Survey data backs up eSafety advice to deny YouTube age check exemption

There is much talk about how YouTube has become the new television. Yet while traditional broadcast TV had a built-in age assurance mechanism – kids shows in the afternoon, adult content after 9 p.m. – streaming has no temporal limits. YouTube is effectively an endless, 24/7 universe of content targeting users across the entire age spectrum.

How, then, to regulate it under online safety laws? And how to classify a service that was started to answer the question, “why can’t I easily find a video of Janet Jackson’s nipple on the Internet,” but has become a home for millions of creators who genuinely wish to engage and educate kids?

This is the question facing Australian eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. In response to a long campaign to exempt YouTube from Australia’s rules restricting social media platforms to users over 16 – often called the “under-16 social media ban” – Inman Grant advised the government that it should not grant YouTube an exemption, citing eSafety research showing that 76 percent of 10- to 15-year-olds had used YouTube, and that many had encountered harmful content.

She found “mounting evidence to suggest certain design choices, features and functionality” of YouTube “may contribute to or amplify the risk of unwanted and excessive use, and the risk of encountering harmful content or experiences.”

The commissioner has now released the survey in question, which, according to the Guardian, “backs her claims, and also reveals a younger cohort of 10- to 12-year-olds were more likely to be exposed to harmful content on YouTube – at 46 percent, compared to 27 percent for 13- to 15-year-olds.”

Nonetheless, YouTube creators and the platform itself continue to push for a so-called carve-out for the platform, arguing that it transcends social media to serve as a useful learning and teaching tool (and that the government shouldn’t renege on its initial arrangement.) The company recently sent a message to its subscribed creators with a warning that the law “could affect how your work is valued and viewed” and that it would “send a message that YouTube isn’t safe for younger Australians.”

The fine print is that children under 13 are already not allowed to have YouTube accounts. The less fine print, which Inman Grant has noted, is that one does not need a YouTube to watch educational content, only to make it. Even if the law imposes age assurance requirements on YouTube, mandating the use of age verification or age estimation tech, users will presumably only be asked to sign in when accessing age restricted content.

The assumption from creators that most of their audience of children are logged in to YouTube accounts is, at least, worth further inquiry.

However, individual creators’ arguments will only be a piece of YouTube’s pushback, as parent company Google (and its parent Alphabet) pour resources into defending their virtual turf.

Three of nine draft codes restricting pornography registered 

In its own efforts to communicate to stakeholders what the changes mean, the eSafety Commissioner’s Office has published a statement regarding its new industry codes and standards, which are being drafted by industry steering groups and approved for registration by the regulator.

The statement notes that codes and standards covering child sexual abuse material and terrorist activity are now in force, “setting out the obligations for technology companies which operate in Australia to address its proliferation on their platforms, with breaches punishable by fines of up to $49.5 million.”

The second phase, which aims to limit children’s exposure to pornography online, encompasses nine draft codes submitted by industry. The Commissioner has completed assessment of three of these, which will now be formally registered.

Per the statement, the registered codes cover search engines, enterprise hosting and internet carriage services, outlining how these services must prevent children’s exposure to age-inappropriate material.

“Search engines are one of the main gateways available to children for much of the harmful material they may encounter,” says the statement, “so the Code for this sector is an opportunity to provide very important safeguards.”

Measures include age assurance for account holders and mandatory safety messages for users who enter searches on topics such as suicide or self-harm methods.

Decisions on the remaining six codes in phase two will come “in due course,” eSafety says.

Streamers under 16 must have an adult in the shot

In the meantime, the regulatory winds continue to blow against YouTube, and it is adjusting course accordingly. A post from the company advises users to “avoid restrictions on YouTube live streaming,” which, as of July 22, is limited to those 16 or older.

Additionally, it says, “if you are under 16 and would like to participate in a live stream from an account owned by an adult, that adult must be visibly present in the live stream.”

The company means business, threatening bans for those who violate the rules. “Live streams featuring 13-15 year olds who are not visibly accompanied by an adult may have their live chat disabled and the account may temporarily lose access to live chat or other features. Please note that, in the future, we plan to take down these live streams and the account may temporarily lose its ability to live stream.”

Streamers can also mark their content as “made for kids,” which automatically imposes certain restrictions on features such as live chat.

YouTube has been framed as a social network, an educational tool, and the new TV. Perhaps more than any of these, however, it is also a massive economy, far more directly tied to creators’ livelihoods than strictly social networks like X or Facebook. The decision – to exempt it or not – has implications for many of those who have refocused their production activities from television to YouTube.

Nobody said being the new TV would be easy.

Article Topics

age verification  |  Australia  |  Australia age verification  |  children  |  eSafety Commissioner  |  regulation  |  social media  |  YouTube