 2: which is that there are apps companies that aren't named
Speaker 2: and don't fall under the ban yet and people could
Speaker 2: you know, flock to them instead, and that could kind
Speaker 2: of happen indefinitely.
Speaker 3: Right, Yeah, that's right. So I mean I noticed last
Speaker 3: week I was just the top apps on the Apple
Speaker 3: App Store, and I was like, that's an app I've
Speaker 3: never heard of. It was called yop and it stew
Speaker 3: is called YopE and it is a kind of little
Speaker 3: known social media platform that was launched in the US
Speaker 3: at the end of last year. I did a bit
Speaker 3: of research and found that teens online were already saying, hey,
Speaker 3: this band is coming up. The government has put out
Speaker 3: this list of ten platforms that will definitely need to
Speaker 3: comply with the ban. Others might be added, but just
Speaker 3: for now, just so you know, these are the ones
Speaker 3: who would definitely be in it. YopE is not in
Speaker 3: the band. So teens trying to say what are we
Speaker 3: going to do post December ten? Where are we going
Speaker 3: to go? Meant that that app, as well as a
Speaker 3: Instagram like app that comes from the same company that
Speaker 3: owns TikTok, which is called by Dance. That app, which
Speaker 3: is Lemonade, had also become one of the most downloaded
Speaker 3: apps in Australia over towards the end of last weekend.
Speaker 3: What is Lemonade? I keep getting these requests on TikTok
Speaker 3: saying so and so wants to follow There's an.
Speaker 6: App called lemon eight, which we all kind of know about.
Speaker 2: I feel like we don't really all use I just
Speaker 2: downloaded it and there's a link in my bio right now.
Speaker 3: So I think the real question is when they go
Speaker 3: to these alternatives, what experience are they going to have
Speaker 3: on these platforms really good at taking care of young users?
Speaker 3: Do they invest in it at all? I was having
Speaker 3: a look at Yope's website. They don't even have any
Speaker 3: information about any trust and safety that they do. This
Speaker 3: is one of the scenarios that critics of the band
Speaker 3: raises a fear, because you know, the thing is online.
Speaker 3: When you ban something, it's very easy to just kind
Speaker 3: of create something new and go there without much puzzle.
Speaker 2: Okay, so the goal here of this legislation is to
Speaker 2: protect children from harmful content online. So what is your sense,
Speaker 2: broadly speaking of where the legislation like this can influence
Speaker 2: young people's desire to get on already existing platforms new
Speaker 2: platforms to the extent where this legislation would actually make
Speaker 2: a meaningful difference to a generation of young people.
Speaker 3: I think it's going to make a meaningful difference. I mean,
Speaker 3: love it or hate it. This war is drastically going
Speaker 3: to change how young people use their device because the
Speaker 3: most popular platforms for young people are now supposed to
Speaker 3: be out of reach. And you know, while I definitely
Speaker 3: think there'll be workarounds on the major platforms, people will
Speaker 3: fool them. People will get their parents to vouch for
Speaker 3: them by using their face or providing their ID. I
Speaker 3: do think that a lot of teams will not, and
Speaker 3: so there will be adaptation to that. I mean, I
Speaker 3: think the question that's been up in the air the
Speaker 3: whole time is not only will it work as well
Speaker 3: as the government has promised, but also comparing it to
Speaker 3: if we didn't do this, what else could we have done?
Speaker 3: Because a lot of the public debate has been well,
Speaker 3: we should either do the ban or not do anything
Speaker 3: at all. But the experts that I spoke to, academics
Speaker 3: to study this, expressed to me that all the time
Speaker 3: that we spent in this, all the political capital to
Speaker 3: do something that might not be as effective as was promised.
Speaker 3: There are other options out there about ways that we
Speaker 3: can regulate with technology. Meanwhile, when this is done, will
Speaker 3: it really be a public appetite to do more regulation,
Speaker 3: to have more discussion over it? The question is are
Speaker 3: we missing an opportunity where there is this will to
Speaker 3: do something that might be more targeted and more effective.
Speaker 3: I guess we'll say, well, Cam, thank you so much
Speaker 3: for your time, thanks for having me.
Speaker 2: Also in the news today, recent governments have rewarded friends
Speaker 2: with plum jobs, A scathing review into political appointments has confirmed.
Speaker 2: The government commissioned the report, which has become known as
Speaker 2: the Jobs for Mates Review, in twenty twenty two and
Speaker 2: promised to release it in twenty twenty three.
Speaker 1: It was finally released yesterday.
Speaker 2: And said that government appointments looked like forms of patronage
Speaker 2: and nepotism that should have no place in modern Australian society.
Speaker 2: In response, the government says it has a new framework
Speaker 2: for picking appointments, but it has also rejected a number
Speaker 2: of key recommendations, and an inquiry intersexual violence in the
Speaker 2: ADF is set to proceed. The Defense Personnel Minister Machio
Speaker 2: has confirmed it's been a year since the final report
Speaker 2: from the Royal Commission into Defense and Veterans' Suicide, when
Speaker 2: the inquiry was first recommended and agreed to. Now the
Speaker 2: government has given more detail into the scope, which includes
Speaker 2: a review of the efficacy of military justice compared with
Speaker 2: civilian justice, a look at perpetrator accountability, and barriers deterring
Speaker 2: alleged victims from reporting their abuse. The inquiry is expected
Speaker 2: to begin mid next year.
Speaker 1: I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven am. Thanks for listening.