TOMMY VIETOR, HOST: It is a momentous week in Australia where the Labor Party is officially instituting a ban on children under 16 from having social media accounts. With me today is Anika Wells. She is Australia’s Minister for Communications. She is spearheading this rollout. And through the magic of time travelling and time zones, I think we’re actually talking on Wednesday, the day it goes into effect, although it’s Tuesday here in Los Angeles. This is going to break my brain. Minister Wells, thank you for joining the show. 

MINISTER FOR COMMUNICATIONS ANIKA WELLS: Greetings from the future. How are you? 

VIETOR: I’m good. I’m great. I mean, honestly, this is a really interesting experiment, the law you’re putting into place. So let’s just start with the basics. Can you just talk about how this ban works and how you will enforce it? 

WELLS: So the ban came about because we had 120,000 Australian parents run a campaign called 36 Months, Let Kids Be Kids. They asked because the official policy of these platforms, as you know, is that they start users from 13, even though we all know in real life that is not at all policed and there’s people much younger than that on there. But given the premises, people will be on there from 13, let’s give 36 months back to teens. Let’s delay the start of their social media account usage until 16 and give them 36 more months to build real-world connection and to build resilience and awareness and digital literacy about what awaits them online.

So the Australian law comes into effect today, which is Wednesday here, 10 December, which means all social media accounts belonging to under-16s must be deactivated by that social media platform. And the onus here is on the platforms, not on the parents or on the teens. The onus is on the platforms to find these accounts, deactivate these accounts, stop people from getting around these accounts, and also have some kind of complaint reporting process so if someone accidentally gets caught up in it, there’s a way out for them.

VIETOR: Tell me a little more about you guys arrived at 16 as the cutoff. I could imagine an argument for 18, or 21 is the drinking age in the US right? There’s a lot of different places we could go. And then, also, can you give us a sense of the criteria for which platforms you decided were subject to the law? 

WELLS:. So 36 months is the campaign. So we arrived at under-16 because 13 to 16 is 36 months. Yes, you’re right. Lots of other countries and jurisdictions are looking at slightly different ages. All of the data and evidence that we now have in as public policymakers to analyse this suggests there is probably greater utility, but the particular development that you go through between 13 and 16, that emotional stage in your life – you would have known Jonathan Haidt and his book, The Anxious Generation – that propelled the parents, the hundreds of thousands of parents, to ask us for 36 more months. So that’s how we got to 16.

With respect to the social media platforms, basically, all social media platforms could be considered an age-restricted social media platform if they fall under three particular criteria, which is, are they primarily a place for social interaction? Can you interact and link with other users? And can you upload content? So, for example, YouTube would make the argument that they are like Netflix and that they are a video streaming platform. However, we feel the difference is that YouTube uploads 500 hours of content every 60 seconds, and Netflix obviously does not. Netflix is subject to the National Classification Scheme here in Australia that is regulated by independent arbiters about the quality and content and appropriateness of that content. Obviously, YouTube is the wild, wild west. Five hundred hours of content every 60 seconds.

So we have an eSafety Commissioner. She’s the independent regulator. eSafety here in Australia is 10 years old. It was a world-leading, essentially a shop front for digital safety. They are the regulators in this space. So they have been working with the platforms for them to identify themselves as a social media platform, I guess assess them as a social media platform where arguments have been made that they should be accepted, and now, come D-Day, today, regulate them and make sure they comply. 

VIETOR: You’re getting at the complexity of this, right? Because there’s wildly popular platforms like Roblox, which are games but they’re also social networks and places where kids hang out. And then there’s chat platforms, and there’ve been these really awful cases of adults chatting with and grooming minors on Roblox and then meeting them into like Discord and offline communities. I mean, figuring out how to draw that line must have been really tough. 

WELLS: Yes. And I do get a lot of parents asking me to add Roblox into the list. Roblox isn’t in at the moment for that first primary criteria, which is kids would still be on Roblox if it didn’t have a place to interact socially, didn’t have a place to connect with other users, didn’t have a place to upload your own thoughts and comments because it is primarily a gaming platform. So, on that basis, it experiences an exemption as a gaming platform. But we do have our eyes on Roblox. We have, in recent weeks and months, targeted Roblox, and they have now put in place additional safety measures to stop exactly what you’re talking about, predators who are of an adult age targeting under-18s on that platform.

This isn’t, obviously, a cure. This ban is a treatment plan. We aren’t banning the internet. And something that I like to say is we can’t control the ocean, but we can police the sharks. And this is a really important step in policing the sharks, given the harm that we have documented that Australian kids suffer online. 

VIETOR: Yeah, I mean, Roblox, in particular, waited too long to put in some of this age gating. And boy, there was an interview with the CEO on the Hard Fork podcast, the New York Times podcast, where he crashed out really hard and really embarrassed himself. That’s worth listening to if you want to understand the mentality of these CEOs.

So there’s an organisation in Australia estimated that 96 per cent of Australian teenagers under 16 have social media accounts. Let’s say I’m one of them. I’m a 15-year-old. Does my account just disappear? Can I get it back when I’m 18? And like, are you worried about a marauding band of teens and tweens visiting your house sometime in the next 48 hours and kind of taking matters into their own hands? 

WELLS: I went to Humpybong State School – and I say that just because I presume your global and American audience appreciates Australian names – Humpybong State School yesterday to talk to the teens that are being impacted today. And yes, certainly there was, in some cases, a hostile reception, but I don’t mind. I don’t mind being the bad cop. This is so important. And if it gives parents another tool in their arsenal in this fight that they’re having in their households every single day, I’m pleased to do it. 

It’s 9.30 in Australia on D-Day, on ban day, at the moment. We’ve already heard that 200,000 TikTok accounts have deactivated overnight. That’s 200,000 lives that we’ve already impacted. And as we speak, the breakfast TVs, as you expect, are roaming around the country, spot-checking under-16s to see whether their account has been deactivated or whether they’re trying to get a  way around it. We’ve always said this is going to look a little bit untidy. Big reform always does, particularly cultural change that comes with big reform. We didn’t expect 100 per cent perfection today, nor do I expect in the days or even weeks to come. Part of the way that we’re monitoring the effectiveness of this law is over the next six months, social media restricted platforms have to report in their user numbers each and every month to eSafety to demonstrate the downward trend. 

VIETOR: So jokes aside, one thing critics of this law say is that social media can be a really important way for kids who feel lonely or marginalised to find their own community. In particular, I see LGBT advocacy groups raise concerns about what it might be like to be a gay or lesbian kid in a rural area and lose their sense of community. What’s your response to those arguments?

WELLS: We exempted messaging platforms. So Facebook Messenger, Messenger Kids, for example, WhatsApp group chats are still available to people who use online social media for connection. And you’re right, there are different groups, particularly vulnerable people, who use this for connection. 

We have in Australia youth mental health organisations like Reach Out or like headspace or like Butterfly Foundation. Butterfly Foundation looks at disordered eating, people who are impacted by disordered eating. We have, in the budget running up to this reform, bolstered those organisations. And they in the weeks leading up to, months I guess leading up to this reform, I have been working with those organisations alongside my counterparts to make sure that they are ready to support teens from today. All of their websites landing pages have places you can go. 

It’s a funny thing. I don’t know about you, but back in my day we had one landline. It was in the lounge room. You know, you had one phone number. And when you called your friend, you kind of took your chances on who was going to answer at the other end of the line. Kids these days don’t even have each other’s mobile numbers. They just interact on social media. 

So part of this has been that national debate around how we use our time online and how this is going to look in each family’s household. And simple things like your child getting the mobile numbers or the landlines or a way of connecting with their friends, that isn’t on these platforms so that they continue to do that from today. 

VIETOR: Yeah, we had one landline. We memorised each other’s numbers. When I started using dial-up AOL, my mom would pick up the phone. I’d scream at her because she’d screw up my chat room or whatever the hell was going on. I feel very old now. 

WELLS: I mean, we’re millennials, I think. And we had the one landline. We had the one computer that was maybe in the living room, the one phone, the one television. And you fought with your siblings over what you put on television on the one screen. One landline, you took your chances. One computer, you had to dial in, you know, limited time. If you had a mobile, you probably only had $30 credit a month to send text messages. So there was a scarcity to everything that you did. 

Whereas these days tweens have in their pocket that phone, mobile, computer, and they have an unlimited supply and they are on platforms where the design feature has been to get them addicted. So this is a law that steps in to help. 

VIETOR: So the law requires the platforms to take what are called reasonable steps to enforce the age ban. If they don’t, they’re subject to fines of around US$33 million. Is that per violation? Is that total? And then how do you assess like what is a reasonable step? 

WELLS: That’s for a systemic breach. So that is if a platform was found to have been systemically breaching the law. And there has been a run into the law where we have asked them for a compliance plan. We have asked them to self-assess. Like I said, tomorrow we’re writing to the platforms to say, what were your user numbers on the 9 December? What are your user numbers today on the 11 December? We will do that monthly for six months in order to track downward trend. 

I would say, it’s been a huge turnaround from the initial reaction and recalcitrance, I guess, Tommy, to, as of yesterday morning, the big 10 platforms who are impacted by this law had all indicated to us that they would comply. They might disagree, and that is their right in a democracy to completely disagree with our law. 

I mean, when I was first made Minister for Communications, what I was dealing with was the hope, I guess, that from these platforms from big tech, that we just wouldn’t pursue the law in the second term of our government. And then when I made very clear that we would be continuing with the law, the threat that they would leave our shores, the threat that big tech would leave Australian shores as a result of this. 

So to go from that six months ago to the day before the delay kicking in, all 10 platforms indicating to us that they would comply has been a huge turnaround from where we were, huge progress in this space. And hopefully it gives hope to other jurisdictions who are attempting things like this out there. 

VIETOR: Yeah, I mean, it’s surprising too, right? Because look, $33 million is a lot of money to any normal person, but Mark Zuckerberg could flush it down the toilet and not notice the difference the next day and do it every other day until he dies, right? So I mean, I guess I’m a little surprised that there’s been so much compliance and willingness to work with you, given that there are probably pretty high financial stakes involved for them from the ban that might outweigh the aggregate fine. 

WELLS: Absolutely. And that has been put to us as well. I mean, that fine is commensurate with other fines in that sort of portfolio space in Australia. You’re right, we absolutely worried about the risk that platforms would decide to just pay the fine and continue to flout the law. 

The response to that has been that, ultimately, these are big corporate citizens, big global citizens. They want to be seen as good citizens. They feel that a number of them have made huge improvements in safety features over the years, and that that isn’t acknowledged in this kind of blunt force ban. 

However, I honestly think that whilst Australia is the first to do it, I think in a couple of years’ time, five years’ time, this will be right across the world, this will sweep right across the world. And all of the arguments and all of the ways that this has been criticised in the past 12 months isn’t dissimilar to putting seatbelts in cars.

You know, it wasn’t that long ago that auto manufacturers said that making seatbelts compulsory would bankrupt their business model, wasn’t possible. These days, car manufacturers compete to be the most safe car manufacturer. You would put your family in the safest car you can. There’s no reason that big tech couldn’t be like that too and that families choose to allow their children on the safest platforms and that platforms compete to be the safest platforms with the best records. That’s a future that seems a long way away, but that’s a future that starts with laws like we’re putting in place today. 

VIETOR: Yeah, well, so let’s talk about that future. Let’s say you and I hop on another Zoom a year from now, tomorrow, but today somehow. How will you judge whether this has been a success? What are you looking for? 

WELLS: Well, firstly, we think it already has been a success because it has kicked up an enormous national debate here in Australia about all of our practices online - our digital hygiene, how much we all look through a screen rather than over the screen at each other at the dinner table. This has been a fight that has wearied many households for many years, and I think this law is another weapon in the arsenal for parents in that fight. I’ve heard lots of parents saying I’m doing a digital detox as well in solidarity with my team, and that’s a good thing. So the fact that we’ve already had that discussion around something that has sort of crept up on us in our modern lives, we see as success. 

Secondly, we went to the United Nations during High-level Week. We had an event there about our world-leading law. The President of the EU came and a number of different world leaders came, and since then you would have seen that almost 10 countries now have signaled that they will go the way of Australia. We went to the UN to build allies in this space. I don’t think this is something you can do on your own. Like we’ve gone first and we’re proud to do it, but we need allies in this space. We need jurisdictions to move together and support each other, and that’s what we did at the UN. 

And I think we’ve seen, as a measure of success, the fact that since UN High-level week, so many countries have come out and said that they will do this too. The final measure will be, not just the downward trend in user numbers that platforms are required to keep abreast of in the current- in the coming six months, but we’re doing a two-year study with users that will track the mental health benefits, behavioural patterns, migratory patterns that will allow us to make better laws and work on new initiatives in this space to support this. 

VIETOR: Well, Minister Wells, I wish you the best of luck here. It’s something I think about and worry about a lot with my kids, even though they’re a long ways off. We want it to work well and I’m grateful to you for making the time, and good luck to you for the rest of the roll out.

WELLS: Thanks, Tommy. It’s been a pleasure.