Australia Doubles The Maximum Penalty For Its Social Media Ban


The fine can now potentially hit 99 million AUD, or $68 million.

After becoming the first in the world to implement a social media ban for those under 16, Australia isn’t doubling down. In a press release, the Australian government announced that it will double the maximum penalty for any social media companies breaking its minimum age law, from 49.5 million to 99 million AUD, or more than $68 million.

“It’s clear big tech are not doing enough to comply with the law,” Anthony Albanese, the country’s prime minister, said. “These changes reflect the seriousness with which we take any failure by social media companies to comply with our world-leading law.”

Along with the new penalty threshold, the Australian government is granting its eSafety Commissioner, Julie Grant, more enforcement power. Now, the commissioner can demand social media companies provide evidence of how they’re stopping children under 16 years old from starting an account. Notably, the Australian agency can gather evidence regarding compliance with the ban from third parties, like from age verification or app store providers, according to the press release. The country’s online safety agency also said it’s still “actively investigating potential non-compliance” with Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube.

While the government said it has already seen more than five million under-16 accounts removed, deactivated or restricted since the ban went into effect in December, there have been some recent studies and polls that note the potential ineffectiveness. In April, a charity organization called the Molly Rose Foundation found that 61 percent of more than 1,000 kids polled between 12 and 15 years old still had access to social media. More recently, the University of Newcastle published a study that claimed that more than 85 percent of Australian teens under 16 are still on social media apps.



Source link

  • Related Posts

    Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?

    The real issue is whether publishers of scientific journals should retroactively apply contemporary standards regarding duplicate publication or self-plagiarism to historical papers. The journal publishing norms in the early 20th…

    Ford rehires ‘gray beard’ engineers after AI falls short

    Ford executives said they have hired 350 veteran engineers — some of them were former employees, while others had been working at suppliers — after artificial intelligence and automated systems…

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You Missed

    Bond Heavyweights Target a Market Sweet Spot for New Warsh Era

    Common pesticide linked to more than double the risk of Parkinson’s disease

    Common pesticide linked to more than double the risk of Parkinson’s disease

    Sudáfrica afina los últimos detalles para el reto más importante ante Canadá

    Sudáfrica afina los últimos detalles para el reto más importante ante Canadá

    Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?

    Why did this journal retract two 1940s papers by Max Planck?

    Hoka x Beams Collab Debuts at Paris Fashion Week: Performance Meets Style

    Hoka x Beams Collab Debuts at Paris Fashion Week: Performance Meets Style

    US dominates news as 250th anniversary celebrations approach