Australia passes social media ban for kids under 16 sparking online surveillance concerns

While the official goal of the bill is to protect the mental health of children and adolescents, critics have raised concerns that the bill would establish an online surveillance system for all Australians, similar to Communist China.

Australia has passed a social media ban for children under the age of 16, a seemingly prudent move but one that has raised serious concerns about online surveillance.

On Thursday, November 28, the Australian Senate passed the bill with a 34-19 vote, making it the world’s first social media ban for under-16-year-olds.

The “Online Safety Amendment Bill 2024” threatens social media companies with up to 50 million AUD (32 million USD) if they fail to comply with the requirement of verifying the age of their users.

While the official goal of the bill is to protect the mental health of children and adolescents, critics have raised concerns that the bill would establish an online surveillance system for all Australians, similar to Communist China.

“Seems like a backdoor way to control access to the Internet by all Australians,” Elon Musk wrote on X.

Journalist and free speech advocate Michael Shellenberger said that “this bill is a Trojan horse to create digital IDs, which is a giant leap into the totalitarian dystopia depicted in ‘Black Mirror,’ and already in place in China.”

The bill, which was rushed through parliament, does not give any details about how age verification will work and will not come into force until the end of next year. On November 26, the Australian Senate’s Environment and Communications Legislation Committee approved the bill under the condition that social media platforms must not force their users to give them their personal data, including information from government-issued IDs.

While this provision appears to rule out the use of Digital IDs for now, the question of how it will be enforced remains. The Guardian reports that supporters of the bill have said that platforms may use biometric methods, such as facial scans, to verify the age of its users. This would, of course, mean that social media companies would collect the biometric data of all its users in Australia.

The explanatory memorandum to the bill says that there will be “robust” privacy protections, “including prohibiting platforms from using information collected for age assurance purposes for any other purpose unless explicitly agreed to by the individual.”

However, the memorandum also explains that “compliance with the minimum age obligation” will likely require platforms “to implement systems and procedures to monitor and respond to age-restricted users circumventing age assurance.”

This suggests that social media companies could continually monitor a user while using the platform, for instance, by repeatedly doing face scans to ensure that the user is still the same and at least 16 years old.

The vaguely worded bill also does not specify which companies will be affected by the age restriction. Communications minister Michelle Rowland said that TikTok, Instagram, X, Reddit, Facebook, and Snapchat will likely be included, while YouTube will be excluded due to its educational purposes.

In addition to the under-16 social media ban requiring age verification of users, the Australian government also sought to curb speech online via a draconian “Misinformation and Disinformation Bill.” However, the government had to abandon the controversial bill after facing significant cross-party opposition in the Senate. The bill would have forced social media companies to remove information that was “reasonably verifiable as false” or if “misinformation and disinformation” could cause serious harm. The vague definitions of these terms would have allowed social media companies or the government to arbitrarily censor content it deemed unwanted.

Up Next

Trafficking victim advocate analyzes testimony of reported survivor of elite abuse network

Don't Miss

‘Wrong in principle’: Former UK prime ministers torch proposed assisted suicide legislation

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Trump: ‘We’ have control over Iranian airspace; know where Khomeini is hiding

conflict / 1 hour ago

Trump Threatens Strike on Khamenei as Israel Pounds Iranian Military Command

Business / 1 hour ago

The CBC is a government-funded giant no one watches

Business

The CBC is a government-funded giant no one watches

Published on June 17, 2025

Todayville

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Kris Sims

The CBC is draining taxpayer money while Canadians tune out. It’s time to stop funding a media giant that’s become a political pawn

The CBC is a taxpayer-funded failure, and it’s time to pull the plug. Yet during the election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney pledged to pump another $150 million into the broadcaster, even as the CBC was covering his campaign. That’s a blatant conflict of interest, and it underlines why government-funded journalism must end.

The CBC even reported on that announcement, running a headline calling itself “underfunded.” Think about that. Imagine being a CBC employee asking Carney questions at a campaign news conference, while knowing that if he wins, your employer gets a bigger cheque. Meanwhile, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has pledged to defund the CBC. The broadcaster is literally covering a story that determines its future funding—and pretending there’s no conflict.

This kind of entanglement isn’t journalism. It’s political theatre. When reporters’ paycheques depend on who wins the election, public trust is shattered.

And the rot goes even deeper. In the Throne Speech, the Carney government vowed to “protect the institutions that bring these cultures and this identity to the world, like CBC/RadioCanada.” Before the election, a federal report recommended nearly doubling the CBC’s annual funding. Former heritage minister Pascale St-Onge said Canada should match the G7 average of $62 per person per year—a move that would balloon the CBC’s budget to $2.5 billion annually. That would nearly double the CBC’s current public funding, which already exceeds $1.2 billion per year.

To put that in perspective, $2.5 billion could cover the annual grocery bill for more than 150,000 Canadian families. But Ottawa wants to shovel more cash at an organization most Canadians don’t even watch.

St-Onge also proposed expanding the CBC’s mandate to “fight disinformation,” suggesting it should play a formal role in “helping the Canadian population understand fact-based information.” The federal government says this is about countering false or misleading information online—so-called “disinformation.” But the Carney platform took it further, pledging to “fully equip” the CBC to combat disinformation so Canadians “have a news source
they know they can trust.”

That raises troubling questions. Will the CBC become an official state fact-checker? Who decides what qualifies as “disinformation”? This isn’t about journalism anymore—it’s about control.

Meanwhile, accountability is nonexistent. Despite years of public backlash over lavish executive compensation, the CBC hasn’t cleaned up its act. Former CEO Catherine Tait earned nearly half a million dollars annually. Her successor, Marie Philippe Bouchard, will rake in up to $562,700. Bonuses were scrapped after criticism—but base salaries were quietly hiked instead. Canadians struggling with inflation and rising costs are footing the bill for bloated executive pay at a broadcaster few of them even watch.

The CBC’s flagship English-language prime-time news show draws just 1.8 per cent of available viewers. That means more than 98 per cent of TV-viewing Canadians are tuning out. The public isn’t buying what the CBC is selling—but they’re being forced to pay for it anyway.

Government-funded journalism is a conflict of interest by design. The CBC is expensive, unpopular, and unaccountable. It doesn’t need more money. It needs to stand on its own—or not at all.

Kris Sims is the Alberta Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Business

Trump family announces Trump Mobile: Made in America, for America

Published on June 17, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

On the 10-year anniversary of Donald Trump’s iconic campaign launch, the Trump family announced the debut of Trump Mobile, a new wireless company offering American-built smartphones, 5G coverage, and a values-driven alternative to Big Tech carriers.

Key Details:

Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump introduced Trump Mobile’s flagship service Monday, calling it a “transformational” alternative aimed at “our nation’s hardest-working people.”
The “47 Plan,” priced at $47.45/month, offers unlimited talk, text, and data, free international calls to U.S. military families, telehealth, roadside assistance, and no credit checks.
Trump Mobile’s customer support is fully U.S.-based and live 24/7—“not automated,” the company says—while a new American-made “T1 Phone” is slated for release in August.

Diving Deeper:

Marking ten years since President Donald Trump descended the golden escalator to launch his first campaign, the Trump Organization on Monday announced its boldest private sector move yet: Trump Mobile.

Flanked by company executives, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump unveiled the new cellular service, touting it as a patriotic, people-first alternative to legacy providers. “We’re building on the movement to put America first,” Trump Jr. said in a statement. “We will deliver the highest levels of quality and service.”

The cornerstone of Trump Mobile is the 47 Plan. Offered for $47.45/month, the plan includes unlimited data, full 5G coverage across all three major carriers, and a suite of benefits tailored to middle-class families, truckers, veterans, and anyone tired of paying premiums to companies that don’t share their values.

Among the key perks: 24/7 American-based customer service (with “real people,” not bots), comprehensive device protection, roadside assistance through Drive America, and telehealth services including mental health support and prescription delivery. Most notably, the plan includes free international calling to over 100 countries—an effort the Trump family says honors U.S. military families stationed abroad.

“We’re especially proud to offer free long-distance calling to our military members and their families,” said Eric Trump. “Those serving overseas should always be able to stay connected to the people they love back home.”

Unlike traditional providers, Trump Mobile advertises no contracts and no credit checks, appealing to a demographic long underserved by mainstream telecom giants. “Hard-working Americans deserve a wireless service that’s affordable, reflects their values, and delivers reliable quality they can count on,” Eric Trump added.

The company is also preparing to launch the T1 Phone in August—a sleek, gold smartphone “engineered for performance” and “proudly designed and built in the United States.” With that, the Trump Organization is not just entering the mobile market—it’s staking a claim as a direct competitor to Apple and Samsung.