What is Australia’s Online Safety Amendment about? + UPSC?.ToString()?? UPSC?.ToString()+" Current Affairs";

THE GIST:
Australia’s Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill, 2024, mandates that platforms take reasonable steps to prevent children under 16 from creating accounts, with penalties for non-compliance reaching $49.5 million.
While aimed at reducing harm to children, the law raises privacy concerns over data collection for age verification, with safeguards requiring the destruction of personal data after use and penalties for misuse under the Privacy Act, 1988.
The story so far:
Australia’s House of Representatives recently passed the “Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill, 2024” which imposes obligation on certain social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent children under 16 years of age from having an account.
What is the new law about?
The object of the amendment (a new Part 4A- social media minimum age inserted in Australia’s existing the Online Safety Act of 2021) is to ‘reduce the risk of harm to age-restricted users from certain kinds of social media platforms’. The age-restricted user shall mean ‘an Australian child who has not reached 16 years’.
The age-restricted social media platforms (ARSMP) affected by the proposed amendment would cover (with some exclusions) an electronic service which enables online social interaction between two or more end-users, and allows end-users to post material on the service.
The Australian Minister of Communication clarified that the government expects the ARSMP will, at minimum, include ‘TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, Instagram, X, among others.
How will the ban be implemented?
The law proposes that the providers of ARSMPs ‘must take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts with the age-restricted social media platforms’. Failing to meet this requirement may result in a maximum civil penalty of $49.5 millions. However, what is meant by ‘reasonable steps’ is not defined within the Bill.
It shall be the duty of the eSafety Commissioner to formulate, in writing, guidelines for taking reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts with age-restricted social media platforms and to promote those guidelines.
The proposed restriction will not take place earlier than 12 months after the proposed day of enforcement. The affected stakeholders shall be consulted and government’s age assurance trial will guide the industry on which age assurance technologies would be considered ‘reasonable’ and consistent with minimum age obligation. However, it was confirmed that all account holders on ARSMPs will have to verify their age.
The law does not otherwise place any obligation on ARSMPs to prohibit people under the age of 16 from accessing content on their platforms. There is no civil penalty for parents who provide access to ARSMPs for children under 16.
What are privacy concerns?
It has been observed that ‘age assurance technologies can pose privacy risks due to the type and amount of data they collect, store, use, and share’. With regard to privacy concerns, the proposed law will establish privacy obligations where an ‘entity’ holds personal information about an individual that was collected for the purpose of taking reasonable steps to establish identity. Penalties may be imposed under the Privacy Act, 1988 if the entity uses or discloses information, without falling within one of the exceptions under the Act.
There will also be an obligation on entities to destroy the collected information ‘after using or disclosing it for the purposes for which it was collected. The government also announced its intention to legislate a ‘Digital Duty of Care’ to ‘place the onus on digital platforms to proactively keep Australians safe and better prevent online harms.’
Is social media harmful to children?
Emerging research indicates that social media may impact children’s mental health. Despite various benefits, the risks of social media are also well acknowledged.
However, a blanket ban to prohibit children from using social media is not considered to be the most advantageous solution. Some researchers and academics expressed concern ‘that a ban is too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively’. The Australian Greens criticised saying that the legislation was ‘rushed, reckless and goes against the evidence’.