Strengthening the Ban on Social Media for Under 16s in Australia: How Should Japan Consider "Regulations to Protect Children"?

Australia to Double Fines for Social Media Companies: Why This Matters for Japan

The Australian government is set to further tighten regulations on social media use by children under 16. The targeted platforms include major ones like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, and Snapchat. The government has announced plans to double the maximum fine for companies that fail to adequately prevent minors from creating accounts or using their services, from the current 49.5 million AUD to 99 million AUD.

This news is not just about overseas internet regulations. In Japan, issues such as children's smartphone use, social media addiction, cyberbullying, sexual exploitation, recruitment for illegal jobs, personal information leaks, and exposure to fake news are common challenges for families, schools, and governments. Australia's hardline approach could serve as a significant precedent for Japan in considering how to design the relationship between minors and social media in the future.

Australia was the first in the world to introduce a system restricting children under 16 from having accounts on targeted social media platforms. Notably, the system does not penalize the children or their guardians but requires platforms to take "reasonable measures." In other words, the law targets not the children but the giant IT companies.

The government's move to double fines comes against the backdrop of many children continuing to use social media despite the system's implementation. The Australian government believes companies are only taking minimal actions and plans to strengthen the information-gathering powers of the regulatory authority, the eSafety Commissioner. The aim is to require not only social media companies but also third parties like age verification service providers and app store operators to provide documents and information.

This move is also a statement from the government that it will not leave children's safety to self-reporting by big tech companies.

What Does a 99 Million AUD Fine Mean?

The amount of 99 million AUD is substantial. However, considering the scale of giant companies like Meta, Google, and ByteDance, whether fines alone can fundamentally change corporate behavior is another matter. What is crucial is not the amount of the fine itself but how deeply regulatory authorities can delve into companies' internal measures.

Social media companies have claimed to be working on safety measures for children, age verification, removal of violating accounts, and content moderation. However, it is difficult to verify their effectiveness externally. How accurately are ages being determined? Are they relying solely on self-reporting? Are deleted accounts being re-registered? How reliable are the mechanisms for parental consent and identity verification? These details have often depended on the companies' explanations.

The Australian government is aiming to regulate this area. It is not enough for companies to simply say, "We are doing it." They must provide evidence, allow third-party verification, and face hefty penalties if their measures are inadequate. This is part of a trend to treat social media as high-publicity infrastructure and hold companies socially accountable.

In Japan, social media is no longer just entertainment. Children use LINE, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, X, in-game chats, and streaming apps for friendships, hobbies, learning, information gathering, and self-expression. Therefore, when problems arise, it is no longer sufficient to address them solely as "parental discipline." The design of the platforms themselves strongly influences children's behavior.

Research Shows the Reality of "Continuing to Use Despite Prohibition"

Significant challenges have already emerged in Australia's system. Research shows that many under 16 continue to use social media even after the regulations were introduced. Children easily share workarounds, such as registering with fake birthdates, using accounts under the names of older individuals like parents or siblings, using VPNs or private browsers, and accessing from different devices.

This scenario is easily imaginable in Japan as well. Even if schools say, "This app is banned," children move to another app. Even if parents restrict smartphone use, children borrow friends' devices. If age verification relies on self-reporting, they register with altered birthdates. If regulations become stricter, they may move to less visible places.

A blanket ban is a straightforward policy. For parents, being able to say "It's prohibited by law" can be a persuasive tool at home. However, if a ban is introduced without effectiveness, children will use it secretly from adults, making it harder to consult when they encounter trouble.

If Japan considers a similar system, this will be the biggest point of contention. Keeping children away from social media might reduce risks in the short term. However, in reality, it is difficult for children to completely detach from the digital space. If a ban moves them from "visible to adults" to "invisible to adults," the danger may increase.

Reactions on Social Media Are Divided

Regarding Australia's plan to double fines, reactions on social media, forums, and news comment sections are clearly divided.

Supporters say, "Holding companies accountable is the only way to protect children," "Social media companies have profited from minors' time on their platforms, so they should bear the cost of countermeasures," "Parents alone have limits," and "Companies promoting addiction through algorithms should not be left unchecked."

Especially among parents, there is strong anxiety about issues like cyberbullying, sexual contact, extreme beauty and diet information, self-harm content, and contact from unknown adults. In Japan, too, parents face the dilemma of "excluding children from friendships if they don't have a smartphone, but increasing risks if they do." There is hope that a law like Australia's could set boundaries not just for families but for society as a whole.

On the other hand, there is also much criticism. Common criticisms include, "Raising fines will only make children look for loopholes," "Strict age verification will lead to a society where all users must verify their identity," "The risk of handing over personal information to the government or companies is high," and "Instead of banning social media, dangerous algorithms and ad designs should be regulated."

This concern is also important in Japan. To seriously conduct age verification, systems like ID cards, facial recognition, mobile contract information, My Number cards, and parental verification might be needed. However, this would lower the anonymity of all users, including adults. While anonymity can be misused, it also allows for consultations on worries, expression of opinions, and protection of privacy. The fear that policies to protect children's safety might lead to increased surveillance of society as a whole cannot be ignored.

Organizing reactions on social media, the axis of conflict is not "whether to protect children or not." Many agree on the need to protect children. The points of contention are whether a blanket ban is appropriate, how to hold companies accountable, how much privacy can be sacrificed, and how to handle the rights and voices of the children themselves.

What Would Happen if Japan Introduced the Same System?

If Japan were to introduce a "ban on social media for those under 16," the biggest hurdle would be the actual living conditions of the children.

For Japanese middle and high school students, social media is not just a pastime. It serves various functions, such as club activity communications, chatting with friends, hobby communities, fan activities, learning information, news, disaster information, and places outside of school. In some regions and schools, not being able to use social media could lead to social isolation.

In discussions by the Children's and Families Agency, concerns have been raised about whether age restrictions on social media might lead to children's isolation, whether restrictions should be app-specific, and whether a system to display content appropriate for age is necessary. This reflects the difficulty of directly transplanting Australia's blanket ban to Japan.

Moreover, Japan already has filtering systems and the Youth Internet Environment Improvement Act, but in reality, there are cases where filtering is bypassed or smartphones are given to children without sufficient parental understanding. The age at which children are given smartphones is decreasing, the variety of apps is increasing, and dangers are not limited to social media. Video streaming, games, chats, live streaming, anonymous boards, flea market apps, and investment and side job communities are all points of contact.

Even if only Instagram or TikTok were restricted, children might move to other services. Conversely, if restrictions are too broad, opportunities for learning, creation, and communication could be lost. What Japan needs is not just to decide "whether to ban social media," but to design a detailed system on "which functions to control, to what extent, and under whose responsibility, according to age and developmental stage."

Japan Should Focus on "Corporate Responsibility" Over "Prohibition"

The most important point Japan should learn from Australia's policy is the pursuit of corporate responsibility, not punishment of children.

In Japan, when social media troubles involving minors occur, the discussion often turns to "parental oversight is lax," "school guidance is insufficient," or "the individual's literacy is low." Of course, family and school education are important. However, if the structure of social media itself promotes long-term use, notification dependence, the spread of extreme posts, stimulation of approval desires, and visibility of controversies, it is unfair to place all the responsibility on children and families.

Platforms have business models that convert user time and reactions into revenue. Minors are also part of this target. If so, stricter design standards should be required for advertisements, recommendations, notifications, direct messages, location information, live streaming, billing, and external link guidance for minors.

In Japan, the discussion should not only be about age bans like in Australia. Practical regulations could include making initial settings private for minor accounts, restricting DMs from unknown adults, suppressing notifications during nighttime, not displaying extreme content consecutively, not showing age-inappropriate ads, early detection of posts leading to bullying or sexual exploitation, and transparency in responses after reporting.

These measures aim to distance children not from social media entirely but from dangerous designs. This approach might suit Japanese society better.

"Illegal Jobs" and "Social Media Regulation" Are Unique Issues in Japan

From a Japanese perspective, crime solicitation through social media is particularly important. Recently, so-called illegal job solicitations have spread through social media and highly anonymous communication means. They lure young people with words like high pay, immediate cash, and easy work, and once they have personal information, they make it difficult to escape.

This issue is different from mere "social media addiction" or "overuse." It poses a significant social risk as it becomes an entry point for children and young people to connect with criminal organizations. When discussing social media regulation for minors in Japan, it is necessary to focus not only on mental health and bullying but also on crime solicitation countermeasures.

However, a blanket ban alone is insufficient here as well. Crime solicitation can occur not only on social media but also on messaging apps, boards, sites disguised as job listings, in-game chats, etc. What is needed is a system that detects dangerous keywords and suspicious solicitation patterns, allowing platforms to quickly delete, report, and restrict use. At the same time, it is essential to clearly establish a consultation window where children can easily seek help when they feel something is "suspicious."

Australia's "age-based cut" regulation is straightforward. However, in Japan, it is necessary to combine more detailed measures according to multiple risks such as crime solicitation, sexual exploitation, bullying, defamation, addiction, and personal information leaks.

The Role Required of Schools and Families Will Also Change

Social media regulation should not be left solely to companies and governments. In Japan, it is particularly important to change the role of schools and families from "conveyors of prohibition" to "places for dialogue."

Simply telling children "social media is dangerous, so don't use it" is unlikely to work in reality. Why is it dangerous? Which posts are dangerous? What should you do if you receive a DM from a stranger? What if you send an image? Who do you consult if a friend writes something bad about you? What happens if you make a post that hurts someone? It is necessary to address these specific situations.

Support for parents is also essential. Smartphone and social media settings are complex, and safety features vary by app. It is difficult for parents to grasp everything. Therefore, municipalities, schools, telecom operators, and platforms need to collaborate to provide easy-to-understand guides, consultation windows, and initial setup support.

The Australian example shows that even with laws, the burden remains on families. Even with regulations, it is the parents, schools, and local adults who actually face the children. While strengthening corporate responsibility, a system that does not isolate families is needed.

Should Japan Adopt the "Australian Model" as Is?

In conclusion, Japan should be cautious about adopting Australia's under-16 social media ban as is. There are three reasons.

First, the issue of effectiveness. If age verification is insufficient, children can easily bypass it. If it is too strict, privacy risks increase. If the system design is flawed, banned children will simply move to less visible spaces.

Second, the issue of children's rights. While social media poses dangers, it is also a place for learning, expression, interaction, consultation, and social participation. Especially for children in rural areas, those without a place at school, or those without peers to share hobbies or concerns, online connections can be a support. A blanket ban could take away such places.

Third, the diversity of risks. In Japan, the problem is not just social media. The digital space children encounter is wide, including videos, games, chats, streaming, anonymous boards, payments, job listings, and investment information. Restricting only specific social media by age does not necessarily reduce overall risk.

However, there are many points to learn from Australia's efforts. Particularly, the stance of holding platforms accountable, the authority of regulatory bodies to understand the situation, and the idea of not leaving minor protection to corporate self-effort are references for Japan.

What Is Needed Is Not "Ban or Freedom," but a Review of Design

What Japan will need in the future is not a simple binary choice of "banning social media or allowing free use." The question should be who designs the digital space children use, how, and to what extent they are responsible.

For example, minor accounts could have initial settings tilted towards safety. Restrict dangerous DMs and follow requests. Suppress notifications that encourage long-term use. Prevent continuous viewing of extreme content. Control ads and recommended displays according to age. Create a system where parents do not unilaterally monitor but set settings in agreement with children. These measures, while less flashy than a blanket ban, could have realistic effects.

Additionally, platforms could be required to publish transparency reports on minor users. How many minor accounts are there? What harmful content has been removed? What is the response time to reports? What is the detection system for sexual exploitation and crime solicitation? Without this information, neither policy nor education can be improved.

Australia's doubling of fines is not the endpoint of social media regulation. Rather, it is the starting point. To protect children, it is necessary to combine laws, technology, education, family support, and corporate responsibility.

Japan's Impending Choice

Australia's recent move is both a warning and a hint for Japan.

The warning is that leaving children's social media issues solely to families is reaching its limits. The age at which children get smartphones is decreasing, app functions are becoming more complex, and algorithms are becoming more powerful. The opponent is too big for parents and schools to handle alone.##HTML