Model Answer

Introduction

Australia has enacted the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act, becoming the first country to mandate that social media platforms ban users under 16 years. This move aims to strengthen protections against cyberbullying, harmful content exposure and addictive platform design. India, meanwhile, follows a different framework through the Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), 2023, which requires parental consent for users under 18.

Key Features of Australia’s Minimum Age Law

1. Mandatory age threshold of 16

   • Platforms must deactivate existing accounts and block new accounts for under-16 users.
   • Applies to major platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X and YouTube.

2. Strong compliance penalties

   • Fines up to $33 million for non-compliance create significant enforcement pressure.

3. Purpose of the law

   • Addresses rising concerns over online risks for minors:
     1. Cyberbullying
     2. Harmful content
     3. Excessive screen time driven by algorithmic design

4. Regulatory decisions informed by evidence

   • YouTube was added after regulators found it was the most cited platform for harmful content exposure among children.

Implications of Australia’s Approach

1. Enhanced child safety

   • Restricting underage access reduces exposure to harmful content and predatory behaviour.
   • Encourages platforms to invest in robust age-verification systems.

2. Implementation challenges

   • Reliable, privacy-respecting age verification remains difficult.
   • Potential for circumvention (fake accounts, VPNs).

3. Risk of unintended consequences

   • Experts warn bans may push teenagers towards unregulated or unsafe platforms.
   • Limits parental oversight tools available on mainstream platforms.

4. Rights and ethical concerns

   • Australia’s Human Rights Commission argues the law may restrict minors’ free speech and autonomy, affecting their digital participation.

Strengths and Limitations of India’s Model

1. Strengths

   • Balances digital access with child protection.
   • Prohibits behavioural monitoring, nudging and targeted advertising.
   • Avoids blanket bans that may be hard to enforce.

2. Limitations

   • Verification of parental consent is ambiguous and easily bypassed.
   • Does not directly address addictive design, cyberbullying or harmful content.
   • Enforcement and regulatory capacity remain limited.

Conclusion

Australia’s minimum-age law represents a stringent, protection-first approach aimed at limiting young users’ exposure to online risks through complete prohibition. India adopts a more consent-driven and privacy-focused model under the DPDP Act, without restricting access outright. The effectiveness of both approaches will depend on technological solutions for age verification, institutional capacity and the ability to balance online safety with children’s rights and autonomy in the digital sphere.