28 November 2025

Welcome

Australia’s new environment laws are well outside the scope of this humble newsletter, so I guess that once again we’ll have to focus on the other big story, the rapidly-approaching social media age restrictions.

Just don’t call it a “ban”.

Also in the new, a new AI Safety Institute, and of course a bunch of other AI-related stories. But I’ll leave you to discover the rest for yourself.

Happy Friday.

Social media age restrictions: 12 days to go and there’s a High Court challenge

“Two teens and a digital rights group led by a New South Wales state politician are seeking an urgent high court injunction to block Australia’s under-16s social media ban,” wrote the Guardian.

Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, both currently 15, are being supported by John Ruddick, of all people, the Libertarian MLC from NSW.

His Digital Freedom Project says the ban restricts teenagers’ constitutional implied right to freedom of political communication — remember that Australia does not have a legislated freedom of speech.

(As it happens, this week loose cannon Senator Ralph Babet re-introduced his Constitution Alteration (Right to Free Speech) 2025, with the word “bill” missing from the title for some reason. Meanwhile a grab-bag of Senators introduced the Social Media Minimum Age Repeal Bill 2025, intended to shut the whole thing down — although it hasn’t gone anywhere yet.)

Will the High Court challenge make any difference?

Communications minister Anika Wells is talking tough.

“Despite the fact that we are receiving threats and legal challenges by people with ulterior motives, the Albanese Labor government remains steadfastly on the side of parents, and not of platforms,” she said.

“We will not be intimidated by threats. We will not be intimidated by legal challenges. We will not be intimidated by big tech on the behalf of Australian parents. We stand firm.”

This week I recorded a podcast with digital rights enthusiast Justin Warren, during which we discussed these and other issues. That episode will be posted early next week. Look for “The 9pm Edict” in your podcast app.

And in further social media commentary...

There’s a lot of material about social media this week, on both the ban and all the rest, and very little of it is positive.

• The Senate inquiry into the age restrictions recommended delaying the ban by six months, but the government said no.

• Marginalised groups may be disproportionately affected, including young Australians of African heritage and LBGTQI+ youth.

• Cybersecurity experts have raised concerns about Snapchat’s age-verification methods.

• The Guardian asks what if it doesn’t work as promised?, but then as your writer would like to point out, no one has set any criteria for success.

• New research shows that young people gave up reading, arts, and playing music for pleasure during COVID in favour of spending more time on social media.

• The Conversation has some suggestions for how kids can prepare for the age restrictions, including making sure they download their data and setting up their group chats somewhere that isn’t banned (yet).

• And I love this one. Radio presenter Michael “Wippa” Wipfli is taking his 36 Months campaign for the ban — sorry, the “delay” — and turning it into a commercial opportunity. Brands are being invited to take part in a media campaign called “The First Best Summer Ever”. “[It] reframes December 10, not as the day restrictions come into effect, but as the start of something better,” Wipfli said.

Refresher: The social media ban in bullet points

When the age restriction laws were first passed a year ago I wrote a summary. Here it is again, but updated.

The relevant legislation was the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill, but that’s now incorporated into the Online Safety Act 2021, and that’s what I’ll refer to.

• The Act now includes a new concept, an age-restricted social media platform in section 63C, which is defined differently from the term social media service in section 13.

• Despite criteria being set for what’s in and what’s out, the communications minister can simply declare something to be such a platform, or not be such a platform.

The criteria for an age-restricted social media platform are: (i) the sole purpose, or a significant purpose, of the service is to enable online social interaction between 2 or more end-users; (ii) the service allows end-users to link to, or interact with, some or all of the other end-users; (iii) the service allows end-users to post material on the service; (iv) such other conditions (if any) as are set out in the legislative rules.

• No matter what the minister or anyone else has been saying, the law does not specifically list any platforms or even any types of platforms. It’s entirely down to what the minister, or any future minister, might decide in their legislative rules. Indeed, while the eSafety Commissioner has been making lists, the commissioner does not decide these things. The commissioner is just posting their feelpinions. It’s up to the minister and, ultimately, the courts.

• A key sentence is that a platform can be listed as age-restricted “if the Minister is satisfied that it is reasonably necessary to do so in order to minimise harm to age-restricted users”. They have to seek advice, but in the end it’s still down to vibes.

• Even if a platform fits the criteria for being age-restricted the minister can decide it isn’t, also based on vibes.

• The eSafety Commissioner is empowered to “formulate, in writing, guidelines for the taking of reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users having accounts with age-restricted social media platforms”. She has published some regulatory guidance but it’s still a bit vague.

• What constitutes “reasonable steps” is still to be determined. There are no set standards for false positives or false negatives.

• Platforms can’t demand you use the government digital ID, myID, or any other government-issued identification material. However they can choose to offer that as a method, provided they also offer other methods which are “reasonable in the circumstances”.

• All under-16s are banned, even if their parents would like to allow them access.

• Every social media user will have to prove they’re not under 16, of course. This affects everyone. Although in many cases the platforms will be guessing people’s ages and adults may not necessarily be challenged.

• On the other hand, the law is about creating accounts. There’s nothing to stop you viewing whatever content is public.

IF YOU FIND THIS NEWSLETTER HELPFUL, PLEASE SUPPORT IT: The Weekly Cybers is currently unfunded. It’d be lovely if you threw a few dollars into the tip jar at stilgherrian.com/tip. Please consider.

Also in the news

• Australia will create an AI Safety Institute early next year. This deserves more words than I’m giving it today, sorry about that. Here’s the minister’s press release.

• New research shows that AI chatbots are encouraging conspiracy theories.

• The Communications Legislation Amendment (Australian Content Requirement for Subscription Video On Demand (Streaming) Services) Bill 2025 passed both houses, so the major video streaming platforms now have a quota for investing in Australian-made content. The ABC will also get an extra $50 million.

• Senator David Pocock introduced the Online Safety and Other Legislation Amendment (My Face, My Rights) Bill 2025. According to the explanatory memorandum, “These reforms affirm that an individual’s likeness, image, and voice are intrinsic to their identity and privacy and must be protected in both digital and physical spaces.” ABC News has an explainer.

• Federal MPs were warned to turn off their phones and laptops while a Chinese delegation visited Parliament House on Monday. #ChineseSpies

• The Digital Transformation Agency (DTA) has proposed a register of underperforming tech providers in relation to government contracts, but they say it isn’t a “blacklist”. Just a bit brown, then?

• A storm erupted over the $96.5 million rebuild of the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) website. I might look at this in more detail next week.

• The Macquarie Dictionary Word of the Year for 2025 is “AI slop”. (Don’t get cute. Lexicographers look at compound words, where two or more separate words act as a single concept or unit of meaning.) “For a second year running (and only the fourth time in history), the public have aligned with the Committee’s choice.”

• Is there a backlash against AI imagery in advertising? Some brands are now promoting that their ads are “human-made”, according to The Conversation.

• Also from The Conversation, “Should we ‘get over’ print books in the digital age – or are they more precious than ever?”

• According to the latest Essential polling, more than two-thirds of Australians are with “quite concerned” or “very conserved” about the development of AI that is self-aware.

• TPG Telecom is close to finalising an agreement with Telstra and Optus for mobile roaming onto each other’s networks during disasters.

• The Department of Defence and the Australian Security Vetting Agency have decided to standardise security vetting into a single system. Finally.

• It’s really outside the scope of this newsletter, but congratulations (?) to the parliamentary inquiry into the live music industry for titling their report “Am I Ever Gonna See You Live Again?”.

TWO NEW PODCASTS: This week I’ve been catching up with my backlog of recordings. I chat about the electric cars and the global auto industry with freelance motoring journalist and editor of The Redline Peter Anderson in The 9pm All-Electric Douchebag with Peter Anderson. And I discuss new antibiotics and much more with infectious diseases physician and overall medtech nerd Dr Trent Yarwood in The 9pm Miracle Medical Reality with Dr Trent Yarwood. Look for “The 9pm Edict” in your podcast app.

Elsewhere

• OpenAI is claiming that it can’t be held responsible for a teenager’s death because “suicide” and “self-harm” are against its terms of service, among other surprising legal arguments.

• Court filings in the US allege that Meta buried evidence of social media harms.

• Roblox CEO Dave Baszucki was asked about child safety and it got tense, says the New York Times (gift link).

• In Europe the social media giants will be liable for financial scams operating on their platforms.

• The EU is also looking at a 16+ age rule for social media, although unlike in Australia parents will be able to give consent.

• China is betting big on AI-powered robots, according to a new paper from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

• Chinese researchers have simulated large-scale electronic warfare against Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite internet system.

• An American history professor set a a trap for his students and found that nearly 39% of them had submitted assignments that were at least partially written by AI. An interesting discussion of the issues.

• “The Trump administration will collect data on crimes committed by migrants to Australia [and other western nations] as part of its global campaign against mass migration,” reports The Saturday Paper’s Post. “Labelling mass migration ‘an existential threat to Western civilisation’, the order was issued without consulting foreign governments.”

• From the Guardian, “A would-be food influencer known online as the ‘dine-and-dash diva’ has been jailed in Brooklyn, New York, after multiple previous arrests for allegedly skipping out on the bill at high-end restaurants”.

OUR MUSIC COMMENTARY MAY MAKE YOU ANGRY Snarky Platypus and I have some controversial opinions in AUMP 00005: Their Only Good Song. Look for Another Untitled Music Podcast in your podcast app.

Inquiries of note

Nothing new this week, at least not that’s relevant to us here.

What’s next?

Parliament is now done and dusted for 2025. It’s scheduled to return on Tuesday 3 February 2026, per the sittings schedule posted on Thursday.

That said, the Senate is holding some Supplementary Estimates hearings in the coming week, so that could be fun.

There will be three more editions of this newsletter for 2025, the last one being on Friday 19 December.

DOES SOMETHING IN THE EMAIL LOOK WRONG? Let me know. If there’s ever a factual error, editing mistake, or confusing typo, it’ll be corrected in the web archives.