Digital crackdown sparks clash

Australia's sweeping plan to ban under-16s from major social media platforms has triggered a fierce clash with YouTube, which has launched an unusually blunt attack on the looming restrictions, calling them rushed, unrealistic and ultimately harmful for young users.

YouTube delivered its criticism in a series of statements on Wednesday, warning that the legislation, set to take effect on December 10, would create new risks for Australian children rather than shielding them from the dangers cited by policymakers.

The company said the law would fail to achieve its stated promise of making young people safer online, arguing instead that removing logged-in access for under-16s would strip away protections built into the platform's account-based experience.

Rachel Lord, YouTube's public policy manager, said the legislation would "in fact, make Australian kids less safe on YouTube", pointing to concerns raised by parents and educators who had contacted the platform after the ban was announced.

The conflict stems from Australia's unprecedented move to require platforms including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube to delete or block accounts belonging to users under-16, marking the world's first set of restrictions of this scale.

Australia had initially planned to exempt YouTube from the rules so younger audiences could continue accessing educational videos, but the government reversed its position in July, citing what it called "predatory algorithms" affecting young users.

YouTube said it would automatically sign out all Australian users under-16 on December 10, using the ages listed in their Google accounts to determine who falls inside the restricted category targeted by the national policy.

The platform noted that children would still be technically able to visit the website without an account, but warned they would lose access to a range of key features designed specifically to keep younger audiences safer during their viewing experience.

Lord argued that the rushed regulatory push failed to understand YouTube's structure and overlooked the ways in which Australian teens already use the platform, especially those who rely on logged-in settings to filter and personalise what they watch.

The company emphasised that features such as default wellbeing settings and safety filters are crucial protections, suggesting the ban would unintentionally expose young users to experiences less tailored to their age and developmental needs.

YouTube said its philosophy centred on protecting children in the digital world rather than removing them from it, underscoring this point as a foundational disagreement with the direction Australia had chosen in crafting its new legislation.

The debate intensified as Australia signalled it was prepared for global scrutiny, with officials acknowledging there was considerable international interest in whether such sweeping restrictions could realistically function as intended.

Regulators worldwide are wrestling with the broader question of how social media affects younger users, especially regarding algorithms that can feed harmful content, and many observers see Australia as a potential test case for broader reforms.

Communications Minister Anika Wells defended the policy, describing the online environment shaped by algorithms as a dangerous space where harmful content could trap vulnerable young people in what she labelled an algorithm-driven "purgatory".

Wells said some young Australians had died after algorithms "latched on", subjecting them to streams of content that chipped away at their confidence and mental wellbeing in ways their parents were unable to monitor around the clock.

She argued that while the law would not eliminate all online harms, it would give children more room to pursue healthier digital experiences and reduce the influence of algorithmic pressures that could otherwise escalate unnoticed.

Wells also dismissed YouTube's criticism, describing it as strange for the platform to highlight how unsafe it considered its own service for users logged out of their accounts, a situation younger viewers would now face under the new rules.

She said that if YouTube acknowledged such safety gaps on its platform, it was up to the company to fix them, suggesting the platform's argument inadvertently strengthened the government's justification for imposing the under-sixteen ban.

Authorities admitted the law would not be perfect from the outset and conceded that some underage users might slip through the initial enforcement net, given the vast number of accounts across the targeted platforms.

However, the government stressed that platforms would face fines of A$49.5 million if they failed to take what regulators consider reasonable steps to remove or restrict accounts belonging to users younger than sixteen.

Wells said the government was prepared to expand the ban to additional services if it found younger audiences were moving to alternative apps in an attempt to circumvent the new rules once they came into force.

Australia will become the first country in the world to enforce such a comprehensive prohibition, placing it at the centre of a polarised debate over the balance between childhood safety and digital inclusion.

Part of that debate focuses on the practical question of how platforms can accurately determine a user's age, with YouTube confirming it would rely on the ages linked to the Google accounts used to access its services.

Under those rules, under-16 users will lose access to all features requiring an account, including personalised feeds and protections embedded within account-level settings designed to manage the type of content displayed.

Wells suggested the law might inspire similar measures elsewhere, noting that Malaysia had already indicated interest in restricting sign-ups for users unde-16, while New Zealand was preparing to implement its own variation of the ban.

For now, Australia's government and YouTube remain deeply at odds, with neither side suggesting room for immediate compromise, leaving young users and their parents facing major changes in only a few days' time.

The coming rollout is expected to shape whether this dramatic shift becomes a model for international regulation or a cautionary tale about the limits of controlling underage access to sprawling