A landmark Australian law designed to shield children from online harm contains a critical flaw that could render it almost useless, digital safety experts have warned.
The new legislation, which mandates age verification for social media users, can be effortlessly bypassed by under-16s simply by not logging into an account. This loophole grants minors access to a vast array of age-inappropriate and dangerous content, from gambling platforms to violent neo-Nazi propaganda, all while remaining completely anonymous.
The Illusion of Protection
The law, which requires platforms like Meta's Instagram and X to implement robust age checks, was hailed as a world-first step towards creating a safer digital environment for young people. However, its focus solely on logged-in users creates a significant blind spot. Much of the web's most harmful content is publicly accessible on feeds and pages that do not require any form of sign-in or age confirmation.
"The idea that you can protect children by just putting an age gate on the sign-in page is fundamentally flawed," stated one expert. "It ignores the reality of how these platforms work and how young people actually use them."
A Gateway to Harmful Content
Investigations have revealed the sheer scale of the problem. Researchers easily found:
- Publicly accessible gambling advertisements and betting tips.
- Graphic and violent content from far-right and neo-Nazi groups.
- Extremist manifestos and recruitment materials.
This content is available on major platforms simply by scrolling through public feeds or visiting known group pages, completely circumventing the new verification measures.
Industry and Regulatory Response
Social media companies have pointed to their existing policies against hate speech and harmful content. However, critics argue that enforcement is inconsistent and slow, allowing such material to remain online and accessible for extended periods.
Australia's eSafety Commissioner has acknowledged the challenge, emphasising that the new age verification rules are just one part of a broader toolkit. The commissioner's office continues to use its powers to force platforms to remove illegal content, but this is often a reactive, rather than preventative, measure.
This revelation raises serious questions about the effectiveness of piecemeal digital regulation and highlights the immense difficulty governments face in trying to police the vast and ever-evolving landscape of the internet.
