Australia's recent legislation to restrict social media access for users under 16 has generated significant discussion and uncertainty. The law, passed last November, aims to remove young users from major platforms like Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and now YouTube. This development has raised numerous questions about its implementation and effectiveness.

The government’s announcement this week that YouTube would be included in the ban has been described as a significant political shift. While the specifics of the ban remain unclear, it is expected to cover most major social media platforms. The ongoing uncertainty has kept public interest high, akin to a suspenseful television drama.

One of the central issues is how social media companies will verify users' ages. The eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, recently revealed that there would not be a definitive list of acceptable age-checking methods. Instead, she introduced a “principles-based approach,” emphasizing that age-checking systems should be “reliable, accurate, robust and effective.” However, the exact methods for age verification—such as facial recognition, ID checks, or analyzing user behavior—will be left to the companies to determine.

Concerns have emerged regarding the accuracy of age-checking technologies. Government tests indicated that children as young as 15 were often misidentified as being in their 20s or 30s. Inman Grant acknowledged that the guidance does not mandate a single technology or set a required accuracy rating for age estimation. She stated, “It may be a surprise to some that the guidance does not mandate a single technology approach.”

The guidelines suggest that social media companies should offer multiple ways for users to verify their age, known as a “waterfall approach.” This means that identification will not be the only method available. Inman Grant noted, “We don’t expect that every under-16 account is going to disappear on December 10. What we will be looking at is systemic failures.” However, the term “systemic failures” remains undefined, leaving many questions unanswered.

The eSafety Commission will monitor compliance, requiring companies to provide internal data on how many young users have been removed from their platforms. Interestingly, the new guidelines indicate that social media companies may not need to ask every user for their age. Instead, they can rely on “age inference,” which uses existing data to estimate a user’s age based on their online behavior and social connections.

For example, if a user has been active on the platform for many years and interacts primarily with older users, they may not be prompted for age verification. Conversely, if a user’s activity suggests they are likely underage, the platform may request proof of age. This method is seen as less intrusive, as it does not require additional data from users.

Despite the potential for age inference to streamline the verification process, it raises concerns about accuracy. The eSafety Commission has acknowledged that while some methods may be effective, no single approach is foolproof. A recent study highlighted the risks associated with various age verification methods, emphasizing that while some are viable, none guarantee complete accuracy.

As the December 10 deadline approaches, the lack of clarity surrounding the ban continues to fuel speculation. Communications Minister Annika Wells remarked that social media platforms already possess extensive data about users, suggesting that many Australians may soon discover just how much information is being utilized. Until the final details are revealed, the future of the teen social media ban remains uncertain.