YouTube to Be Part of Australia's Social Media Restrictions: Key Information You Should Know

Share and Follow

YouTube has criticised the Australian government’s decision to include the video platform in its looming social media ban for children, despite it being initially exempt when legislation was passed last year.

The government has announced, after months of speculation, that it will include YouTube in its ban for under-16s, risking a potentially bitter legal battle with parent company Google.

The online video service will be classified as an “age-restricted social media platform” under the legislation, alongside Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and X, as the government tables which online platforms will be captured by the rules.

The platforms will face penalties of up to $49.5 million if they fail to block sign-ups and active accounts belonging to users under 16 from 10 December.

Online gaming platforms, messaging services like WhatsApp, and health and education services will be spared.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese formally announced the decision alongside Communications Minister Anika Wells at a press conference in Canberra on Wednesday.

Albanese started the conference by recognising three parents who were with him, all whose children had lost their lives.

“Their stories are felt by countless other parents and by communities right across the country. We know social media is doing social harm,” Albanese said.

Anthony Albanese is wearing glasses and a black suit.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said social media was doing “social harm”. Source: AAP / Lukas Coch

Wells said the government was “prioritising parents over platforms” and that the government wouldn’t be “intimidated” by tech companies.

“We want kids to know who they are before platforms assume who they are. That is why I want to be clear about YouTube. The evidence cannot be ignored that four out of 10 Australian kids report their most recent harm was on YouTube,” she said.

Wells said parents were “trying their best” when it came to the internet, comparing it with “trying to teach your kids to swim in the ocean with the rips and the sharks, compared to at the local council pool”.

“We can’t control the ocean but we can police the sharks, and that is why we will not be intimidated by legal threats when this is a genuine fight for the wellbeing of Australian kids,” she said.

YouTube defends platform, says it will ‘consider next steps’

In a statement posted on Google’s blog on Wednesday, a YouTube spokesperson said the company shares the government’s goal of reducing online harm.

“Our position remains clear: YouTube is a video sharing platform with a library of free, high-quality content, increasingly viewed on TV screens. It’s not social media,” they said,

“The government’s announcement today reverses a clear, public commitment to exclude YouTube from this ban. We will consider next steps and will continue to engage with the government.”

YouTube has argued it isn’t a social media platform, and as such should not be subjected to the ban. Source: Getty / NurPhoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Communications minister says ‘Big Wiggle’ lobbied for exemption

Earlier on Wednesday, Wells revealed Google sent the management team of Australian children’s music group The Wiggles to try and “persuade” her into keeping the platform exempt.

“That was Big Wiggle. This was Wiggles Inc, the management around the Wiggles,” Wells said while appearing on the Today Show.

“The Wiggles are a treasured Australian institution. But like I said to them, you’re arguing that my four-year-old twins’ right to have a YouTube login is more important than the fact that four out of 10 of their peers will experience online harm on YouTube.”

At Wednesday’s press conference, Wells said the Wiggles’ team argued that YouTube was a video platform, not a social media platform — the same argument YouTube made in its statement early this morning.

Why is YouTube being included in the social media ban?

However, last month, eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant wrote to Wells, making a formal recommendation that YouTube be included among the banned platforms.

Inman Grant said the recommendation was based on research conducted by eSafety, which found YouTube was the most prevalent social media platform young Australians were accessing, and also the most frequent place they were experiencing harm online.

Speaking at the National Press Club last month, Inman Grant said she recommended that no single platform be granted a specific carve-out from the ban, because the relative risks and harms can change at any point.

How will the ban on YouTube work?

The restrictions placed on YouTube will allow the YouTube Kids platform to operate, and minors will also be able to watch videos on the website in a logged-out state or under parental supervision.

But under-16s will not be allowed to have active YouTube accounts or subscribe to YouTube channels.

Unlike many of the other platforms included in the ban, YouTube doesn’t require users to have an account or be logged in to access content.

Albanese was asked on Wednesday what guarantee there was that kids would be prevented from seeing harmful content, given that the restriction only applies to account holders.

He said one of the reasons for allowing content to be viewed when logged out was to allow teachers in classrooms or parents to show educational videos.

“Social media is not all bad. We aren’t saying that,” Albanese said. “We want to make sure that we restrict the harmful content.”

Google could consider legal options

In the hours before the decision was made public on Tuesday evening, Google (YouTube’s parent company) ramped up its lobbying efforts, with a YouTube creator event scheduled at Parliament House on Wednesday evening.

This week, Google wrote to Wells, asking her “to uphold the integrity of the legislative process and protect the age-appropriate experiences and safeguards we provide for young Australians”.

The company warned it would consider its legal options if included in the ban, warning the restrictions could impact the implied constitutional freedom of political communications.

In June, Inman Grant rejected claims that the decision would impact educators and schools.

“There is nothing in the legislation that prevents educators with their own accounts from continuing to incorporate school-approved educational content on YouTube or any other service just as they do now.”