The Australian government has acknowledged that its social media ban for under-16s was introduced before definitive scientific evidence confirmed a direct link between platforms and mental health harms, yet maintains the policy is justified by concerns over risks like addiction and anxiety. In legal arguments against the ban’s challenge, officials claim their proposed "digital duty of care" laws—allowing users to opt out of algorithm-driven features—would functionally replicate the ban’s restrictions if fully enacted. The case hinges on whether the government’s approach effectively addresses harm without outright prohibition, raising questions about the balance between regulation and user choice. Critics and courts will weigh whether the measures go far enough or overstep without conclusive proof of social media’s impact.
Commonwealth tells high court its proposed laws to let users opt out of algorithms would ultimately have the same effect as the banGet our breaking news email, free app or daily news podcastThe Australian government has conceded it implemented the “world-leading” under-16s social media ban before there was scientific consensus on the link between mental health harms and social media use, but argued the “credible risks” of issues such as addictive behaviours and anxiety justify the policy.In its defence against a high court challenge of the ban, the government has also argued its proposed digital duty of care legislation, allowing users to opt out of social media features such as algorithms, would ultimately have the same effect as the ban, if implemented. Continue reading...
