Speaker 1: Already and this is the Daily OS.
Speaker 2: This is the Daily ohs oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 3: Good morning and welcome to the Daily OS. It's Thursday,
Speaker 3: the thirty first of July. I'm Emma Gillespie.
Speaker 2: I'm Billy FitzSimons.
Speaker 3: The Federal government has confirmed that YouTube will be included
Speaker 3: in its social media ban for children under sixteen. The
Speaker 3: video streaming platform was originally going to be exempt from
Speaker 3: the ban, but following mounting pressure from Australia's e Safety Commissioner,
Speaker 3: the government has changed its mind. The move's drawn criticism
Speaker 3: from the opposition, while YouTube's parent company Google is reportedly
Speaker 3: considering legal action against the government over the decision.
Speaker 2: We'll take you through the latest on the social media
Speaker 2: ban and discuss whether Google's threat of legal action could succeed.
Speaker 2: Right after a quick message from our sponsor, so M
Speaker 2: we're talking today about this social media ban for under sixteens. Now,
Speaker 2: this is legislation that has actually already been tabled in
Speaker 2: Parliament and as I understand, it has already gone through.
Speaker 2: For anyone who missed this, because I think it happened
Speaker 2: at the very end of last year, do you want
Speaker 2: to just explain the context of this.
Speaker 3: Yes. So you might remember last year it was November
Speaker 3: when the government introduced its bill to ban under sixteen
Speaker 3: year olds from social media. Now, that followed this kind
Speaker 3: of intense public campaign that gained a lot of media attention,
Speaker 3: a lot of celebrity endorsements, a lot of parents and
Speaker 3: schools were on board, essentially saying that the government needed
Speaker 3: to do a better job of protecting young people's mental
Speaker 3: health in the online space. So, off the back of
Speaker 3: that campaign, Australia became the first country in the world
Speaker 3: to legislate an age specific social media ban. So under
Speaker 3: the legislation, platforms including Snapchat, Instagram, x TikTok, Reddit, Facebook,
Speaker 3: they all have to block any user under sixteen from
Speaker 3: having an account on their platform, and the responsibility basically
Speaker 3: will fall on the platforms themselves. So it'll be up
Speaker 3: to social media companies to enforce this ban, and failure
Speaker 3: to comply will result in fines of fifty million dollars.
Speaker 2: Okay, So, the Australian government introduces this ban for social
Speaker 2: media for under sixteen year olds, but YouTube is exempt
Speaker 2: from the ban. What was the government's reasoning at the
Speaker 2: time as to why YouTube was exempt?
Speaker 3: So initially YouTube was not included in this legislation, as
Speaker 3: you mentioned, Billy, predominantly because the government said it's used
Speaker 3: for learning. YouTube is used as an educational resource. So
Speaker 3: in a speech last year, then Communications Minister Michelle Roland said, YouTube,
Speaker 3: as well as some other platforms like messaging platform WhatsApp,
Speaker 3: which is also exempt quote enable young people to get
Speaker 3: the education and health support they needed. So the logic
Speaker 3: was basically that unlike Instagram, TikTok and Facebook, that YouTube
Speaker 3: serves as more of an educational tool, so it's used
Speaker 3: by teachers and students for tutorials, videos, documentaries, historical docos,
Speaker 3: and scientific experiments, all these kinds of resources, rather than
Speaker 3: being used as a social networking platform designed around user
Speaker 3: generated content and social interaction. So there is a social
Speaker 3: element to YouTube in the comments for example, but the
Speaker 3: government basically said a lot of people come to the
Speaker 3: platform for a use that is completely different. YouTube also
Speaker 3: already requires children under thirteen to provide a parent or
Speaker 3: guardians contact details when they create an account, and they
Speaker 3: also have YouTube Kids, which you might have heard of.
Speaker 3: It's a separate platform designed specifically for really young users,
Speaker 3: and there are more content restrictions on YouTube kids.
Speaker 2: It's funny how different platforms are used by different people
Speaker 2: for different things. Yeah, I have to say I do
Speaker 2: not use YouTube for educational purposes, or if I do,
Speaker 2: the extent of that was makeup tutorials when I was
Speaker 2: growing up.
Speaker 3: But you could argue that's kind of an educational resource.
Speaker 3: It's still a tutorial.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that and comedy sketches. So perhaps wasn't using it
Speaker 2: for the best thing, but hey, it was the early days,
Speaker 2: it was, and so now the government has changed its course.
Speaker 2: What prompted this shift.
Speaker 3: So there were a few key factors that seemed to
Speaker 3: have influenced this decision to include YouTube in the ban.
Speaker 3: And when it was first confirmed last year that YouTube
Speaker 3: would be exempt, you can imagine that this drew a
Speaker 3: lot of criticism from other social media companies. They argued
Speaker 3: that it wasn't fair to have a kind of separate
Speaker 3: set of rules for one and not the others. And
Speaker 3: this year we've really seen a concerted effort from the
Speaker 3: a Safety Commissioner. So this is Australia's top online safety advisor.
Speaker 3: The Commissioner's name is Julie Inman Grant and in June
Speaker 3: so last month she issued official advice to the federal government,
Speaker 3: urging it to reconsider its stance specifically around YouTube. So
Speaker 3: She pointed out that you can still access YouTube without
Speaker 3: an account, but argued that the platform has evolved beyond
Speaker 3: just educational content and that young people are still at
Speaker 3: risk if they hold an account and if they are
Speaker 3: engaging with the platform. So E Safety recommended there be
Speaker 3: no exemptions for specific platforms under the legislation because quote
Speaker 3: the relative risks and harms can change at any given
Speaker 3: moment across different types of social media. In an addressed
Speaker 3: to the National Press Club, Julian mcgrant said that recent
Speaker 3: E safety research had shown four in ten children reported
Speaker 3: being exposed to harmful content on YouTube, which was the
Speaker 3: highest of any platform. So that research really drove this
Speaker 3: push by E safety to get YouTube included in the.
Speaker 2: Band okay so Australia's E Safety Commissioner said that in
Speaker 2: June at the time, how did YouTube respond to those claims?
Speaker 3: So YouTube has rejected those claims roundly. Its public policy
Speaker 3: senior manager Rachel Lord criticized E Safety's advice, saying the
Speaker 3: video sharing platform is widely used in classroom teaching, and
Speaker 3: in a statement, Lord said banning YouTube would ignore evidence
Speaker 3: from teachers and parents that YouTube is suitable for younger users.
Speaker 3: So they really leaned on that kind of community messaging
Speaker 3: that this is not the same type of social media
Speaker 3: as your kind of meta owned platforms and the others
Speaker 3: got it.
Speaker 2: Did the other social media platforms that were included in
Speaker 2: a ban have anything to say about YouTube's exemption?
Speaker 3: Yes, So the criticism has broadly been that if the
Speaker 3: government was serious about protecting children from online harms, then
Speaker 3: the world's largest video platform shouldn't get special treatment. So TikTok,
Speaker 3: for example, its policy director in Australia, Ella Wood's Joyce,
Speaker 3: compared YouTube's exemption to quote banning the sale of soft
Speaker 3: drinks to minors but exempting Coca cola.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we love an analogy, sure too, Okay, So clearly
Speaker 2: there was mounting pressure from the big social media platforms
Speaker 2: and also the E Safety Commissioner to ensure that there
Speaker 2: are no exemptions, and that pressure seemed to have worked,
Speaker 2: because this week the government announced that YouTube would no
Speaker 2: longer be exempt and now under sixteen year olds will
Speaker 2: be banned from using that platform. How did this announcement
Speaker 2: unfold this week?
Speaker 3: So after the E Safety Commissioner wrote to the government
Speaker 3: in June with that advice we heard from the government.
Speaker 3: It said that basically the Communications Minister Annika Wells was
Speaker 3: carefully considering that advice and so that's where things stayed
Speaker 3: out for a few weeks until Tuesday night, when the
Speaker 3: government announced YouTube would be subject to the same age
Speaker 3: restrictions as other social media platforms. We got a statement
Speaker 3: from Prime Minister Anthony Alberesi's office which said the decision
Speaker 3: followed extensive consultation and was in four formed by advice
Speaker 3: from the E Safety Commissioner. The statement said online gaming,
Speaker 3: messaging apps, health and education services though would not be
Speaker 3: included in the ban quote because they pose fewer social
Speaker 3: media harms to under sixteens or are regulated under different laws,
Speaker 3: so that includes WhatsApp for example. WhatsApp will not be
Speaker 3: included or affected by the ban, but the change does
Speaker 3: mean that from December, YouTube will be subject to the
Speaker 3: same minimum age laws that platforms like TikTok, Instagram and
Speaker 3: Snapchat will have to adhere to, and at a press
Speaker 3: conference on Wednesday, the Communications Minister Annika Wells said the
Speaker 3: evidence of harms to young users on YouTube cannot be ignored.
Speaker 1: We want kids to know who they are before platforms
Speaker 1: assume who they are. These are not set and forget
Speaker 1: rules is a set of support rules. They are world leading.
Speaker 1: But this is manifestly too important for us not to
Speaker 1: have a crap.
Speaker 2: So you mentioned before that YouTube does have the educational
Speaker 2: content on its platform, the ones that are much more
Speaker 2: educational than the makeup tutorials I watched when I was sixteen.
Speaker 2: But in terms of I know that there are you know,
Speaker 2: documentaries there which you know, maybe teachers would even use
Speaker 2: to help with classes that they're teaching. Yeah, did the
Speaker 2: Communications Minister Annika Wells say anything about whether that educational
Speaker 2: content will be accessible still?
Speaker 3: Yeah? Well, I think it's worth noting that the restriction
Speaker 3: only applies to YouTube account holders, so under sixteen year
Speaker 3: olds won't be allowed to log in on YouTube, but
Speaker 3: they can still watch videos on the platform, you know,
Speaker 3: the same way any of us can without having to
Speaker 3: log in, So that doesn't change the classroom aspect. That
Speaker 3: doesn't stop kids from watching potentially helpful videos, but it
Speaker 3: also doesn't stop them from seeing potentially harmful content either.
Speaker 2: That's interesting, So here they are really just banning under
Speaker 2: sixteens from creating an account. But YouTube is unlike something
Speaker 2: like Twitter or x I should say, or Instagram, where
Speaker 2: you actually need an account in order to view content
Speaker 2: on those platforms exactly. YouTube is not like that.
Speaker 3: And the other really important aspect to having a YouTube
Speaker 3: account is the algorithm that comes with that. So if
Speaker 3: you are logged in on YouTube, then the intuitive kind
Speaker 3: of nature of the algorithm pays attention to what you watch.
Speaker 3: It starts to learn about your habits, it starts to
Speaker 3: serve you videos that I think you might want to watch.
Speaker 3: And it's that kind of rabbit hole algorithm that's been
Speaker 3: really criticized in terms of promoting violence or serving videos
Speaker 3: to young boys that could be seen as kind of
Speaker 3: radicalizing them towards becoming violent. So the algorithm aspect is
Speaker 3: a really big one. And if you're a casual or
Speaker 3: more passive YouTube consumer, you're not logged in. It's not
Speaker 3: learning about you, it's not suggesting video content to you.
Speaker 2: Another story that I have read about this week is
Speaker 2: in relation to Google, which is YouTube's parent company, them
Speaker 2: potentially considering suing the Australian government. What is that story about.
Speaker 3: So meanwhile, in the background of all of this We've
Speaker 3: got reports from the Daily Telegraph that Google is threatening
Speaker 3: legal action against the government for proceeding with including YouTube
Speaker 3: in the ban. So we haven't seen the full details
Speaker 3: of Google's legal arguments, but they have previously raised concerns
Speaker 3: about the timing and the feasibility of age verification systems.
Speaker 3: So this all relies on successful age verification technology, and
Speaker 3: in submissions to Parliament last year, Google warned against introducing
Speaker 3: the law before tested age verification systems are in place. Now,
Speaker 3: despite the government's claims that it is running age verification
Speaker 3: trials that have been mostly successful, Google has pointed out
Speaker 3: that the full age verification system trial won't be finished
Speaker 3: until mid next year, making the bills timing concerning in
Speaker 3: its words. Annaka Wells has addressed this the Communications Minister,
Speaker 3: saying the government's waiting on the Age Assurance final recommendations,
Speaker 3: but she said that they will publish those recommendations as
Speaker 3: soon as possible.
Speaker 2: So they just so I understand they are suing over
Speaker 2: the timeline, but not necessarily the suggestion of YouTube being included.
Speaker 3: Well, this is all reported by the Daily Telegraph, but
Speaker 3: the suggestion is yes, that they're considering legal action because
Speaker 3: of the timeline, and because the technology might not have
Speaker 3: met the timeline. And there's also a potential argument about
Speaker 3: challenging the legislation on constitutional grounds. So the Daily Telegraph
Speaker 3: reports cited a letter sent by Google to the Communications
Speaker 3: Minister which said including YouTube in the band would diminish
Speaker 3: the quote implied constitutional freedom of political communication, So a
Speaker 3: free speech argument there, and how has.
Speaker 2: The government responded to this threat of legal action from Google?
Speaker 3: So Anaka Wells addressed this directly yesterday when she said
Speaker 3: she will quote not be intimidated by legal threats when
Speaker 3: this is a genuine fight for the well being of
Speaker 3: Australian kids. Speaking alongside her, also yesterday, Prime Minister Anthony
Speaker 3: Albernezi acknowledged that the ban isn't going to be a
Speaker 3: simple or easy process, but he did say the government
Speaker 3: wants this to be a cooperative one. So he essentially
Speaker 3: dismissed claims that these platforms don't have the resources or
Speaker 3: technology or that they're not going to be ready to
Speaker 3: roll out age verification. Here's a little bit of what
Speaker 3: he said.
Speaker 4: I know where you go, how you talk to, what
Speaker 4: you're interested in. You know, they do keep that information
Speaker 4: and during the election campaign if they could identify for
Speaker 4: political parties in order to encourage us to invest on
Speaker 4: their platforms on an issue like childcare, identifying women between
Speaker 4: a particular age, in a particular seat, in a particular
Speaker 4: demographic with particular postcodes, then they can help out here too.
Speaker 4: They can use the capacity which we know that they have.
Speaker 2: Has the opposition responded to the YouTube announcement, So.
Speaker 3: The Coalition interestingly has supported this social media ban for
Speaker 3: under sixteen year olds. It's really very much in favor
Speaker 3: of us exactly. They really were on board, but since
Speaker 3: news that YouTube was going to be included, they have
Speaker 3: been pretty critical of the government. So the Coalition are
Speaker 3: not criticizing the ban itself, but they've said that Labor
Speaker 3: has essentially broken a promise with this backflip. We've heard
Speaker 3: from Shadow Communications Minister Melissa Macintosh, who has accused the
Speaker 3: government of a lack of transparency. She said Labor quote
Speaker 3: cannot hide the fact that they deliberately misled the public
Speaker 3: at the last election by promising to keep YouTube out
Speaker 3: of the social media age minimum. She said the Coalition
Speaker 3: is concerned that the e Safety Commissioner as well is
Speaker 3: testing boundaries quote which are moving beyond what Australians are
Speaker 3: comfortable with.
Speaker 2: So in terms of what happens now, you said before
Speaker 2: that this comes into effect on the tenth of December,
Speaker 2: I believe you said. And so what needs to happen
Speaker 2: between now and then.
Speaker 3: Yes, So, as you said, this legislation is due to
Speaker 3: come into effect in December. The E Safety Commissioner will
Speaker 3: be responsible for enforcing the new rules against the social
Speaker 3: media companies, but it will be up to each platform
Speaker 3: to roll out their own strategies to ensure they're complying
Speaker 3: with the law. So in terms of how they do that,
Speaker 3: we need I suppose more concrete evidence or advice on
Speaker 3: age verification technology. But it is worth noting that the
Speaker 3: legislation places the responsibility on the platforms, not the users,
Speaker 3: so not on young people or their parents. Users are
Speaker 3: not going to face penalties for attempting to access these platforms. Now,
Speaker 3: in terms of the legal threat, Google may follow through
Speaker 3: on that, and that could involve challenging this legislation in
Speaker 3: the Federal court in order to avoid that. You know,
Speaker 3: purely speculating here, but the government might end up goiating
Speaker 3: or working with them to kind of prevent legal action
Speaker 3: from going all the way to court, and that could
Speaker 3: look like, you know, some flexibility on the technical implementation
Speaker 3: of age verification or some delays. So the legal threat
Speaker 3: could potentially delay implementation. But given the bipartisan support that
Speaker 3: we've seen for this legislation and the substantial work that's
Speaker 3: already been done on the age verification trials, the government seems,
Speaker 3: you know, pretty sternly committed to proceeding with the December deadline.
Speaker 2: Something tells me we are going to be hearing a
Speaker 2: lot more about it in the months to come, exactly.
Speaker 2: And thank you so much for explaining that. Thank you,
Speaker 2: and thank you so much for listening to this episode
Speaker 2: of The Daily os or you might be listening or
Speaker 2: watching on YouTube hopefully you're over sixteen.
Speaker 1: Hello.
Speaker 2: We'll be back this afternoon with your evening headlines, but
Speaker 2: until then, have a good day.
Speaker 1: My name is Lily Madden and I'm a proud Arunda
Speaker 1: Bungelung Calcuttin woman country. The Daily oz acknowledges that this
Speaker 1: podcast is recorded on the lands of the Gadigal people
Speaker 1: and pays respect to all Aboriginal and torrest Rate island
Speaker 1: and nations. We pay our respects to the first peoples
Speaker 1: of these countries, both past and present,