This content was published in
November 25, 2024 – 07:17
Sydney (Australia), Nov 25 (EFE).- The digital platform to privacy, according to a document published this Monday by the Parliament of Canberra.
This document was addressed to a legislative committee that is analyzing this bill today, which is part of the Australian Government’s attempts to protect the mental health of the country’s children and adolescents.
This project, which was presented last Thursday before the Parliament of Canberra, foresees that digital platforms will be responsible for ensuring that minors under 16 years of age do not access their social networks with fines of up to 32.2 million dollars (30, 7 million euros) to companies that fail to comply.
In his letter, dated November 22, .
Elon Musk’s network noted that if this bill is approved, “it will have a negative impact on the human rights of children and young people, including their right to freedom of expression and access to information.”
Likewise, X, which this year refused to remove content linked to the stabbing of an Assyrian bishop in Sydney, emphasized that the proposal is “alarming” because it establishes a punitive regime.
“With respect to the right to privacy, the consent obligations set out in the bill appear to go beyond those that would be required under current Australian privacy legislation,” the five-page document notes.
The Minimum Age on Social Media Online Safety Amendment Bill of 2024, which will modify the Online Safety Act of 2021 and which, if passed, would come into effect within a year, will affect social networks such as Instagram, TikTok, Facebook and X, although it contemplates exceptions for platforms such as YouTube, in addition to messaging and online games.
Australia’s initiative joins that of countries such as Spain, which set the minimum age to open a social media account first at 14 and then at 16, and places in the world such as Puerto Rico and New York that have adopted similar measures. EFE
what/grc/alf
**Considering the potential for both positive and negative impacts, what are the most important ethical considerations that should guide the implementation of age restrictions on social media?**
## World Today News: Protecting Children Online
**Welcome to World Today News. Today we’ll be discussing Australia’s proposed legislation aimed at protecting children online. We’re joined by two guests with diverse perspectives on this crucial issue.**
**Introducing:**
* **Dr. Emily Carter**: Child psychologist and advocate for online safety.
* **Mr. James Thompson**: Tech entrepreneur and champion of digital freedom.
**(Intro music fades)**
**Host**: Thank you both for joining us. This law, the *Minimum Age on Social Media Online Safety Amendment Bill,* is ambitious and has sparked considerable debate. Let’s delve into the heart of the matter.
**Section I: The Need for Protection**
**Host**: Dr. Carter, as a child psychologist, what are your thoughts on the potential benefits of this law? What risks do you see young people facing online?
* **Possible follow-up questions:**
* What specific online experiences can negatively impact a child’s mental health?
* Some argue that parental supervision is sufficient protection. What are your thoughts on this?
* How do children’s online experiences differ from adults’?
**Host**: Mr. Thompson, you’ve expressed concerns about this legislation. What are your primary worries regarding its impact on young people?
* **Possible follow-up questions:**
* Do you believe existing safeguards are adequate for protecting children online?
* You mentioned concerns about freedom of expression. Can you elaborate on how this law might stifle it?
* Do you think platforms themselves should bear the responsibility for user safety?
**Section II: Age Verification and Implementation Challenges**
**Host**: Dr. Carter, the bill proposes a minimum age of 16. Do you agree this is the right threshold? Why or why not?
* **Possible follow-up questions:**
* How do we ensure effective age verification methods that don’t compromise privacy?
* Are there potential unintended consequences of setting such a specific age limit?
**Host**: Mr. Thompson, how realistic is it to implement this legislation in practice? What technical and logistical challenges might arise?
* **Possible follow-up questions:**
* Would this legislation put an unreasonable burden on social media companies?
* Do you foresee any unintended consequences for smaller online platforms?
**Section III: International Perspectives and Future of Online Safety**
**Host**:
Australia isn’t the first country to explore age restrictions for social media. Dr. Carter, how do Australia’s efforts compare to other initiatives globally?
* **Possible follow-up questions:**
* What lessons can be learned from other countries’ experiences?
**Host**: Mr. Thompson, looking ahead, what alternative solutions to this complex issue could be explored?
* **Possible follow-up questions:**
* Do you believe self-regulation by platforms is a viable option?
* What role can education and digital literacy play in addressing the risks young people face online?
**Host**: This has been a thought-provoking discussion. Thank you both for sharing your insights. The debate surrounding online safety for children is ongoing and will undoubtedly continue to evolve. It’s crucial that we engage in open and thoughtful conversations like this one to find solutions that protect our young people while upholding fundamental rights.
**(Outro music fades in)**
