Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat, have criticized the Australian government that has exempted YouTube from its new social media restrictions banning children under 16.
At present, all social media platforms – excluding YouTube — need to bar log-ins by minors, or pay fines of up to A$49.5 million ($31 million), Reuters news report said.
YouTube is not facing the ban, despite the legislation aiming to limit exposure to harmful content and addictive features.
Critics, including Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat, argue that YouTube employs the same algorithm-driven recommendations and social interaction features that the ban seeks to regulate. They view the exemption as inconsistent, unfair, and anti-competitive, calling for equal application of the law across all platforms.
Experts warn that YouTube also exposes children to harmful content, despite its claims of improved moderation. The government justifies the exemption by citing YouTube’s role as an educational tool with parental supervision features, but many argue this reasoning undermines the law’s effectiveness and fairness.
The Australian government’s decision to exempt YouTube from its recently passed social media restrictions for children under 16 is both inconsistent and fundamentally flawed. While the legislation aims to protect young users from the harms of algorithm-driven content, addictive engagement features, and exposure to inappropriate material, the special treatment granted to YouTube directly contradicts these objectives. This exemption raises concerns about government bias, policy inconsistency, and potential anti-competitive implications that favor one tech giant over others.
The social media ban, hailed as one of the most stringent in the world, is premised on the idea that algorithm-driven content exposure and social interaction features pose risks to children. YouTube, like Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat, employs similar engagement tactics. Its recommendation algorithm aggressively curates content that can lead children into harmful rabbit holes, exposing them to inappropriate, misleading, and potentially radicalizing material. The argument that YouTube is a necessary educational tool does not negate its significant role in the very issues the legislation seeks to address.
If digital platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat are being held accountable for exposing children to harmful content, there is no reasonable justification for treating YouTube differently. Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat have rightly criticized this decision, calling it “illogical, anticompetitive, and short-sighted.” The selective application of the law undermines its credibility and weakens its effectiveness.
The exemption of YouTube suggests potential government bias in favor of Alphabet (Google), which owns the platform. While the government claims YouTube’s parental supervision features justify the exemption, other platforms also provide extensive parental control tools. The decision to single out YouTube as the sole permissible platform raises concerns about whether the government has yielded to lobbying pressure or is selectively enforcing regulations in a way that benefits certain corporations over others.
This favoritism not only creates an uneven playing field for competing social media companies but also undermines trust in the government’s commitment to a fair regulatory framework. If safety and child protection are the primary concerns, the law must apply equally to all platforms with similar features and risks.
By exempting YouTube, the Australian government is effectively giving Alphabet a competitive edge over rival tech companies. Platforms such as TikTok and Snapchat, which are being forced to ban underage users or risk hefty fines, will suffer user attrition while YouTube continues to cultivate its young audience without restriction. This selective application of the law distorts competition and could lead to monopolistic market dominance by a single entity.
Snapchat has rightly pointed out that “there must be a fair and impartial application of exclusions and all services should be held to the same standard.” By carving out an exception for YouTube, the government is engaging in regulatory favoritism that may have long-term consequences on market dynamics, potentially stifling innovation and diversity in the social media space.
Big tech companies feel that the argument that YouTube is an “educational tool” is not sufficient to justify its exemption. While educational content exists on the platform, YouTube is also a hub for content that can be harmful to young audiences. The presence of extremist, misleading, and sensationalized videos has been widely documented. Despite YouTube’s claims that its moderation efforts are improving, researchers and child safety advocates continue to highlight its failures in removing harmful content effectively.
YouTube’s own automated content recommendation system has been criticized for steering young viewers toward inappropriate material. Even with parental controls in place, children can still be exposed to misleading or harmful content through autoplay features and suggested videos. If safety is the government’s true concern, YouTube should not be exempted from the same scrutiny applied to other platforms.
Baburajan Kizhakedath
