The popular community-based platform Reddit has filed a legal case against Australia’s social media ban on teens under the age of 16, claiming that the new law is a futile move and excessively focused, limiting political discourse on the internet.
In its submission to the High Court of Australia, the social news and aggregation site stated that the law is “invalid on the basis of the implied freedom of political communication”, citing that it burdens political communication.
The ban in Canberra became effective on Wednesday and covered 10 larger services, such as Alphabet’s YouTube, Meta’s Instagram, ByteDance’s TikTok, Reddit, Snapchat, and Elon Musk’s X. All target platforms had agreed to adhere to the policy depending on their levels.
The office of the Prime Minister of Australia, the Attorney-General’s Department, and other social media sites failed to respond to the request to comment instantly.
The targeted platforms will be legally required to implement “reasonable steps” to block access of individuals under the age of consent, relying on age-checking techniques like online activity inference, facial recognition through selfies, uploaded identities, or linked bank accounts.
The application to the courts by Reddit aims at either pronouncing the law as invalid or requesting the platform to be exempted from the law.
In a response to CNBC, Reddit stated that although it supports the significance of safeguarding individuals below 16, the legislation isolates teens “from the ability to engage in age-appropriate community experiences (including political discussions).”
It also stated in its application that the law “burdens political communication,” saying “the political views of children inform the electoral choices of many current electors, including their parents and their teachers, as well as others interested in the views of those soon to reach the age of maturity.”
The platform further contended that it was not addressed by the law on the basis that it was more of a forum where adults with “knowledge sharing” can be facilitated among users, rather than a traditional social network, and that it did not receive contact lists or address books.
The platform said in its application that “Reddit is significantly different from other sites that allow for users to become “friends” with one another, or to post photos about themselves, or to organise events.”
Reddit also mentioned in its court filing that the majority of the content on its site can be accessed without an account, and that a person under the age of 16 “can be more easily protected from online harm if they have an account, being the very thing that is prohibited.”
It reported that “That is because the account can be subject to settings that limit their access to particular kinds of content that may be harmful to them.”
Regardless of its objections, Reddit claimed that the challenge was not an effort to evade complying with the law or an attempt to keep young users on the site to do business.
The platform further added, “There are more targeted, privacy-preserving measures to protect young people online without resorting to blanket bans.”
