The Social Media Ban
A national government proposes to ban under-16s from social media platforms, with fines of up to AUD 50 million for platforms that fail to take 'reasonable steps' to prevent access. A trial of age-verification technology found false negatives of 8 per cent (children wrongly verified as adults) and false positives of 12 per cent (adults wrongly rejected). Youth mental-health advocates support the ban, citing survey data that 61 per cent of 14–16 year olds report negative experiences online. Civil-liberties groups oppose it, arguing that age verification requires collecting identity data on everyone. A youth council of 16–18 year olds has told the government that the ban will push young people onto less-moderated platforms and that they were not consulted. The opposition supports the principle but wants the age set at 14.
1. Assess whether the trial data supports the ban's effectiveness.
Read the worked answer
The trial data undercuts confidence in the mechanism. An 8 per cent false-negative rate means roughly one in twelve children would still get through, and a 12 per cent false-positive rate means roughly one in eight adults would be wrongly blocked. Neither figure is trivial.
But effectiveness is not the same as accuracy. The ban's stated goal is to reduce under-16 access. If 92 per cent of children are correctly blocked, the policy could still reduce exposure substantially - unless the blocked children simply migrate to unverified platforms, which the youth council predicts. The trial does not measure that migration, so it cannot settle the question.
The honest reading: the data shows the verification technology is imperfect and that the policy will produce a measurable error rate. Whether that error rate is acceptable depends on the size of the harm being prevented and on whether less-restrictive alternatives (design rules, time limits, parental controls) would work. The trial alone does not justify the ban; it also does not defeat it.
2. The government did not consult the youth council. Explain why this is a problem for the policy's legitimacy, not just its design.
Read the worked answer
Legitimacy is about whether those subject to a rule have a defensible claim to have been heard. The youth council represents the exact group the ban targets, and it raised a concrete prediction - migration to less-moderated platforms - that bears directly on whether the policy will work.
Skipping consultation is a design problem because the government loses information. It is a legitimacy problem because a rule imposed on young people without hearing them treats them as objects of policy rather than participants in it. That matters in a democracy: people accept burdens more readily when they have had a chance to contest them.
The civil-liberties objection sharpens this. Age verification collects identity data on everyone, including adults, to protect a group that was not consulted. The broader the surveillance, the stronger the case for consultation. The government can fix this cheaply by publishing the youth council's submission and responding to it point by point - but it must do so before the bill is finalised, not after.
3. The opposition wants the age set at 14. Evaluate this as a compromise using the concepts of proportionality and harm.
Read the worked answer
Lowering the age to 14 is a proportionality argument: the restriction should be no broader than necessary to address the harm. If the survey data shows 61 per cent of 14–16 year olds report negative experiences, then 14–16 is precisely where the harm is concentrated, which cuts against the opposition's position. The opposition would need to show that 14–15 year olds are mature enough to manage the risk, or that the harm is less severe for them.
On the other side, proportionality also asks whether the restriction actually reduces harm. If 14–15 year olds migrate to unmoderated platforms, the ban may displace harm rather than prevent it. The 8 per cent false-negative rate means some under-14s would still get through anyway.
A defensible judgement: the age of 14 is not obviously more proportionate than 16, because the harm data points to the 14–16 band. The stronger compromise is to keep 16 but pair it with design obligations on platforms and a review after two years using the migration data. That addresses the opposition's concern about over-restriction without abandoning the group the evidence identifies.