WEBVTT - YouTube vs the Fed Govt

0:00:00.520 --> 0:00:03.240
<v Speaker 1>Already and this is the Daily OS.

0:00:03.400 --> 0:00:06.840
<v Speaker 2>This is the Daily ohs oh, now it makes sense.

0:00:14.720 --> 0:00:17.800
<v Speaker 3>Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Thursday,

0:00:17.840 --> 0:00:20.480
<v Speaker 3>the thirty first of July. I'm Emma Gillespie.

0:00:20.560 --> 0:00:21.720
<v Speaker 2>I'm Billy FitzSimons.

0:00:22.000 --> 0:00:26.119
<v Speaker 3>The Federal government has confirmed that YouTube will be included

0:00:26.239 --> 0:00:29.880
<v Speaker 3>in its social media ban for children under sixteen. The

0:00:29.960 --> 0:00:33.680
<v Speaker 3>video streaming platform was originally going to be exempt from

0:00:33.680 --> 0:00:37.920
<v Speaker 3>the ban, but following mounting pressure from Australia's e Safety Commissioner,

0:00:38.040 --> 0:00:42.040
<v Speaker 3>the government has changed its mind. The move's drawn criticism

0:00:42.159 --> 0:00:46.480
<v Speaker 3>from the opposition, while YouTube's parent company Google is reportedly

0:00:46.560 --> 0:00:50.199
<v Speaker 3>considering legal action against the government over the decision.

0:00:50.600 --> 0:00:52.960
<v Speaker 2>We'll take you through the latest on the social media

0:00:53.000 --> 0:00:57.320
<v Speaker 2>ban and discuss whether Google's threat of legal action could succeed.

0:00:57.600 --> 0:01:04.560
<v Speaker 2>Right after a quick message from our sponsor, so M

0:01:04.640 --> 0:01:08.800
<v Speaker 2>we're talking today about this social media ban for under sixteens. Now,

0:01:08.880 --> 0:01:12.440
<v Speaker 2>this is legislation that has actually already been tabled in

0:01:12.480 --> 0:01:15.400
<v Speaker 2>Parliament and as I understand, it has already gone through.

0:01:15.880 --> 0:01:18.400
<v Speaker 2>For anyone who missed this, because I think it happened

0:01:18.520 --> 0:01:20.640
<v Speaker 2>at the very end of last year, do you want

0:01:20.680 --> 0:01:22.319
<v Speaker 2>to just explain the context of this.

0:01:22.720 --> 0:01:25.640
<v Speaker 3>Yes. So you might remember last year it was November

0:01:25.720 --> 0:01:28.680
<v Speaker 3>when the government introduced its bill to ban under sixteen

0:01:28.720 --> 0:01:31.920
<v Speaker 3>year olds from social media. Now, that followed this kind

0:01:31.959 --> 0:01:36.039
<v Speaker 3>of intense public campaign that gained a lot of media attention,

0:01:36.200 --> 0:01:38.800
<v Speaker 3>a lot of celebrity endorsements, a lot of parents and

0:01:38.840 --> 0:01:42.280
<v Speaker 3>schools were on board, essentially saying that the government needed

0:01:42.319 --> 0:01:45.440
<v Speaker 3>to do a better job of protecting young people's mental

0:01:45.440 --> 0:01:49.000
<v Speaker 3>health in the online space. So, off the back of

0:01:49.040 --> 0:01:52.400
<v Speaker 3>that campaign, Australia became the first country in the world

0:01:52.720 --> 0:01:56.680
<v Speaker 3>to legislate an age specific social media ban. So under

0:01:56.720 --> 0:02:03.480
<v Speaker 3>the legislation, platforms including Snapchat, Instagram, x TikTok, Reddit, Facebook,

0:02:03.840 --> 0:02:07.280
<v Speaker 3>they all have to block any user under sixteen from

0:02:07.320 --> 0:02:11.079
<v Speaker 3>having an account on their platform, and the responsibility basically

0:02:11.280 --> 0:02:13.840
<v Speaker 3>will fall on the platforms themselves. So it'll be up

0:02:13.840 --> 0:02:17.720
<v Speaker 3>to social media companies to enforce this ban, and failure

0:02:17.800 --> 0:02:20.920
<v Speaker 3>to comply will result in fines of fifty million dollars.

0:02:21.280 --> 0:02:24.640
<v Speaker 2>Okay, So, the Australian government introduces this ban for social

0:02:24.680 --> 0:02:28.919
<v Speaker 2>media for under sixteen year olds, but YouTube is exempt

0:02:28.960 --> 0:02:32.480
<v Speaker 2>from the ban. What was the government's reasoning at the

0:02:32.560 --> 0:02:35.079
<v Speaker 2>time as to why YouTube was exempt?

0:02:35.240 --> 0:02:38.119
<v Speaker 3>So initially YouTube was not included in this legislation, as

0:02:38.120 --> 0:02:42.480
<v Speaker 3>you mentioned, Billy, predominantly because the government said it's used

0:02:42.600 --> 0:02:46.120
<v Speaker 3>for learning. YouTube is used as an educational resource. So

0:02:46.160 --> 0:02:51.160
<v Speaker 3>in a speech last year, then Communications Minister Michelle Roland said, YouTube,

0:02:51.200 --> 0:02:54.200
<v Speaker 3>as well as some other platforms like messaging platform WhatsApp,

0:02:54.200 --> 0:02:57.440
<v Speaker 3>which is also exempt quote enable young people to get

0:02:57.440 --> 0:03:01.160
<v Speaker 3>the education and health support they needed. So the logic

0:03:01.280 --> 0:03:06.320
<v Speaker 3>was basically that unlike Instagram, TikTok and Facebook, that YouTube

0:03:06.360 --> 0:03:10.079
<v Speaker 3>serves as more of an educational tool, so it's used

0:03:10.120 --> 0:03:16.600
<v Speaker 3>by teachers and students for tutorials, videos, documentaries, historical docos,

0:03:16.680 --> 0:03:21.399
<v Speaker 3>and scientific experiments, all these kinds of resources, rather than

0:03:21.560 --> 0:03:26.040
<v Speaker 3>being used as a social networking platform designed around user

0:03:26.080 --> 0:03:29.400
<v Speaker 3>generated content and social interaction. So there is a social

0:03:29.520 --> 0:03:32.520
<v Speaker 3>element to YouTube in the comments for example, but the

0:03:32.560 --> 0:03:34.560
<v Speaker 3>government basically said a lot of people come to the

0:03:34.560 --> 0:03:38.360
<v Speaker 3>platform for a use that is completely different. YouTube also

0:03:38.480 --> 0:03:42.080
<v Speaker 3>already requires children under thirteen to provide a parent or

0:03:42.080 --> 0:03:45.400
<v Speaker 3>guardians contact details when they create an account, and they

0:03:45.440 --> 0:03:47.640
<v Speaker 3>also have YouTube Kids, which you might have heard of.

0:03:47.760 --> 0:03:52.360
<v Speaker 3>It's a separate platform designed specifically for really young users,

0:03:52.440 --> 0:03:55.240
<v Speaker 3>and there are more content restrictions on YouTube kids.

0:03:55.480 --> 0:03:59.280
<v Speaker 2>It's funny how different platforms are used by different people

0:03:59.280 --> 0:04:01.320
<v Speaker 2>for different things. Yeah, I have to say I do

0:04:01.440 --> 0:04:04.760
<v Speaker 2>not use YouTube for educational purposes, or if I do,

0:04:05.000 --> 0:04:07.920
<v Speaker 2>the extent of that was makeup tutorials when I was

0:04:07.960 --> 0:04:08.640
<v Speaker 2>growing up.

0:04:08.520 --> 0:04:11.840
<v Speaker 3>But you could argue that's kind of an educational resource.

0:04:11.880 --> 0:04:13.000
<v Speaker 3>It's still a tutorial.

0:04:13.160 --> 0:04:16.159
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, that and comedy sketches. So perhaps wasn't using it

0:04:16.200 --> 0:04:18.800
<v Speaker 2>for the best thing, but hey, it was the early days,

0:04:18.920 --> 0:04:22.640
<v Speaker 2>it was, and so now the government has changed its course.

0:04:22.880 --> 0:04:24.560
<v Speaker 2>What prompted this shift.

0:04:25.080 --> 0:04:27.680
<v Speaker 3>So there were a few key factors that seemed to

0:04:27.720 --> 0:04:30.880
<v Speaker 3>have influenced this decision to include YouTube in the ban.

0:04:31.400 --> 0:04:33.600
<v Speaker 3>And when it was first confirmed last year that YouTube

0:04:33.600 --> 0:04:36.919
<v Speaker 3>would be exempt, you can imagine that this drew a

0:04:36.960 --> 0:04:40.919
<v Speaker 3>lot of criticism from other social media companies. They argued

0:04:40.960 --> 0:04:42.960
<v Speaker 3>that it wasn't fair to have a kind of separate

0:04:43.000 --> 0:04:45.320
<v Speaker 3>set of rules for one and not the others. And

0:04:45.360 --> 0:04:48.440
<v Speaker 3>this year we've really seen a concerted effort from the

0:04:48.440 --> 0:04:52.400
<v Speaker 3>a Safety Commissioner. So this is Australia's top online safety advisor.

0:04:52.520 --> 0:04:56.320
<v Speaker 3>The Commissioner's name is Julie Inman Grant and in June

0:04:56.360 --> 0:05:00.880
<v Speaker 3>so last month she issued official advice to the federal government,

0:05:01.160 --> 0:05:05.360
<v Speaker 3>urging it to reconsider its stance specifically around YouTube. So

0:05:05.440 --> 0:05:08.400
<v Speaker 3>She pointed out that you can still access YouTube without

0:05:08.440 --> 0:05:12.200
<v Speaker 3>an account, but argued that the platform has evolved beyond

0:05:12.600 --> 0:05:16.240
<v Speaker 3>just educational content and that young people are still at

0:05:16.320 --> 0:05:18.680
<v Speaker 3>risk if they hold an account and if they are

0:05:18.720 --> 0:05:21.919
<v Speaker 3>engaging with the platform. So E Safety recommended there be

0:05:22.040 --> 0:05:26.279
<v Speaker 3>no exemptions for specific platforms under the legislation because quote

0:05:26.360 --> 0:05:29.359
<v Speaker 3>the relative risks and harms can change at any given

0:05:29.400 --> 0:05:32.679
<v Speaker 3>moment across different types of social media. In an addressed

0:05:32.720 --> 0:05:35.800
<v Speaker 3>to the National Press Club, Julian mcgrant said that recent

0:05:35.880 --> 0:05:40.080
<v Speaker 3>E safety research had shown four in ten children reported

0:05:40.120 --> 0:05:43.520
<v Speaker 3>being exposed to harmful content on YouTube, which was the

0:05:43.600 --> 0:05:47.520
<v Speaker 3>highest of any platform. So that research really drove this

0:05:47.560 --> 0:05:50.680
<v Speaker 3>push by E safety to get YouTube included in the.

0:05:50.600 --> 0:05:53.920
<v Speaker 2>Band okay so Australia's E Safety Commissioner said that in

0:05:54.040 --> 0:05:58.440
<v Speaker 2>June at the time, how did YouTube respond to those claims?

0:05:58.800 --> 0:06:03.800
<v Speaker 3>So YouTube has rejected those claims roundly. Its public policy

0:06:03.880 --> 0:06:08.280
<v Speaker 3>senior manager Rachel Lord criticized E Safety's advice, saying the

0:06:08.360 --> 0:06:12.600
<v Speaker 3>video sharing platform is widely used in classroom teaching, and

0:06:12.640 --> 0:06:15.960
<v Speaker 3>in a statement, Lord said banning YouTube would ignore evidence

0:06:16.000 --> 0:06:20.160
<v Speaker 3>from teachers and parents that YouTube is suitable for younger users.

0:06:20.760 --> 0:06:23.160
<v Speaker 3>So they really leaned on that kind of community messaging

0:06:23.240 --> 0:06:26.080
<v Speaker 3>that this is not the same type of social media

0:06:26.200 --> 0:06:28.920
<v Speaker 3>as your kind of meta owned platforms and the others

0:06:29.160 --> 0:06:29.479
<v Speaker 3>got it.

0:06:29.839 --> 0:06:33.120
<v Speaker 2>Did the other social media platforms that were included in

0:06:33.200 --> 0:06:36.120
<v Speaker 2>a ban have anything to say about YouTube's exemption?

0:06:36.400 --> 0:06:39.479
<v Speaker 3>Yes, So the criticism has broadly been that if the

0:06:39.520 --> 0:06:43.520
<v Speaker 3>government was serious about protecting children from online harms, then

0:06:43.640 --> 0:06:48.440
<v Speaker 3>the world's largest video platform shouldn't get special treatment. So TikTok,

0:06:48.560 --> 0:06:52.360
<v Speaker 3>for example, its policy director in Australia, Ella Wood's Joyce,

0:06:52.640 --> 0:06:56.440
<v Speaker 3>compared YouTube's exemption to quote banning the sale of soft

0:06:56.520 --> 0:06:59.520
<v Speaker 3>drinks to minors but exempting Coca cola.

0:07:00.640 --> 0:07:05.440
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, we love an analogy, sure too, Okay, So clearly

0:07:05.440 --> 0:07:09.000
<v Speaker 2>there was mounting pressure from the big social media platforms

0:07:09.040 --> 0:07:12.160
<v Speaker 2>and also the E Safety Commissioner to ensure that there

0:07:12.160 --> 0:07:16.040
<v Speaker 2>are no exemptions, and that pressure seemed to have worked,

0:07:16.120 --> 0:07:19.560
<v Speaker 2>because this week the government announced that YouTube would no

0:07:19.640 --> 0:07:22.760
<v Speaker 2>longer be exempt and now under sixteen year olds will

0:07:22.800 --> 0:07:26.480
<v Speaker 2>be banned from using that platform. How did this announcement

0:07:26.720 --> 0:07:27.960
<v Speaker 2>unfold this week?

0:07:28.480 --> 0:07:31.760
<v Speaker 3>So after the E Safety Commissioner wrote to the government

0:07:31.920 --> 0:07:35.920
<v Speaker 3>in June with that advice we heard from the government.

0:07:36.120 --> 0:07:40.160
<v Speaker 3>It said that basically the Communications Minister Annika Wells was

0:07:40.240 --> 0:07:44.040
<v Speaker 3>carefully considering that advice and so that's where things stayed

0:07:44.040 --> 0:07:46.880
<v Speaker 3>out for a few weeks until Tuesday night, when the

0:07:46.920 --> 0:07:50.160
<v Speaker 3>government announced YouTube would be subject to the same age

0:07:50.200 --> 0:07:53.880
<v Speaker 3>restrictions as other social media platforms. We got a statement

0:07:53.920 --> 0:07:56.920
<v Speaker 3>from Prime Minister Anthony Alberesi's office which said the decision

0:07:56.960 --> 0:08:00.960
<v Speaker 3>followed extensive consultation and was in four formed by advice

0:08:01.120 --> 0:08:04.840
<v Speaker 3>from the E Safety Commissioner. The statement said online gaming,

0:08:05.000 --> 0:08:09.080
<v Speaker 3>messaging apps, health and education services though would not be

0:08:09.160 --> 0:08:12.520
<v Speaker 3>included in the ban quote because they pose fewer social

0:08:12.560 --> 0:08:17.080
<v Speaker 3>media harms to under sixteens or are regulated under different laws,

0:08:17.480 --> 0:08:20.800
<v Speaker 3>so that includes WhatsApp for example. WhatsApp will not be

0:08:20.840 --> 0:08:23.840
<v Speaker 3>included or affected by the ban, but the change does

0:08:23.960 --> 0:08:27.600
<v Speaker 3>mean that from December, YouTube will be subject to the

0:08:27.640 --> 0:08:31.920
<v Speaker 3>same minimum age laws that platforms like TikTok, Instagram and

0:08:32.040 --> 0:08:34.760
<v Speaker 3>Snapchat will have to adhere to, and at a press

0:08:34.760 --> 0:08:38.400
<v Speaker 3>conference on Wednesday, the Communications Minister Annika Wells said the

0:08:38.440 --> 0:08:42.360
<v Speaker 3>evidence of harms to young users on YouTube cannot be ignored.

0:08:42.640 --> 0:08:45.920
<v Speaker 1>We want kids to know who they are before platforms

0:08:46.080 --> 0:08:50.440
<v Speaker 1>assume who they are. These are not set and forget

0:08:50.520 --> 0:08:53.600
<v Speaker 1>rules is a set of support rules. They are world leading.

0:08:53.800 --> 0:08:56.920
<v Speaker 1>But this is manifestly too important for us not to

0:08:56.960 --> 0:08:57.439
<v Speaker 1>have a crap.

0:08:57.920 --> 0:09:01.400
<v Speaker 2>So you mentioned before that YouTube does have the educational

0:09:01.480 --> 0:09:04.000
<v Speaker 2>content on its platform, the ones that are much more

0:09:04.120 --> 0:09:07.080
<v Speaker 2>educational than the makeup tutorials I watched when I was sixteen.

0:09:07.679 --> 0:09:09.640
<v Speaker 2>But in terms of I know that there are you know,

0:09:09.720 --> 0:09:13.040
<v Speaker 2>documentaries there which you know, maybe teachers would even use

0:09:13.200 --> 0:09:16.560
<v Speaker 2>to help with classes that they're teaching. Yeah, did the

0:09:16.600 --> 0:09:21.199
<v Speaker 2>Communications Minister Annika Wells say anything about whether that educational

0:09:21.240 --> 0:09:23.160
<v Speaker 2>content will be accessible still?

0:09:23.360 --> 0:09:26.320
<v Speaker 3>Yeah? Well, I think it's worth noting that the restriction

0:09:26.600 --> 0:09:31.240
<v Speaker 3>only applies to YouTube account holders, so under sixteen year

0:09:31.280 --> 0:09:34.120
<v Speaker 3>olds won't be allowed to log in on YouTube, but

0:09:34.160 --> 0:09:36.600
<v Speaker 3>they can still watch videos on the platform, you know,

0:09:36.640 --> 0:09:39.040
<v Speaker 3>the same way any of us can without having to

0:09:39.120 --> 0:09:43.559
<v Speaker 3>log in, So that doesn't change the classroom aspect. That

0:09:43.679 --> 0:09:48.160
<v Speaker 3>doesn't stop kids from watching potentially helpful videos, but it

0:09:48.200 --> 0:09:52.000
<v Speaker 3>also doesn't stop them from seeing potentially harmful content either.

0:09:52.280 --> 0:09:55.440
<v Speaker 2>That's interesting, So here they are really just banning under

0:09:55.480 --> 0:09:59.720
<v Speaker 2>sixteens from creating an account. But YouTube is unlike something

0:09:59.760 --> 0:10:03.360
<v Speaker 2>like Twitter or x I should say, or Instagram, where

0:10:03.400 --> 0:10:06.160
<v Speaker 2>you actually need an account in order to view content

0:10:06.240 --> 0:10:08.480
<v Speaker 2>on those platforms exactly. YouTube is not like that.

0:10:08.600 --> 0:10:11.640
<v Speaker 3>And the other really important aspect to having a YouTube

0:10:11.720 --> 0:10:15.680
<v Speaker 3>account is the algorithm that comes with that. So if

0:10:15.720 --> 0:10:19.360
<v Speaker 3>you are logged in on YouTube, then the intuitive kind

0:10:19.360 --> 0:10:22.200
<v Speaker 3>of nature of the algorithm pays attention to what you watch.

0:10:22.280 --> 0:10:24.480
<v Speaker 3>It starts to learn about your habits, it starts to

0:10:24.520 --> 0:10:26.920
<v Speaker 3>serve you videos that I think you might want to watch.

0:10:27.280 --> 0:10:29.760
<v Speaker 3>And it's that kind of rabbit hole algorithm that's been

0:10:29.800 --> 0:10:35.040
<v Speaker 3>really criticized in terms of promoting violence or serving videos

0:10:35.080 --> 0:10:37.439
<v Speaker 3>to young boys that could be seen as kind of

0:10:37.520 --> 0:10:42.720
<v Speaker 3>radicalizing them towards becoming violent. So the algorithm aspect is

0:10:42.720 --> 0:10:45.200
<v Speaker 3>a really big one. And if you're a casual or

0:10:45.200 --> 0:10:49.120
<v Speaker 3>more passive YouTube consumer, you're not logged in. It's not

0:10:49.280 --> 0:10:52.440
<v Speaker 3>learning about you, it's not suggesting video content to you.

0:10:53.000 --> 0:10:56.160
<v Speaker 2>Another story that I have read about this week is

0:10:56.200 --> 0:11:00.480
<v Speaker 2>in relation to Google, which is YouTube's parent company, them

0:11:00.480 --> 0:11:05.559
<v Speaker 2>potentially considering suing the Australian government. What is that story about.

0:11:06.120 --> 0:11:08.960
<v Speaker 3>So meanwhile, in the background of all of this We've

0:11:08.960 --> 0:11:12.040
<v Speaker 3>got reports from the Daily Telegraph that Google is threatening

0:11:12.120 --> 0:11:15.880
<v Speaker 3>legal action against the government for proceeding with including YouTube

0:11:15.920 --> 0:11:18.400
<v Speaker 3>in the ban. So we haven't seen the full details

0:11:18.440 --> 0:11:22.319
<v Speaker 3>of Google's legal arguments, but they have previously raised concerns

0:11:22.400 --> 0:11:26.679
<v Speaker 3>about the timing and the feasibility of age verification systems.

0:11:26.880 --> 0:11:31.160
<v Speaker 3>So this all relies on successful age verification technology, and

0:11:31.240 --> 0:11:35.080
<v Speaker 3>in submissions to Parliament last year, Google warned against introducing

0:11:35.120 --> 0:11:39.920
<v Speaker 3>the law before tested age verification systems are in place. Now,

0:11:39.960 --> 0:11:43.079
<v Speaker 3>despite the government's claims that it is running age verification

0:11:43.200 --> 0:11:46.600
<v Speaker 3>trials that have been mostly successful, Google has pointed out

0:11:46.679 --> 0:11:49.800
<v Speaker 3>that the full age verification system trial won't be finished

0:11:49.840 --> 0:11:54.480
<v Speaker 3>until mid next year, making the bills timing concerning in

0:11:54.600 --> 0:11:58.080
<v Speaker 3>its words. Annaka Wells has addressed this the Communications Minister,

0:11:58.200 --> 0:12:02.040
<v Speaker 3>saying the government's waiting on the Age Assurance final recommendations,

0:12:02.440 --> 0:12:05.360
<v Speaker 3>but she said that they will publish those recommendations as

0:12:05.400 --> 0:12:06.960
<v Speaker 3>soon as possible.

0:12:06.920 --> 0:12:09.920
<v Speaker 2>So they just so I understand they are suing over

0:12:10.120 --> 0:12:16.080
<v Speaker 2>the timeline, but not necessarily the suggestion of YouTube being included.

0:12:15.840 --> 0:12:19.720
<v Speaker 3>Well, this is all reported by the Daily Telegraph, but

0:12:19.800 --> 0:12:23.720
<v Speaker 3>the suggestion is yes, that they're considering legal action because

0:12:23.760 --> 0:12:27.000
<v Speaker 3>of the timeline, and because the technology might not have

0:12:27.280 --> 0:12:32.040
<v Speaker 3>met the timeline. And there's also a potential argument about

0:12:32.120 --> 0:12:36.400
<v Speaker 3>challenging the legislation on constitutional grounds. So the Daily Telegraph

0:12:36.480 --> 0:12:39.680
<v Speaker 3>reports cited a letter sent by Google to the Communications

0:12:39.720 --> 0:12:42.800
<v Speaker 3>Minister which said including YouTube in the band would diminish

0:12:42.920 --> 0:12:47.960
<v Speaker 3>the quote implied constitutional freedom of political communication, So a

0:12:48.000 --> 0:12:50.520
<v Speaker 3>free speech argument there, and how has.

0:12:50.400 --> 0:12:54.280
<v Speaker 2>The government responded to this threat of legal action from Google?

0:12:54.640 --> 0:12:58.760
<v Speaker 3>So Anaka Wells addressed this directly yesterday when she said

0:12:58.840 --> 0:13:02.120
<v Speaker 3>she will quote not be intimidated by legal threats when

0:13:02.120 --> 0:13:04.960
<v Speaker 3>this is a genuine fight for the well being of

0:13:05.120 --> 0:13:10.199
<v Speaker 3>Australian kids. Speaking alongside her, also yesterday, Prime Minister Anthony

0:13:10.200 --> 0:13:13.920
<v Speaker 3>Albernezi acknowledged that the ban isn't going to be a

0:13:14.000 --> 0:13:17.120
<v Speaker 3>simple or easy process, but he did say the government

0:13:17.160 --> 0:13:20.760
<v Speaker 3>wants this to be a cooperative one. So he essentially

0:13:20.840 --> 0:13:24.760
<v Speaker 3>dismissed claims that these platforms don't have the resources or

0:13:24.800 --> 0:13:27.560
<v Speaker 3>technology or that they're not going to be ready to

0:13:27.679 --> 0:13:30.600
<v Speaker 3>roll out age verification. Here's a little bit of what

0:13:30.720 --> 0:13:31.199
<v Speaker 3>he said.

0:13:31.720 --> 0:13:35.559
<v Speaker 4>I know where you go, how you talk to, what

0:13:35.640 --> 0:13:39.240
<v Speaker 4>you're interested in. You know, they do keep that information

0:13:39.320 --> 0:13:42.920
<v Speaker 4>and during the election campaign if they could identify for

0:13:43.080 --> 0:13:46.840
<v Speaker 4>political parties in order to encourage us to invest on

0:13:46.920 --> 0:13:53.320
<v Speaker 4>their platforms on an issue like childcare, identifying women between

0:13:53.360 --> 0:13:56.760
<v Speaker 4>a particular age, in a particular seat, in a particular

0:13:56.840 --> 0:14:01.880
<v Speaker 4>demographic with particular postcodes, then they can help out here too.

0:14:02.400 --> 0:14:05.120
<v Speaker 4>They can use the capacity which we know that they have.

0:14:05.840 --> 0:14:10.240
<v Speaker 2>Has the opposition responded to the YouTube announcement, So.

0:14:10.360 --> 0:14:14.240
<v Speaker 3>The Coalition interestingly has supported this social media ban for

0:14:14.320 --> 0:14:16.959
<v Speaker 3>under sixteen year olds. It's really very much in favor

0:14:17.000 --> 0:14:20.120
<v Speaker 3>of us exactly. They really were on board, but since

0:14:20.200 --> 0:14:22.960
<v Speaker 3>news that YouTube was going to be included, they have

0:14:23.280 --> 0:14:26.720
<v Speaker 3>been pretty critical of the government. So the Coalition are

0:14:26.720 --> 0:14:30.080
<v Speaker 3>not criticizing the ban itself, but they've said that Labor

0:14:30.120 --> 0:14:33.640
<v Speaker 3>has essentially broken a promise with this backflip. We've heard

0:14:33.640 --> 0:14:37.280
<v Speaker 3>from Shadow Communications Minister Melissa Macintosh, who has accused the

0:14:37.320 --> 0:14:40.560
<v Speaker 3>government of a lack of transparency. She said Labor quote

0:14:40.560 --> 0:14:43.280
<v Speaker 3>cannot hide the fact that they deliberately misled the public

0:14:43.320 --> 0:14:46.480
<v Speaker 3>at the last election by promising to keep YouTube out

0:14:46.520 --> 0:14:49.600
<v Speaker 3>of the social media age minimum. She said the Coalition

0:14:49.720 --> 0:14:52.600
<v Speaker 3>is concerned that the e Safety Commissioner as well is

0:14:52.640 --> 0:14:56.840
<v Speaker 3>testing boundaries quote which are moving beyond what Australians are

0:14:56.840 --> 0:14:57.480
<v Speaker 3>comfortable with.

0:14:58.720 --> 0:15:01.240
<v Speaker 2>So in terms of what happens now, you said before

0:15:01.360 --> 0:15:04.080
<v Speaker 2>that this comes into effect on the tenth of December,

0:15:04.120 --> 0:15:07.120
<v Speaker 2>I believe you said. And so what needs to happen

0:15:07.160 --> 0:15:08.360
<v Speaker 2>between now and then.

0:15:08.520 --> 0:15:10.960
<v Speaker 3>Yes, So, as you said, this legislation is due to

0:15:10.960 --> 0:15:14.960
<v Speaker 3>come into effect in December. The E Safety Commissioner will

0:15:15.000 --> 0:15:18.880
<v Speaker 3>be responsible for enforcing the new rules against the social

0:15:18.920 --> 0:15:21.640
<v Speaker 3>media companies, but it will be up to each platform

0:15:21.880 --> 0:15:24.920
<v Speaker 3>to roll out their own strategies to ensure they're complying

0:15:24.960 --> 0:15:27.440
<v Speaker 3>with the law. So in terms of how they do that,

0:15:27.680 --> 0:15:32.600
<v Speaker 3>we need I suppose more concrete evidence or advice on

0:15:32.720 --> 0:15:36.480
<v Speaker 3>age verification technology. But it is worth noting that the

0:15:36.600 --> 0:15:40.520
<v Speaker 3>legislation places the responsibility on the platforms, not the users,

0:15:40.600 --> 0:15:43.120
<v Speaker 3>so not on young people or their parents. Users are

0:15:43.160 --> 0:15:47.480
<v Speaker 3>not going to face penalties for attempting to access these platforms. Now,

0:15:47.520 --> 0:15:50.720
<v Speaker 3>in terms of the legal threat, Google may follow through

0:15:50.760 --> 0:15:54.240
<v Speaker 3>on that, and that could involve challenging this legislation in

0:15:54.320 --> 0:15:57.040
<v Speaker 3>the Federal court in order to avoid that. You know,

0:15:57.120 --> 0:16:00.520
<v Speaker 3>purely speculating here, but the government might end up goiating

0:16:00.640 --> 0:16:03.600
<v Speaker 3>or working with them to kind of prevent legal action

0:16:03.640 --> 0:16:05.600
<v Speaker 3>from going all the way to court, and that could

0:16:05.640 --> 0:16:09.200
<v Speaker 3>look like, you know, some flexibility on the technical implementation

0:16:09.680 --> 0:16:13.160
<v Speaker 3>of age verification or some delays. So the legal threat

0:16:13.160 --> 0:16:17.880
<v Speaker 3>could potentially delay implementation. But given the bipartisan support that

0:16:17.920 --> 0:16:20.840
<v Speaker 3>we've seen for this legislation and the substantial work that's

0:16:20.840 --> 0:16:25.000
<v Speaker 3>already been done on the age verification trials, the government seems,

0:16:25.120 --> 0:16:29.200
<v Speaker 3>you know, pretty sternly committed to proceeding with the December deadline.

0:16:29.440 --> 0:16:31.400
<v Speaker 2>Something tells me we are going to be hearing a

0:16:31.480 --> 0:16:34.320
<v Speaker 2>lot more about it in the months to come, exactly.

0:16:34.520 --> 0:16:37.200
<v Speaker 2>And thank you so much for explaining that. Thank you,

0:16:37.520 --> 0:16:39.640
<v Speaker 2>and thank you so much for listening to this episode

0:16:39.680 --> 0:16:42.160
<v Speaker 2>of The Daily os or you might be listening or

0:16:42.200 --> 0:16:45.080
<v Speaker 2>watching on YouTube hopefully you're over sixteen.

0:16:45.200 --> 0:16:45.480
<v Speaker 1>Hello.

0:16:47.200 --> 0:16:49.840
<v Speaker 2>We'll be back this afternoon with your evening headlines, but

0:16:49.960 --> 0:16:54.800
<v Speaker 2>until then, have a good day.

0:16:55.640 --> 0:16:57.920
<v Speaker 1>My name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Arunda

0:16:58.160 --> 0:17:03.320
<v Speaker 1>Bungelung Calcuttin woman country. The Daily oz acknowledges that this

0:17:03.440 --> 0:17:05.960
<v Speaker 1>podcast is recorded on the lands of the Gadigal people

0:17:06.280 --> 0:17:09.399
<v Speaker 1>and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest Rate island

0:17:09.400 --> 0:17:12.400
<v Speaker 1>and nations. We pay our respects to the first peoples

0:17:12.440 --> 0:17:14.520
<v Speaker 1>of these countries, both past and present,