‘Closed door consultation’ over Youtube age exemption drives Meta, Tiktok wild
Attacks on Youtube’s suitability as a child-safe platform from Meta, Snap, and Tiktok were prompted by specific questioning in a secret government discussion paper.
Last November, the federal government passed the Online Safety Act, which will ban children under 16 from accessing a number of social media platforms from December this year. Facebook, Instagram, and Tiktok are among those facing the restrictions.
Youtube’s possible designation as an educational tool meant it was unclear whether it would fall under the ban. Communications Minister Michelle Rowland initially lumped the video platform in among those banned, but later suggested it could be granted an exemption.
Exactly which platforms will be covered by the law was set to be defined over the course of a year, with the Albanese Government promising a period of public consultations.
But last month, the government secretly issued a discussion paper to major stakeholders that explicitly stated YouTube has already been excluded from the ban.
Meta referred to the government’s “closed door consultation” as breaching commitments it made “to parents, safety organisations and technology platforms and services that they would undertake public consultation”, as set out by law in the Explanatory Memorandum.
The memorandum promises the government would “undertake public consultation on the draft rules, with the aim of ensuring they adequately reflect the Bill’s intent of minimising harms on social media platforms”.
The discussion paper, which Mumbrella has seen, suggested that plans are already well advanced.
The paper is titled ‘Online Safety Rules – services excluded from the social media minimum age obligation.’
It states its purpose as “seeking views on draft Online Safety Rules that enable certain services to be excluded from the social media minimum age obligation” and lists four proposed exclusion categories: messaging; online games; apps that primarily function to support health and education; and Youtube.
In separating out Youtube from educational apps, the government has drawn the ire of other platforms, prompting what the ABC described as “a co-ordinated public campaign against the move”.
The discussion paper
The paper cites “research undertaken by the eSafety Commissioner”, claiming Youtube “is an important source of education and informational content, relied on by children, parents and carers, and educational institutions.”
The paper poses three discussion questions regarding Youtube:
- Do you support Youtube being excluded from the minimum age obligation (i.e. young people should be able to have Youtube accounts)?
- Why or why not?
- Are there any unintended consequences of excluding YouTube?
TikTok and Meta made their responses to these questions public overnight.
In its response, TikTok said “handing one major social media platform a sweetheart deal of this nature – while subjecting every other platform in Australia to stringent compliance obligations – would be illogical, anti-competitive, and short-sighted.”
It points out the similarity of video platforms TikTok, Instagram Reels, and YouTube “underscores the inconsistency of the Government’s proposed exemption” comparing it to banning all soft drinks to minors aside from Coca-Cola.
It said the government’s “standalone, named exemption for only one platform, is irrational and indefensible”, and argues this discussion paper makes it clear “the Government has begun its analysis from the starting position that YouTube must be exempt and then attempted, half-heartedly, to reverse-engineer defensible supporting evidence.”
Minister Michelle Rowland
Meta’s response, published on its blog early on Wednesday morning, said the “proposed blanket exception makes a mockery of the Government’s stated intention, when passing the age ban law, to protect young people.” It also steps out arguments rejecting the eSafety Commissioner’s research.
A spokesperson from Meta tells Mumbrella that naming Youtube in the discussion paper is specifically “at odds with the purported reasons for the law”.
“We do not believe this aligns with the community’s expectations as the Minister’s office claims.”
Mumbrella has reached out to Youtube’s parent company Alphabet for comment.
Editor’s note: Mumbrella has changed the way it deals with company names. House style is now to use standard proper noun capitalisation on all names regardless of brand typography. Brand typography may be retained in direct quotes from releases.
Related Content
SUBSCRIBE
Sign up to our free daily update to get the latest in media and marketing.
