Will the tech behind the teen social media ban work? These questions remain unanswered

Technologies to enforce the Australian government's social media ban for under 16s are "private, robust and effective". That's according to the preliminary findings of a federal government-commissioned trial that has nearly finished testing them. The findings, released on Friday, may give the government greater confidence to forge ahead with the ban, despite a suite of expert criticism. They might also alleviate some of the concerns of the Australian population about privacy and security implications of the ban, which is due to start in December. For example, a report based on a survey of nearly 4,000 people and released by the government earlier this week found nine out of 10 people support the idea of a ban.
But it also found a large number of people were "very concerned" about how the ban would be implemented. Nearly 80 per cent of respondents had privacy and security concerns, while roughly half had concerns about age assurance accuracy and government oversight. The trial's preliminary findings paint a rosy picture of the potential for available technologies to check people's ages. However, they contain very little detail about specific technologies, and appear to be at odds with what we know about age-assurance technology from other sources.
The social media ban for under-16s was legislated in December 2024. A last-minute amendment to the law requires technology companies to provide "alternative age assurance methods" for account holders to confirm their age, rather than relying only on government-issued ID. The Australian government commissioned an independent trial to evaluate the "effectiveness, maturity, and readiness for use" of these alternative methods. The trial is being led by the Age Check Certification Scheme — a company based in the United Kingdom that specialises in testing and certifying identity verification systems.
It includes 53 vendors that offer a range of age assurance technologies to guess people's ages, using techniques such as facial recognition and hand-movement recognition. According to the preliminary findings of the trial, "age assurance can be done in Australia". The trial's project director, Tony Allen, said "there are no significant technological barriers" to assuring people's ages online. He added the solutions are "technically feasible, can be integrated flexibly into existing services and can support the safety and rights of children online". However, these claims are hard to square with other evidence.
On Thursday, the ABC reported the trial found face-scanning technologies "repeatedly misidentified" children as young as 15 as being in their 20s and 30s. These tools could only guess children's ages "within an 18-month range in 85 per cent of cases". This means a 14-year-old child might gain access to a social media account, while a 17-year-old might be blocked. This is in line with results of global trials of face-scanning technologies conducted for more than a decade. An ongoing series of studies of age estimation technology by the United States' National Institute of Standards and Technology shows the algorithms "fail significantly when attempting to differentiate minors" of various ages.
The tests also show that error rates are higher for young women compared to young men. Error rates are also higher for people with darker skin tones. These studies show that even the best age-estimation software currently available — Yoti — has an average error of 1.0 years. Other software options mistake someone's age by 3.1 years on average. This means, at best, a 16-year-old might be estimated to be 15 or 17 years old; at worst, they could be seen to be 13 or 19 years of age. These error rates mean a significant number of children under 16 could access social media accounts despite a ban being in place, while some over 16 could be blocked.
Yoti also explains businesses needing to check exact ages (such as 18) can set higher age thresholds (such as 25), so fewer people under 18 get through the age check. This approach would be similar to that taken in Australia's retail liquor sector, where sales staff verify ID for anyone who appears to be under the age of 25. However, many young people lack the government-issued ID required for an additional age check. It's also worth remembering that in August 2023, the Australian government acknowledged that the age assurance technology market was "immature" and could not yet meet key requirements, such as working reliably without circumvention and balancing privacy and security.
We don't yet know exactly what methods platforms will use to verify account holders' ages. While face-scanning technologies are often discussed, they could use other methods to confirm age. The government trial also tested voice and hand movements to guess young people's ages. But those methods also have accuracy issues. And it's not yet clear what recourse people will have if their age is misidentified. Will parents be able to complain if children under 16 gain access to accounts, despite restrictions? Will older Australians who are incorrectly blocked be able to appeal? And if so, to whom? There are other outstanding questions.
What's stopping someone who's under 16 from getting someone who is over 16 to set up an account on their behalf? To mitigate this risk, the government might require all social media users to verify their age at regular intervals. It's also unclear what level of age estimation error the government may be willing to accept in implementing a social media ban. The legislation says technology companies must demonstrate they have taken "reasonable steps" to prevent under-16s from holding social media accounts. What is considered "reasonable" is yet to be clearly defined. Australians will have to wait until later this year for the full results of the government's trial to be released, and to know how technology companies will respond. With less than six months until the ban comes into effect, social media users still don't have all the answers they need. Lisa M. Given is a professor of information sciences and director of the Social Change Enabling Impact Platform at RMIT University.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Sky News AU

43 minutes ago

• Sky News AU

Qatar Airways partners with Virgin Australia, directly competes with Qantas

Sky News host Ross Greenwood discusses Qatar Airways' 25 per cent ownership in Virgin Australia, claiming Qantas will now have more international competition after the Australian Government 'knocked back' Qatar Airways in the past. 'Qatar, you know, sort of, is obviously, been this week named as the best airline in the world,' Mr Greenwood told Sky News host Steve Price. 'The key for that is really that they own now 25 per cent of Virgin – Virgin is about to list on the Australian Stock Exchange, or re-list after it had previously gone broke. 'Given the fact that in the past, Qatar has really tried to get more flights into Australia, been knocked back by the Australian Government, and whether this tie-up now really does mean it's going to create more international competition for Qantas.'

News.com.au

2 hours ago

• News.com.au

Criterion: Back up the dumpster! It's time for an EOFY share purge

Potential tax loss selling candidates include ASX200 inclusions Domino's Pizza Enterprises and IDP Education Investors may want to offset capital gains from successful AI and Trump-related plays But beware: tax-loss selling is governed by ATO rules Tax-loss selling is a fine judgment call, because the dud shares can be on the cusp of a brilliant recovery. In some cases, their worth has been further devalued by EOFY selling that in theory will ease after June 30. But for investors sitting on capital gains from an AI driven splurge on data centres or a fear-driven plunge into gold, offsetting the gains by selling the lost causes makes sense. Or maybe hey want to lighten up on Commonwealth Bank (ASX:CBA) shares and offset the healthy gains Investors must ensure they are genuinely exiting the position, with the taxman's 'wash' rules preventing repurchasing within 45 days. Even then, investors must justify their action, such as independent research changing a call on a stock from 'sell' to 'buy'. Domino's prospects are as flat as its pizza Amid a string of downgrades, Domino's Pizza Enterprises (ASX:DMP) shares have lost 88% of their value since peaking in September 2021. Domino's problems include underperforming French and Japanese operations, while measures including store closures have failed to turn the company's fortunes. Long-time CEO Don Meij departed in November last year, while the Europe and Japan chiefs have also left the building. As with McDonald's decades previously, Dominos mastered the art of industrial scale, ultra fast production. Maybe the world has reached peak pizza … if that's possible. Busted flush Having seen 70% of the value of their holdings vanish over the past year, Star Entertainment Group (ASX:SGR) investors would have been better off at the blackjack table … and that's not saying much. The owner of gambling dens in Sydney, Brisbane and the Gold Coast, Star was crippled by money laundering and other governance controversies. Star is subject to a convertible note/debt-based rescue bid from US casino operator Bally's Corporation. An independent expert report dubs the proposal as 'not fair' to shaeholders but 'compelling' nonetheless, given the company's dire position. Investors should take the hint. Also pinged for money laundering transgressions, SkyCity Entertainment Group (ASX:SKC) last month warned of 'deteriorating' trading conditions at its Auckland and Adelaide casinos. Skycity shares have fallen 36% over the year. Morningstar dubs them as 'materially undervalued', but the company's luck doesn't look like turning any time soon. A sobering lesson Shares in overseas student wrangler IDP Education (ASX:IEL) plunged 50% after a June 3 profit warning, erasing $1 billion of value. IDP has nowhere to run, with its key geographies of Canada, Australia, the UK and the US all executing migration crackdowns. Overseas students made for a once thriving export industry, but the crackdown has cooked and plucked that golden goose. IDP remains the industry leader and management points to a recovery. The stock remains one class worth wagging, in our humble view. The stock has lost an astonishing 75% over the last year. Shooting Bambi Selling CSL (ASX:CSL) shares is like shooting Bambi, given the almost certain demand for its life-saving plasma derived products. Once the biggest ASX company, CSL has lost 17% of its value because of weakness in its Seqirus flu vaccine division and its acquired Vifor kidney health arm. Lingering concerns over Donald Trump's tariff and drug pricing have also weighed on sentiment. Broker Wilsons describes CSL as 'thorougly over owned'. But - hey - the experts said the same about CBA shares, which continue to defy gravity. Cochlear (ASX:COH) shares also are off the pace. In an earnings downgrade last week, the company noted weakness in developed markets for implant and sound processor sales. New implant and processor products might put things right, but so far investors aren't listening. Small cap cleanout candidates Call recording house Dubber Corp (ASX:DUB) in March 2024 discovered that $30 million of funds had gone missing. This week, the company said it would sue its external auditors over the unrecovered $26.6 million. But with investors sitting on an 80% loss since the incident, they probably should hang up. In the retail sector, shares in plus-sized clothier City Chic Collective (ASX:CCX) have shrunk 35% over the year and 97% over five years. The company recently warned of poor trading here and in the US, while tariffs are a worry. Weight Watchers filed for US bankruptcy in May and Ozempic sales are booming, so maybe there's a nexus. Owner of Kathmandu, KMD Brands (ASX:KMD) on Thursday signalled peak puffer jacket with a weak earnings outlook.

SBS Australia

2 hours ago

• SBS Australia

Age verification trial proves under-16s social media ban is viable

Age verification trial proves under-16s social media ban is viable Published 20 June 2025, 8:38 am Early results from an Australian Government trial show it is technically possible to stop under-16s from accessing social media by using tools like facial recognition to verify age online. But experts warn there's still a long way to go before the planned teen social media ban comes into effect this December.