Australia's Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, set to ban under-16s from social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and potentially YouTube by December 2025, is framed as a child protection measure. However, the Nation First article argues it masks a deeper agenda: enforcing digital surveillance, eliminating online anonymity, and controlling speech under the guise of shielding youth from "harmful" content. Spearheaded by eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, the policy raises concerns about invasive age verification, selective targeting of ideological content, and parallels with global trends like COPPA 2.0.
The ban requires platforms to implement age verification to prevent under-16s from accessing services, with fines up to A$49.5 million ($32 million) for non-compliance. The Nation First article warns that enforcing this will necessitate invasive identity checks, potentially facial recognition, biometric scans (e.g., hand movement analysis), or government-issued ID uploads. eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has acknowledged three primary methods: ID-based verification, behavioural signals, and biometrics, all of which carry privacy risks. A trial by the Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS) revealed flaws, with facial recognition misidentifying 15-year-olds as adults in their 20s or 30s, raising doubts about accuracy and fairness, particularly for diverse populations where biases in AI-based systems are documented.
Requiring ID for all users to catch a few underage ones effectively ends online anonymity, as platforms will likely demand universal verification to avoid fines. Posts on X, such as by @SenatorAntic and @craigkellyAFEE, echo this concern, warning of a "government-controlled biometric Digital ID" as a gateway to broader surveillance. The article compares this to COPPA 2.0 in the U.S., which uses vague "implied knowledge" of age to pressure platforms into blanket ID checks, creating a surveillance-heavy digital ecosystem. This risks normalising state oversight of online interactions, undermining privacy rights.
The Nation First article claims the ban targets platforms not for explicit content (e.g., pornography) but for "rabbit holes," undefined content like Jordan Peterson or Joe Rogan videos that challenge establishment narratives on climate, nationalism, or traditional values. Inman Grant's push to include YouTube, despite its initial exemption for educational value, cites a survey of 2,600 children claiming 70% encountered "harmful" content (e.g., misogyny, dangerous challenges). However, the survey's methodology is opaque, and "harmful" is undefined, raising suspicions of ideological bias.
This selective focus is striking given the lack of similar scrutiny on unregulated pornographic websites, which are easily accessible to children. The article argues this discrepancy reveals the true aim: controlling discourse by targeting platforms hosting dissenting voices. Inman Grant's 2024 legal action against X for refusing global content takedowns further suggests a pattern of prioritising narrative control over child safety. Senator Matt Canavan's critique — "Who decides what is a 'rabbit hole'?" — highlights the risk of subjective censorship, where bureaucrats, not families, dictate acceptable content. This mirrors U.S. concerns about the Kids Online Safety Act, opposed by some Republicans for potential conservative censorship.
The push for age verification threatens the "death of online anonymity," as platforms facing hefty fines will likely require ID from all users to ensure compliance. The Australian Human Rights Commission warns that this could infringe children's rights to participate in society, particularly for marginalised groups like LGBTQ+ or Indigenous teens who rely on anonymous online spaces for support. X posts by @ellymelly compare the ban to "locking [kids] out of libraries," emphasising the loss of access to diverse ideas. This point by the way suggests a High Court challenge to the Act's constitutional validity, with a conflict with the convention regarding the rights of the child; something to follow up.
Anonymity enables free expression, especially for dissenting or minority voices. Requiring digital IDs risks chilling speech, as users may self-censor to avoid government monitoring. The Nation First article frames this as a "Trojan horse of tyranny," suggesting the ban uses child protection to install a national speech regulation system. This aligns with global trends, such as France's under-15 social media restrictions, which face similar privacy concerns.
The ban's perceived overreach parallels the erosion of trust in public healthinstitutions, The Nation First article's claim that child safety is a pretext mirrors criticisms of health authorities' inconsistent messaging (e.g., FDA's vaccine promotion vs. private doubts by officials like Dr. Sara Brenner). Inman Grant's focus on "rabbit holes" over explicit content, echoes the selective dismissal of ivermectin's potential in favour of pharmaceutical interests, further eroding trust.
The social media ban risks similar backlash, with X users like @FranMooMoo labelling Inman Grant a "Censorship Commissar." The Australian Human Rights Commission's reservations and 140 experts' open letter opposing the ban as a "blunt instrument" suggest it may alienate communities, pushing vulnerable youth to unregulated platforms.
The ban may drive under-16s to darker, less regulated corners of the internet, as warned by tech firms and child advocates. France's under-15 ban saw nearly half of users bypass restrictions using VPNs, suggesting Australian teens, described as "determined and innovative," will find workarounds. The exemption of messaging apps like WhatsApp and sites accessible without accounts (initially YouTube) creates inconsistencies, potentially funnelling youth to platforms with fewer safety protocols. This undermines the ban's stated goal, as unregulated spaces may expose children to worse harms than moderated platforms.
Supporters, including Leftist Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, argue the ban addresses real harms, cyberbullying, body image issues, and misogynistic content, with 77% public support. Inman Grant cites research showing 84% of 8–12-year-olds use social media, often encountering harmful content. The ban shifts responsibility to platforms, aligning with global movements like Jonathan Haidt's The Anxious Generation, which links social media to youth mental health declines.
However, the Australian Human Rights Commission and 140 experts argue that a blanket ban infringes children's rights to access information and participate in society, per the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Less restrictive alternatives, like a statutory duty of care for platforms, could enhance safety without surveillance. Inman Grant herself has suggested education over bans, likening it to teaching children to swim rather than fencing the ocean. The focus on YouTube, despite its educational value, and the exemption of pornographic sites undermine the child safety narrative, lending credence to claims of ideological motives.
In conclusion, Australia's under-16 social media ban, while framed as child protection, poses significant dangers: invasive surveillance through age verification, loss of online anonymity, selective censorship of ideological content, and further erosion of public trust. By seeking transparency, less restrictive alternatives, and equitable enforcement, Australia can protect youth without sacrificing digital freedom or trust. Failure to do so risks a permanent chilling of the digital public square, with consequences for all Australians.
https://nationfirst.substack.com/p/theyre-coming-for-your-screen
The proposed ban on under-16s using social media, including YouTube, masks a deeper agenda to enforce surveillance and kill anonymity online.
The eSafety Commissioner targets platforms not for explicit content but for exposing youth to dissenting voices and unapproved ideas.
Age verification will require invasive identity checks, effectively ending anonymous online access for all Australians.
Despite claiming child safety as the motive, the policy ignores unregulated access to porn while focusing on ideological content.
The true aim is control over digital discourse, using child protection as a pretext to install a system of national speech regulation.
Australians are being sold a lie dressed up in child-friendly packaging. The Albanese government and its eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, want to convince the public that banning under-16s from social media platforms, including YouTube, is about protecting kids from harm. But peel back the layers, and the real agenda becomes unmistakably clear: this is about forcing age verification, eliminating online anonymity, and silencing voices they can't control.
The plan kicks in December 10, 2025. Social media platforms—YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, and others—will be forced to block access to users under 16. The so-called exemption for YouTube, originally made by the government citing its educational value, is now under threat because Inman Grant doesn't like what kids might see there. Not because of porn, not because of gore, but because of "rabbit holes."
Yes, rabbit holes. That's the term she used. What are these rabbit holes? She didn't say. But everyone knows what she means. Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, and Russell Brand are popular voices pushing back against the establishment narrative. Content that questions the climate hysteria. Videos that explore nationalism, traditional values, masculinity, Christianity. In other words, the sort of ideas Canberra elites want your kids insulated from.
Inman Grant claims children are "powerless to fight" YouTube's algorithms, which she says drive them into spirals of misinformation and misogyny. But is she really talking about danger or just dissent?
Let's not forget, this is the same bureaucrat who launched legal action against Elon Musk's X platform last year, demanding global takedowns of controversial content. She's not defending kids, she's defending her power.
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
The so-called eSafety agenda has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with surveillance. Her own letter to Communications Minister Anika Wells makes it clear: she wants no exemptions. Not for YouTube. Not for anyone. Because exemptions weaken the enforcement mechanism—age verification. And without that, they can't usher in the real prize: a traceable digital ID for every user.
But here's the hypocrisy that screams to be acknowledged: if age verification is so vital, why is the eSafety Commissioner not demanding the same for pornographic websites? These sites are scattered across the internet, accessible to any child with a phone and a moment alone. No log-in, no ID, no warning. Just one click and it's there. If children truly need to be shielded, wouldn't that be the front line? Or is this crackdown only meant for platforms where ideas, not images, are the threat?
Don't be fooled. Age verification sounds innocent until you ask: how will they enforce it? Facial recognition? Finger scans? Government-issued ID uploads? Once tech companies are facing $49.5 million fines for letting one kid slip through, the answer's obvious: they'll require ID from everyone. And just like that, anonymity dies.
This mirrors COPPA 2.0 in the U.S., which proposes that platforms act on "implied knowledge" of a user's age. It's vague, impossible to meet without total surveillance, and deliberately designed to pressure every platform into blanket ID checks. Australia is importing the same approach, and Inman Grant is its most zealous enforcer.
The irony? She admits there'll be no penalties for children who break the rules. None for the parents either. Why? Because the real targets are the platforms. And through them, all of us. The state doesn't want to punish your child. They want to control how everyone accesses the internet. This isn't parenting support. It's parental replacement.
Opposition voices like Senator Matt Canavan have called this out. "Why does our government think it is their job to decide what people watch and listen to? Who exactly decides what is a 'rabbit hole'?" He's right. These are cultural decisions for families, not bureaucratic mandates enforced by surveillance.
And what of the survey driving this push? A vague, opaque study of 2,600 children, asking 10-year-olds about gender identity and sexual orientation, and claiming 40% of them saw something "harmful" on YouTube. Harmful how? The questions aren't public. The methodology is unclear. Yet it's being used as the basis for nationwide censorship.
Make no mistake, this is a calculated attempt to seize control of the digital public square. To eliminate private, anonymous communication. To install government oversight into every screen, every app, every interaction. It's not just about kids, it's about all of us.
The phrase "for the children" has always been the Trojan horse of tyranny. And this time, it's carrying a payload of digital ID, surveillance, and speech control.
Australians need to wake up. Because if this goes unchallenged, there won't just be a ban on YouTube for kids. There will be a permanent ban on freedom online."