Social safety?

Kirra Pendergast, founder of Safe on Social, has spoken to thousands of students in hundreds of Australian schools about the dangers of social media. She opens her teaching time by telling the students, “I’m not here to say, ‘Don’t.’ I love technology. I’m here to teach you how to do it better.” But on Nov. 12 she cut short her presentations at a school in New South Wales after the seventh and eighth graders’ behavior toward her became “mind-blowingly bad and disrespectful.”

Pendergast took to Facebook to vent her frustration. Other educators chimed in, pointing to one main culprit for the decline in behavior: the steep increase in students’ use of technology. The problem of technology influence, especially social media, has gotten so bad that Australian lawmakers decided to do something about it, an effort Pendergast cheered.

On Nov. 28, parliamentarians in Canberra passed a bill that will ban children under the age of 16 from having social media accounts. Tech companies have a year to figure out how to implement the restrictions that go into effect late in 2025 or face fines up to $50 million AUD ($32 million USD). The big question now: How will they do it?

A last-minute amendment to the bill listed government and digital ID as one option to verify a user’s age, although that cannot be the only option. Still, that leaves the door open for expanding the use of digital ID and facial biometrics, technologies used for widespread tracking and control in totalitarian countries, like China. If Australia succeeds in implementing these tools in the name of protecting children, other Western democracies could soon follow suit.

Pendergast, who worked in cyber security for decades, insists privacy in most contexts is a myth because by the time children are 13 years old they are tied to an average of 72 million data points from social media alone. “And a lot of people jumping up and down about digital ID are quite happy to hand over facial recognition technology, eye tracking, behavioral analysis, all of that stuff to measure and collate, because they use Facebook every single day of the week.” she said.

But one of the lawmakers who opposed the ban, Matt Canavan from Queensland, says both the rushed process and the contents of the bill were rife with problems. Two days before the vote, he tweeted, “Did a ctrl+F on the government’s social media ban bill for under 16s. Not a single mention of the word ‘parent.’” He said the 20-page bill uses a blunt tool to accept or deny whole categories of apps rather than the particular use of the apps, and it leaves parents out of the equation.

Canavan says that breaks the mutual trust between the people and the lawmakers, which could prompt users to ignore the laws or actively search for ways to abuse them. Kids can drive a truck through the loopholes in the law, he adds: “It’s always a bad idea for governments to pass laws which incentivize the citizens to break that law, and it’s a pretty bad idea to have young children get in the habit of just abusing and ignoring the laws of the land.”

But Pendergast believes the new law will encourage parents to start asking questions about tools children use to hide their online activity or get around restrictions. Things like virtual private networks (VPNs) or techniques for hiding forbidden apps on their phones. Because the issues raised by the new law are generating a lot of media coverage, she hopes it will start a global conversation that puts the pressure on big tech companies to provide more safeguards voluntarily.

Although the law bans social media access broadly, it will be up to government regulators to determine which apps must comply. Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said the ban would exclude messaging apps and those primarily used for health, education, and gaming. Apps hit hard would include Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit, X, and Snapchat. Following a public outcry, Rowland backtracked on Snapchat, saying it could skirt the age restrictions if it could prove it’s a messaging app and not a social media provider. Rowland has made no mention of religious exemptions, which could affect apps like Hallow, a popular Catholic prayer app.

Online age verification has gained traction in the West as part of an effort to protect children from pornography. Over the last few years, more than half of U.S. states have adopted verification requirements targeting the website Pornhub. Websites that sell alcohol and tobacco products have similar restrictions. Most require users to present a valid government-issued ID, like a driver’s license. But critics of Australia’s ban worry it could open the door for widespread use of facial recognition technology.

Lois Montgomery, a cybersecurity professional in Tennessee, said the big question is how the massive amounts of digital ID data would be stored. If handled improperly, it could become the hidden gem that all hackers want. “Every time you give your information to another company, public or private, you are giving another opportunity for your data to be stolen,” she said.

But the looming question is, will the ban work? Montgomery says, no, “not without extreme violations of privacy.” And she believes children’s privacy is much more important than making sure they don’t ever access social media.

But digital IDs might not be an attractive option for social media companies if they’re not already widely in use. Even though Australia increased digital ID funding elevenfold in 2024, social media platforms would still need to develop the technology to interact with government databases.

In 2023, a new law in France required parental consent for children under 15 to access social media. Due to technical challenges, the law has yet to be enforced. By this time next year, Australians may be in the same situation.

Jason Thacker, a Christian ethics professor and author of The Digital Public Square, says Australian lawmakers have put tech companies on notice. He calls the ban in Australia a meaningful first step that could have far-reaching effects, even if it’s not a perfect solution. “We have to figure out how to protect our children, especially in a digital age, as well as empower parents, as well as stand for free speech and privacy and free expression and religious freedom. We can do all of these things,” he insists. He’s encouraged by the many nations around the world trying to hold Big Tech accountable, and he believes the companies are more capable of controlling access to their products than they let on.

The threat of Big Brother surveillance, mass censorship, and digital IDs shouldn’t paralyze Christians, Thacker says. “These are real questions and real problems that we need to address and be thinking through. But we engage them from a place of hope and a place of peace, knowing that our future is secure.”