WEBVTT - Can social media bans protect young minds? 0:00:00.009 --> 0:00:02.990 This podcast was made on the lands of the Wurundjeri people, 0:00:03.240 --> 0:00:06.159 the Woi Wurrung and the Bunurong. We'd like to pay 0:00:06.159 --> 0:00:09.238 respects to their elders, past and present, and emerging. 0:00:14.569 --> 0:00:17.889 From the Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences at the University 0:00:17.889 --> 0:00:20.370 of Melbourne, this is PsychTalks. 0:00:22.489 --> 0:00:25.729 Hi everyone, and welcome to PsychTalks. I'm Cassie Hayward, and 0:00:25.729 --> 0:00:27.969 I'm joined by my co-host, Nick Haslam. 0:00:28.219 --> 0:00:30.530 Fantastic to be here, Cassie, and I'm keen to explore 0:00:30.530 --> 0:00:33.970 more of our colleagues leading research in psychology and neuroscience. 0:00:34.740 --> 0:00:37.830 So our guest today is Associate Professor Scott Griffiths. Scott 0:00:37.830 --> 0:00:40.229 leads the Physical Appearance Research Team in the School of 0:00:40.229 --> 0:00:43.790 Psychological Sciences. Now, some of you may remember, Scott spoke 0:00:43.790 --> 0:00:46.259 with us in Season 2 about his research into new 0:00:46.259 --> 0:00:50.309 generation social media algorithms, particularly TikTok, and what impact they 0:00:50.310 --> 0:00:53.348 could be having on eating disorders and body image. Well, 0:00:53.549 --> 0:00:55.779 since then, there's been some radical moves to stop young 0:00:55.779 --> 0:00:58.389 people from even being on social media, and we're delighted 0:00:58.389 --> 0:01:00.389 to welcome Scott back for an update on what this 0:01:00.389 --> 0:01:00.950 all means. 0:01:06.830 --> 0:01:08.899 Great to see you, Scott. Thanks for joining us again 0:01:08.900 --> 0:01:09.730 for PsychTalks. 0:01:09.889 --> 0:01:10.610 Thanks for having me. 0:01:11.059 --> 0:01:14.419 Scott, last time we spoke, you talked about how TikTok's 0:01:14.419 --> 0:01:18.779 algorithm might be having adverse implications for young people, especially 0:01:18.779 --> 0:01:21.869 those who might have body image or eating disorder issues. 0:01:22.339 --> 0:01:25.259 And I guess those sorts of concerns are part of 0:01:25.260 --> 0:01:28.139 the rationale for the social media ban that might be 0:01:28.139 --> 0:01:30.949 happening later this year in Australia. Can you tell us 0:01:30.949 --> 0:01:33.260 a little bit about the ban and what motivated it? 0:01:33.540 --> 0:01:34.019 Sure can. 0:01:34.540 --> 0:01:39.029 So the Online Safety Amendment, also called the Social Media 0:01:39.029 --> 0:01:43.720 Minimum Age Bill was passed in late 2024, and it 0:01:43.720 --> 0:01:48.080 is going to ban all under sixteens from accessing social 0:01:48.080 --> 0:01:53.529 media all across Australia. It is the most ambitious law 0:01:53.529 --> 0:01:59.160 of its kind, certainly the highest age, and unlike some 0:01:59.160 --> 0:02:00.889 other laws tried elsewhere. 0:02:01.349 --> 0:02:04.120 There won't be any parental opt out. So this will 0:02:04.120 --> 0:02:08.710 apply to every under 16 and any under 16 that 0:02:08.710 --> 0:02:11.830 has an existing social media account, that will need to 0:02:11.830 --> 0:02:16.940 be disabled. The onus is on industry to enforce that. 0:02:17.229 --> 0:02:20.710 So parents, kids, they don't have to do anything. 0:02:21.038 --> 0:02:23.529 It's on industry to make sure that they have appropriate 0:02:23.529 --> 0:02:26.149 safeguards and technology so that anyone under the age of 0:02:26.149 --> 0:02:29.350 16 is not on social media, backed up by fines 0:02:29.350 --> 0:02:33.380 that can hit $50 million if the non-compliance is systemic. 0:02:33.750 --> 0:02:38.429 And that will come into effect, uh, December 2025, and 0:02:38.429 --> 0:02:41.110 then we see what happens and how it all goes. 0:02:41.229 --> 0:02:42.740 It's a world first. 0:02:43.029 --> 0:02:44.990 Can you remind our listeners what motivated this? 0:02:45.669 --> 0:02:50.009 Big general concerns from many countries around the effects that 0:02:50.008 --> 0:02:53.559 social media is having on young people. For a while, 0:02:54.008 --> 0:02:57.250 research has been coming out looking at different aspects of 0:02:57.250 --> 0:03:04.850 psychological wellbeing, like eating disorders, depression, anxiety, a self-diagnosis that 0:03:04.850 --> 0:03:07.270 have been converging and saying, look, 0:03:08.038 --> 0:03:11.880 On the merits, on the balance of evidence, probably social 0:03:11.880 --> 0:03:14.399 media is having an impact. We're at a point now 0:03:14.399 --> 0:03:19.000 where there's enough evidence, there's enough different fields converging, that 0:03:19.000 --> 0:03:20.990 there's action and the ban has come about. 0:03:21.559 --> 0:03:24.549 So have similar bans been tried elsewhere and have they worked? 0:03:24.720 --> 0:03:27.520 Yeah, they have. Ours will be the first to focus 0:03:27.520 --> 0:03:29.240 on social media per se. 0:03:29.710 --> 0:03:33.729 Analogous bans have been tried in Asia looking at gaming. 0:03:33.899 --> 0:03:36.809 So in particular, China, South Korea, they were very worried 0:03:36.809 --> 0:03:40.660 about young people spending too much time gaming, kind of 0:03:40.660 --> 0:03:45.770 focused on reducing the amount of play for under 16s 0:03:45.770 --> 0:03:49.970 or under 13s. So in China, for example, they tried 0:03:49.970 --> 0:03:53.860 to reduce gaming to 1 hour on a Friday, 1 0:03:53.860 --> 0:03:57.199 hour on Saturday, 1 hour on Sunday, and, 0:03:57.529 --> 0:04:01.100 the evidence around the effectiveness of that has been, look. 0:04:01.919 --> 0:04:06.350 Not completely effective, but effective in part. So they did 0:04:06.350 --> 0:04:09.320 get a reduction in the amount of people playing games 0:04:09.320 --> 0:04:12.520 and the, the length that they were playing, but motivated 0:04:12.520 --> 0:04:16.480 young people can get around that. Important to note those 0:04:16.480 --> 0:04:20.440 laws were passed, you know, over 5 years ago, and 0:04:20.440 --> 0:04:23.529 the kind of technology that's being trialled now to ensure 0:04:23.529 --> 0:04:26.670 that you've got people who are, who they say they are, 0:04:26.790 --> 0:04:29.359 the correct age, playing a game at the times you 0:04:29.359 --> 0:04:29.958 want them to play, 0:04:30.630 --> 0:04:34.950 that has developed considerably, but yeah, there is a background 0:04:34.950 --> 0:04:39.368 of partially successful bans on related things coming from overseas. 0:04:39.709 --> 0:04:43.070 So thinking about the implementation of the Australian ban, you've 0:04:43.070 --> 0:04:45.299 mentioned age assurance, so maybe we can talk a little 0:04:45.299 --> 0:04:48.428 bit about that and whether you have any concerns about 0:04:48.428 --> 0:04:49.390 how that will be 0:04:49.470 --> 0:04:53.459 implemented and used to enact the, the age restrictions on 0:04:53.459 --> 0:04:54.130 social media. 0:04:54.420 --> 0:04:56.779 I mean, sure, I have concerns, but I'm also quite 0:04:56.779 --> 0:04:59.820 excited for what's happening in this space. So, the Australian 0:04:59.820 --> 0:05:05.410 government has tasked, um, a UK based company with running 0:05:05.410 --> 0:05:08.540 their age assurance technology trial. 0:05:08.910 --> 0:05:12.359 And this will involve, you know, overtures to a whole 0:05:12.359 --> 0:05:15.799 bunch of technology companies who will then try and submit 0:05:16.000 --> 0:05:21.070 their ideas, their pilot testing of various technologies for age assurance. 0:05:21.320 --> 0:05:23.880 The actual trial itself is being run in a way 0:05:23.880 --> 0:05:25.880 that I think is quite, um, 0:05:26.359 --> 0:05:30.558 admirable, respectful, it's all completely transparent. Any technology company that's 0:05:30.559 --> 0:05:34.470 in these trials, they have to agree beforehand that their, 0:05:34.720 --> 0:05:38.559 their technology, along with the outcomes, how successful it is, 0:05:38.600 --> 0:05:41.238 where its failures are, that will be publicly released. 0:05:41.480 --> 0:05:45.368 And I, I appreciate how transparent that is, and it's 0:05:45.369 --> 0:05:48.970 important to, to know that the kinds of technology that 0:05:48.970 --> 0:05:52.320 are being trialled first and foremost are intended to be 0:05:52.320 --> 0:05:56.368 the least invasive of the potential technologies you could use. 0:05:56.928 --> 0:06:01.649 For example, anything in the space of facial recognition is 0:06:01.649 --> 0:06:05.928 trying to ensure that you simply have consistency of the 0:06:05.928 --> 0:06:09.409 person who's using a particular account, that that person appears 0:06:09.410 --> 0:06:12.729 to be the right age, whilst extracting the least amount 0:06:12.730 --> 0:06:16.450 of data from them as possible. And, yeah, hopefully those 0:06:16.450 --> 0:06:20.130 efforts are successful. We could see, you know, a big, um, 0:06:21.279 --> 0:06:25.019 Uh, a big explosion in the quality of these trials, 0:06:25.119 --> 0:06:27.070 of these technologies, if, if we're lucky. 0:06:27.678 --> 0:06:30.320 So some people are probably quite sceptical about bans like 0:06:30.320 --> 0:06:33.760 this because, uh, they believe that technologically savvy people, you know, 0:06:33.880 --> 0:06:36.239 like in the case of the Chinese gaming bans that 0:06:36.238 --> 0:06:36.839 you talked about, 0:06:37.410 --> 0:06:39.489 can often find ways to get around them. Is that 0:06:39.488 --> 0:06:41.809 a legitimate concern, do you think? Uh, and are there 0:06:41.809 --> 0:06:44.399 any reason to think it'll be different with this ban? 0:06:44.529 --> 0:06:47.440 Oh, of course, it's a concern. If you take something 0:06:47.440 --> 0:06:49.928 that young people want to do and you make it 0:06:49.928 --> 0:06:51.880 more difficult for them to be able to do it, 0:06:52.130 --> 0:06:55.649 they will try to find workarounds. And we're probably gonna 0:06:55.649 --> 0:07:01.039 see the most motivated work-arounders in the 14 to 15 0:07:01.040 --> 0:07:02.070 year old age group. 0:07:02.399 --> 0:07:07.279 But the legislation, in a way, is more concerned about 0:07:07.279 --> 0:07:11.649 younger ages than the 15 and 16s. So, in Australia, 0:07:12.040 --> 0:07:16.519 research commissioned by the, the eSafety Commissioner found that, you know, 90% 0:07:16.519 --> 0:07:19.709 of 8 to 12 year olds have social media accounts. Now, 0:07:20.290 --> 0:07:23.709 8, 9, 10, 11 year olds who are suddenly unable 0:07:23.709 --> 0:07:27.619 to access social media, it is unlikely that they are 0:07:27.619 --> 0:07:30.619 going to have the means to be able to enact 0:07:30.619 --> 0:07:34.929 a workaround to get onto social media, and it's unlikely 0:07:35.059 --> 0:07:38.019 that they'll be able to get help from siblings or 0:07:38.019 --> 0:07:41.899 parents so that they could get onto social media. So 0:07:41.899 --> 0:07:45.970 over time, I suspect we'll see a reduction 0:07:46.250 --> 0:07:50.859 in the, the number of children trying to get workarounds 0:07:50.859 --> 0:07:54.109 and maybe also the motivation to do so once we're 0:07:54.109 --> 0:07:56.279 a couple of years out from the trial. 0:07:56.350 --> 0:07:58.829 It's not possible that we'll just create a selective pressure 0:07:58.829 --> 0:08:01.750 for 10 year olds to develop the rat-cunning of 14-year-olds? 0:08:01.829 --> 0:08:04.070 We could, but it would be challenging. 0:08:04.450 --> 0:08:08.450 So if you wanted to get onto social media, right, 0:08:08.529 --> 0:08:10.480 and you're an 8 or a 9 year old, well, 0:08:10.500 --> 0:08:11.899 let's just make it a little harder to say, a 0:08:11.899 --> 0:08:15.019 10 or an 11 year old, then looking at what 0:08:15.019 --> 0:08:19.209 other countries have done, you may need a willing sibling 0:08:19.420 --> 0:08:22.140 to help you out, and perhaps they'll give you some 0:08:22.140 --> 0:08:25.459 form of ID with a face on it. Now, in 0:08:25.459 --> 0:08:28.619 the past, the kind of age assurance technology looking at 0:08:28.619 --> 0:08:31.179 faces was being done with static images. 0:08:31.489 --> 0:08:34.579 But now, if you're expected to do this in the 0:08:34.580 --> 0:08:36.969 form of a video and move your face around, that 0:08:36.969 --> 0:08:41.459 static ID is not particularly helpful to you anymore. Maybe 0:08:41.460 --> 0:08:44.299 if you were a gamer playing on your computer, you 0:08:44.299 --> 0:08:47.780 had the know-how to access a virtual private network, and 0:08:47.780 --> 0:08:49.859 you could say that you're coming from somewhere else. 0:08:50.400 --> 0:08:53.510 I don't know of anyone who is particularly savvy enough 0:08:53.510 --> 0:08:56.390 to use virtual private networks on their smartphone, which is 0:08:56.390 --> 0:09:01.579 how people access social media. Certainly, uh, young kids, 8, 9, 10, 0:09:01.710 --> 0:09:05.419 it's a lot of friction. And that friction also is 0:09:05.419 --> 0:09:09.150 creating friction for their friends. And if gaming can be 0:09:09.150 --> 0:09:13.630 a solo pursuit, social media is fun in large part 0:09:13.630 --> 0:09:14.950 because your friends are on it. 0:09:15.500 --> 0:09:17.159 So if you've got a whole bunch of friends who 0:09:17.159 --> 0:09:19.520 are also struggling to be on it or getting kicked 0:09:19.520 --> 0:09:22.469 off it a lot because of the technology in place, 0:09:23.080 --> 0:09:25.400 you have a lot of friction to stop you from 0:09:25.400 --> 0:09:25.988 accessing it. 0:09:26.400 --> 0:09:28.839 So looking into your crystal ball, Scott, what do you 0:09:28.840 --> 0:09:32.590 think will happen December 2025 when this ban kicks in? 0:09:32.880 --> 0:09:34.189 How do you think it will unfold? 0:09:34.630 --> 0:09:38.699 I think it is going to be partially successful with 0:09:38.700 --> 0:09:43.260 significant teething problems. There will be people who want to 0:09:43.260 --> 0:09:46.059 get on it and manage to get on it, and 0:09:46.059 --> 0:09:48.380 that could be interpreted as a failure. There will be 0:09:48.380 --> 0:09:51.819 people over the age of 16 who are identified as 0:09:51.820 --> 0:09:54.820 being under and who have struggles, and that could be 0:09:54.820 --> 0:09:58.289 interpreted as a failure. I do think in all likelihood, 0:09:58.580 --> 0:09:58.929 we will 0:09:58.984 --> 0:10:02.044 see a reduction in social media use, and that will 0:10:02.044 --> 0:10:05.965 be a greater reduction for ages that are younger, further 0:10:05.965 --> 0:10:10.603 away from age 16. And that, to give it a 0:10:10.645 --> 0:10:15.005 full and fair test, we probably have to wait for 0:10:15.005 --> 0:10:19.034 2 years to see, is it working as intended? Um, 0:10:19.244 --> 0:10:22.125 are there any unintended consequences, of which I think there's 0:10:22.125 --> 0:10:25.724 risk for a few, um, and how substantial are they? 0:10:26.280 --> 0:10:29.020 Scott, I wanna talk a little bit about what parents 0:10:29.239 --> 0:10:32.869 think of the ban, and I think some broad gender 0:10:32.869 --> 0:10:36.239 stereotypes are useful here, given the, the way the ban 0:10:36.239 --> 0:10:38.679 is playing out in that, and I think a lot 0:10:38.679 --> 0:10:41.239 of parents might be familiar with Jonathan Haidt's work, and 0:10:41.239 --> 0:10:43.280 he talks about this as well, that boys tend to 0:10:43.280 --> 0:10:47.919 gravitate towards gaming and porn, and girls tend to gravitate 0:10:47.919 --> 0:10:52.239 towards social media. So this ban might have different impacts 0:10:52.239 --> 0:10:52.909 on you, 0:10:53.380 --> 0:10:56.380 as a parent, depending on whether you've got a 14-year-old 0:10:56.380 --> 0:11:00.689 boy at home or a 14-year-old girl. What's your research, say, 0:11:00.700 --> 0:11:03.020 or your, your, um, insight on this in terms of 0:11:03.020 --> 0:11:06.339 how parents are thinking about the ban as it comes up? 0:11:06.780 --> 0:11:10.400 It is true, boys are overrepresented as gamers, girls are 0:11:10.400 --> 0:11:15.250 overrepresented on social media. Those overrepresentations are not as large 0:11:15.250 --> 0:11:18.880 as you may think. I look at as an example, 0:11:19.010 --> 0:11:23.719 TikTok's global user base, 1.8 billion. The gender split there 0:11:23.719 --> 0:11:27.929 is something like 52, 48 as a ratio favouring women. 0:11:28.270 --> 0:11:32.309 So it's not the case that it's a huge disproportionate representation. 0:11:32.520 --> 0:11:36.869 You can get larger differences per platform like Instagram has 0:11:36.869 --> 0:11:40.710 comparatively more uh girls on it than boys. In terms 0:11:40.710 --> 0:11:42.469 of what parents might be thinking, 0:11:43.070 --> 0:11:48.309 If you look at data from Australian parents, nationally representative samples, 0:11:48.469 --> 0:11:52.830 then it's clear the vast majority of parents support the 0:11:52.830 --> 0:11:55.669 social media ban. I think having spoken to a lot 0:11:55.669 --> 0:11:59.869 of parents, uh, this year and last year, parents appreciate 0:11:59.869 --> 0:12:04.829 having this additional backup of legislation behind them. 0:12:05.125 --> 0:12:09.255 So that the decision to enforce any kind of restriction 0:12:09.255 --> 0:12:12.445 from social media doesn't set them up for a very 0:12:12.445 --> 0:12:16.604 adversarial confrontation between them as a parent and their kids. 0:12:16.775 --> 0:12:21.775 And that confrontation gets supercharged because it becomes something that 0:12:21.775 --> 0:12:25.414 you ideally need other parents to also buy into, because 0:12:25.414 --> 0:12:26.765 if you've got a kid, 0:12:26.989 --> 0:12:30.439 and all of their friends are on social media, then 0:12:30.440 --> 0:12:35.619 you really are asking them to disadvantage themselves from the 0:12:35.619 --> 0:12:39.179 social connectedness that social media ostensibly brings. But if everyone 0:12:39.179 --> 0:12:42.500 is in the same boat, then that connectedness can still 0:12:42.500 --> 0:12:46.299 be facilitated, it will just happen in an offline environment. And 0:12:46.299 --> 0:12:49.978 I think it sets up less of an adversarial confrontation 0:12:49.979 --> 0:12:51.059 between parents and their kids. 0:12:51.710 --> 0:12:55.760 Scott, just on parents' reaction, I think one potential unintended 0:12:55.760 --> 0:12:59.190 consequence here is that parents get a false sense of 0:12:59.190 --> 0:13:02.939 security of what this ban really means. And the reality is, 0:13:03.229 --> 0:13:06.789 even if this ban gets enforced as fully as it's outlined, 0:13:07.109 --> 0:13:09.739 there'll be some sort of messaging app that emerges that 0:13:09.739 --> 0:13:12.580 kids can get bullied on. There's still access to porn sites. 0:13:12.700 --> 0:13:17.299 There's still misogyny chat on online gaming. There's still, you know, 0:13:17.539 --> 0:13:19.820 YouTube potentially isn't part of this ban, so they can 0:13:19.820 --> 0:13:22.630 go down all the different rabbit holes on, on YouTube. So, 0:13:23.179 --> 0:13:27.409 I wouldn't want parents, myself included, to have too much 0:13:27.570 --> 0:13:29.619 of a false sense of security about what this ban 0:13:29.619 --> 0:13:31.380 is going to solve, and we're still going to have 0:13:31.380 --> 0:13:34.659 to have those big conversations with our kids around consent 0:13:34.659 --> 0:13:35.979 and porn and respect. 0:13:36.940 --> 0:13:40.939 And that this ban might solve a part of the problem, 0:13:41.020 --> 0:13:43.809 but those big issues are still going to exist. 0:13:44.700 --> 0:13:47.979 Bullying predates social media. It will still be an issue 0:13:47.979 --> 0:13:52.059 after the social media ban. Sure, you won't experience bullying 0:13:52.059 --> 0:13:56.859 now in the comments or in direct messages on TikTok 0:13:56.859 --> 0:14:02.179 or other algorithmically driven social media feeds, but that won't 0:14:02.179 --> 0:14:08.780 stop bullying, migrating through to simple chat or Messenger or WhatsApp, 0:14:08.859 --> 0:14:11.799 all of which are outside the purview of the social 0:14:11.799 --> 0:14:12.419 media ban. 0:14:12.700 --> 0:14:15.330 And bullying will happen through those channels. So if you 0:14:15.539 --> 0:14:18.780 are coming to this ban with an expectation that issues 0:14:18.780 --> 0:14:23.260 like bullying will disappear, then you are set up for disappointment. 0:14:23.700 --> 0:14:27.619 So there's been some hammering from academic critics about the ban, uh, 0:14:27.659 --> 0:14:29.929 and how it will adversely affect at least some kids. 0:14:30.260 --> 0:14:33.020 What are their arguments and what do the kids actually 0:14:33.020 --> 0:14:33.770 think about this? 0:14:34.119 --> 0:14:37.419 People who are against the ban, the arguments fall into 0:14:37.590 --> 0:14:41.429 a couple of camps. The first one is a scepticism 0:14:41.429 --> 0:14:45.099 around the technologies that will be put into place. And 0:14:45.349 --> 0:14:48.669 this one I understand to an extent, but it also 0:14:48.669 --> 0:14:51.900 seems to me like a lack of imagination and optimism. 0:14:52.109 --> 0:14:54.510 So right now, if you are an 8 year old 0:14:54.510 --> 0:14:56.349 and you want to get onto TikTok, all you have 0:14:56.349 --> 0:14:58.030 to do is say that you are over the age 0:14:58.030 --> 0:15:00.030 of 13. It's a simple no yes button. 0:15:00.330 --> 0:15:02.070 And you will be on there. We live in a 0:15:02.070 --> 0:15:05.619 world now where we have face ID and other age 0:15:05.789 --> 0:15:10.869 identity checkers, which are actually remarkably good, and we can 0:15:10.869 --> 0:15:14.390 also have biometric scans of fingerprints and things like this, 0:15:14.469 --> 0:15:18.020 and they are robust. What we want to do now 0:15:18.020 --> 0:15:22.219 is find something that has that kind of technological prowess, 0:15:22.229 --> 0:15:26.989 whilst taking the least amount of data from kids as possible. 0:15:27.594 --> 0:15:30.755 And I don't see that as being a challenge that 0:15:30.755 --> 0:15:33.755 we couldn't overcome with the kinds of processes now in 0:15:33.755 --> 0:15:37.994 place where the government is getting tenders from technology companies 0:15:37.994 --> 0:15:41.594 who now are genuinely invested, formally not, but now have 0:15:41.594 --> 0:15:45.625 reason to make these technologies work. So, that to me 0:15:45.625 --> 0:15:47.674 is a bit of hand wringing and I'm looking forward 0:15:47.674 --> 0:15:48.994 to seeing what might happen. 0:15:49.580 --> 0:15:55.059 A more substantive concern, I think, is the potential for 0:15:55.369 --> 0:16:00.090 the social media environment to fracture and for kids to 0:16:00.090 --> 0:16:05.489 migrate to platforms or spaces where regulation is harder to enforce. 0:16:05.809 --> 0:16:10.820 And an analogous situation here would be America when the 0:16:10.820 --> 0:16:14.450 teen vaping epidemic was on everyone's radar. 0:16:14.750 --> 0:16:18.190 And all of the attention focused on one or two 0:16:18.190 --> 0:16:21.559 vaping companies, and in particular, I'm thinking of one called 0:16:21.559 --> 0:16:25.919 Juul e-cigarette. Now, Juul, based in America, had to listen 0:16:25.919 --> 0:16:29.960 to regulators and did, and eventually, a lot of regulation 0:16:29.960 --> 0:16:33.479 was passed, which did mean that Juul was no longer 0:16:33.479 --> 0:16:34.880 sold to teenagers. 0:16:35.260 --> 0:16:38.440 But into that space to meet that demand came a 0:16:38.440 --> 0:16:42.320 whole bunch of operators operating in jurisdictions outside of the 0:16:42.320 --> 0:16:45.960 US and who were not listening to regulator input and 0:16:45.960 --> 0:16:50.270 were not concerned about fines and the like. Now, that 0:16:50.520 --> 0:16:53.760 was a harder sell because that's a physical product that 0:16:53.760 --> 0:16:57.070 had to get into the US. Social media is frictionless. 0:16:57.159 --> 0:16:58.330 It flows right across borders. 0:16:58.903 --> 0:17:02.293 That's a genuine concern, I think. It's not one that 0:17:02.293 --> 0:17:06.782 can't be counteracted itself. Uh, the Australian government can, in theory, 0:17:07.022 --> 0:17:12.132 block the IP addresses of non-conforming social media platforms. That 0:17:12.133 --> 0:17:15.532 is pretty heavy-handed. There's other legislative things you'd have to consider, 0:17:15.782 --> 0:17:18.383 but I do think that's one of the more compelling 0:17:18.383 --> 0:17:19.652 concerns about the ban. 0:17:19.821 --> 0:17:22.436 And any ideas about whether kids support the ban? 0:17:22.605 --> 0:17:28.286 I don't think kids support the ban. At the same time, 40% 0:17:28.286 --> 0:17:30.926 of kids under the age of 18 say that social 0:17:30.926 --> 0:17:34.406 media worsens their mental health. So this is the bind, right? 0:17:34.645 --> 0:17:38.875 We have almost a majority of kids who do believe 0:17:38.875 --> 0:17:42.875 that social media is a bad influence in general, but 0:17:42.875 --> 0:17:46.676 the prospect of having it taken away does not thrill them, 0:17:47.125 --> 0:17:47.605 and 0:17:48.119 --> 0:17:51.550 I think that's OK. I think it's reasonable to expect that. 0:17:51.719 --> 0:17:54.910 I don't think the fact that they're anxious about having 0:17:54.910 --> 0:17:58.659 it taken away is a reason not to try out 0:17:59.000 --> 0:18:03.479 this disruption of social media in the lives of young people. 0:18:03.939 --> 0:18:06.089 And yeah, that, that's where I, I fall on it. 0:18:06.209 --> 0:18:12.130 I've certainly heard academics who think that children's wishes in 0:18:12.300 --> 0:18:16.329 this particular matter should occupy a higher priority in terms 0:18:16.329 --> 0:18:18.859 of whether or not we decide to go with legislation. 0:18:19.219 --> 0:18:21.910 But again, having spoken with a lot of parents, I 0:18:21.910 --> 0:18:24.420 think I fall down on the side of, let's do 0:18:24.420 --> 0:18:26.469 something and see, rather than not. 0:18:26.780 --> 0:18:29.859 Some of the criticism around the ban is that kids 0:18:29.859 --> 0:18:32.359 who are marginalised or remote or 0:18:33.010 --> 0:18:36.290 have a special group that they belong to, that social 0:18:36.290 --> 0:18:39.380 media is their only way to find their community, their 0:18:39.380 --> 0:18:42.290 other people like them. Is there any merit in that 0:18:42.290 --> 0:18:43.410 criticism of the ban? 0:18:43.890 --> 0:18:46.280 I think it's fair to be worried about people who 0:18:46.280 --> 0:18:51.069 are already socially isolated, losing their means of social connection. Also, 0:18:51.280 --> 0:18:55.229 the intent of the ban isn't to sever social connection. 0:18:55.359 --> 0:18:59.079 And there is every reason to think that groups that 0:18:59.079 --> 0:19:03.920 are together for social connectedness can still do that using 0:19:03.920 --> 0:19:07.885 platforms and tools that are not social media, right? 0:19:08.035 --> 0:19:10.834 If we think of this as getting rid of things 0:19:10.834 --> 0:19:17.755 like algorithmically-powered content feeds and infinite scrolling, social connectedness is 0:19:17.755 --> 0:19:20.313 not part and parcel of that. Yes, there are social 0:19:20.314 --> 0:19:24.915 media platforms that have a connectedness component, but there are 0:19:24.915 --> 0:19:28.714 also tools and, and software that doesn't. So I think 0:19:28.714 --> 0:19:29.834 groups will migrate there. 0:19:30.250 --> 0:19:33.890 Do we trust social media companies to fully comply with 0:19:33.890 --> 0:19:36.680 the ban? Uh are some arguing they should be excluded 0:19:36.680 --> 0:19:39.579 from it and are some likely to innovate in ways that, uh, 0:19:39.650 --> 0:19:40.359 get around it? 0:19:40.650 --> 0:19:45.810 Yeah, so it isn't surprising that companies are advocating in 0:19:45.810 --> 0:19:49.969 their best interest and trying things like arguing that they 0:19:49.969 --> 0:19:52.290 shouldn't be within the remit of the ban. There's only 0:19:52.290 --> 0:19:53.089 one notable 0:19:53.652 --> 0:19:59.612 success in that regard. That was YouTube. And they, interestingly enough, 0:19:59.772 --> 0:20:02.542 didn't go at the language in the ban saying, Well, 0:20:02.772 --> 0:20:05.772 we're trying to get rid of algorithm-driven feeds and infinite 0:20:05.772 --> 0:20:08.891 Scrolls cause YouTube does have that. They went more at the, 0:20:09.042 --> 0:20:12.853 the definition of social media and by saying, well, we 0:20:12.853 --> 0:20:18.094 don't have any, like, for-fronted, these are your friends, this 0:20:18.095 --> 0:20:19.406 is your social network. 0:20:19.696 --> 0:20:22.255 Therefore, we're not in the remit as a social media site. 0:20:22.375 --> 0:20:24.936 They were successful in that. Doesn't mean that it can't 0:20:24.936 --> 0:20:28.854 be amended later, but yes, the first wave, as you 0:20:28.855 --> 0:20:31.615 might expect, is a whole bunch of, it shouldn't apply 0:20:31.615 --> 0:20:34.336 to us. Why does it apply to us? The vast 0:20:34.336 --> 0:20:38.375 majority of social media platforms now understand they're in that, 0:20:38.446 --> 0:20:41.734 that remit, and so the onus is on them to 0:20:41.734 --> 0:20:44.056 develop this age assurance technology. 0:20:44.469 --> 0:20:48.310 Now, if it was just Australia doing this, you might 0:20:48.310 --> 0:20:52.569 think that you wouldn't have a genuine effort from these 0:20:52.569 --> 0:20:54.310 companies to develop this technology. 0:20:54.790 --> 0:20:57.849 But other countries are looking to Australia to see how 0:20:57.849 --> 0:21:02.079 this trial goes and the technologies developed because there are 0:21:02.329 --> 0:21:06.770 lots of other jurisdictions also interested in having these kinds 0:21:06.770 --> 0:21:10.530 of age assurances in place. And in general, this technology 0:21:10.530 --> 0:21:13.880 even beyond a ban, is going to become increasingly important 0:21:14.170 --> 0:21:16.948 as part of a whole, you're on the internet, how 0:21:16.949 --> 0:21:19.089 do we know that you are who you say you are? 0:21:19.660 --> 0:21:23.020 So, I think we're at a point now where there 0:21:23.020 --> 0:21:27.900 is enough in the way of fines, incentive, and pressure 0:21:27.900 --> 0:21:31.849 coming from jurisdictions outside of Australia that we can expect 0:21:32.140 --> 0:21:37.079 some good faith, research and development in the space. 100% 0:21:37.079 --> 0:21:40.060 we need to keep on top of them, but I'm reason, 0:21:40.180 --> 0:21:41.650 I think we have reason to be optimistic. 0:21:42.060 --> 0:21:45.339 And what about for the parents, Scott, what practical advice 0:21:45.339 --> 0:21:47.069 would you give parents of 0:21:47.660 --> 0:21:50.270 12, 13, 14-year-olds leading up to this ban? 0:21:50.550 --> 0:21:54.909 I would be prepared to have overtures from 15 and 0:21:54.910 --> 0:22:00.510 14-year-olds about getting around the ban. If you have an 0:22:00.510 --> 0:22:04.469 older sibling in your house, that's 16 or 17 and 0:22:04.469 --> 0:22:08.750 one who is under 16, I think that that 16 0:22:08.750 --> 0:22:12.349 or 17-year-old is going to be asked to help get 0:22:12.349 --> 0:22:12.899 around the ban. 0:22:13.250 --> 0:22:16.448 And I understand, I can put myself in the shoes 0:22:16.449 --> 0:22:20.609 of being a 15-year-old, 14-year-old, and wanting my older siblings 0:22:20.609 --> 0:22:22.849 to help me get around things like that. 0:22:23.569 --> 0:22:27.670 You yourself may also be asked, and it would be 0:22:27.670 --> 0:22:31.349 useful for you to know beforehand where you stand on that. 0:22:31.829 --> 0:22:36.659 And ideally, follow through and be consistent against what might be, 0:22:36.930 --> 0:22:41.800 you know, some, some systematic prolonged conflict on the issue 0:22:42.010 --> 0:22:46.040 for a while. I think for young kids in particular, 0:22:46.209 --> 0:22:50.079 so 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, you may not need 0:22:50.079 --> 0:22:54.079 to explain much beyond these are the rules now. 0:22:54.295 --> 0:22:57.515 And hopefully that is sufficient for that period of time. 0:22:58.084 --> 0:23:02.204 But being prepared for some conflict, some angst in those 0:23:02.204 --> 0:23:07.405