Australia’s Largest Christian News Site

Supporters of the under 16s social media ban often speak as if age verification is a narrow, one-off tool. It isn’t. We are sleepwalking into a surveillance state.

On 10 December, Australia’s under-16 social media ban officially came into force.

Before commenting further let me say, as a father: children do need protection from genuine online harms.

But as events over the past few days have already shown, the mechanism matters.

The instinct to protect children is right – but we should understand the consequences before cheering on the Government’s scheme.

What’s Already Happened Since 10 December

With fines of up to $50 million hanging over them, social media platforms have moved quickly –and predictably.

Online demands for proof-of-age often come with little clarity about how that data is secured, stored, or who ultimately controls it.

IT experts are pointing out that even the most benign forms of data collection are subject to hacking – including, in this case, users’ faces.

One can change a password if it’s hacked – but it’s a bit hard to change a face and prevent identity fraud.

Adults are also being swept up in systems designed for children, including a Tasmanian mother of three in her 30s, who was locked out of the social media accounts she uses for business.

Parents are discovering they have no discretion.

This is not careful child protection. It’s regulatory panic.

Legal Challenges

A number of court challenges have already been flagged against the ban, including a case flagged by the platform Reddit.

Regardless of any legal outcomes, we are already seeing confusion and resistance.

That should put paid to any claim this policy was straightforward, settled, and uncontroversial.

When a law requires global platforms to redesign systems, collect identity data, and police millions of users, court challenges are not a bug. They are a feature.

Age Verification Doesn’t Stay Small

Supporters of the ban often speak as if age verification is a narrow, one-off tool.

It isn’t.

Age verification cannot function without identity verification. And identity verification means:

• documents
• third-party providers
• databases
• facial scans or biometrics

Once those systems exist, they don’t remain confined to one purpose.

We’ve seen it overseas, particularly with Digital ID becoming a prerequisite to work in the UK.

We’ve already seen it here – for example, police accessing Covid check-in data despite clear assurances it would never be used that way.

Now, it’s social media.

Then it’s “harmful content”.

Then it’s back to the Federal Government’s attempt to legislate against so-called “misinformation and disinformation”.

This is how mission creep works – quietly, incrementally, and always justified as “common sense” or in the name of “safety”.

I’m not one to engage in hyperbole, but we are sleepwalking into a surveillance state.

Digital ID by Another Name

As you probably know, Australia already has a legislated Digital ID framework, which is gradually rolling out.

The under-16 ban doesn’t sit apart from that system – it feeds into the same logic: more verification, more centralisation, more reliance on identity checks for everyday life.

We need to be honest about this.

We cannot oppose Digital ID on principle, while applauding age-verification regimes that require the same infrastructure to function.

Different labels. Same destination.

Parents Are Sidelined – Not Empowered

Something else troubling about this regime is who gets to decide.

Under the ban:

• parents cannot consent on behalf of their children
• parents cannot tailor decisions to maturity or circumstance
• parental authority is replaced by uniform rules set by unelected bureaucrats and enforced by corporations

Whatever its intentions, this approach trains families to look upward for permission – to government – rather than exercise judgment and responsibility themselves.

That is a profound cultural shift.

Where This Leaves Us

Doing nothing about online harms is not acceptable.

But neither is locking in surveillance-heavy systems that sideline parents. That’s not protection – it’s unacceptable overreach.

If Australians are told they must choose between child safety and freedom, we should reject the premise.

We can – and must – insist on both.

Thank you for standing for family, faith, and freedom – especially when it means questioning policies others are rushing to celebrate.

___

Republished with thanks to The Australian Family Coalition. Image via Adobe.