Enforcing a ban also presents additional privacy risks, experts add.
Under the Australian law, platforms looking to verify a user’s age can either request copies of identification documents, use a third party to apply age estimation technology to an account holder’s face, or make inferences from data already available such has how long an account has been held.
Michael Geist, a professor and Canada Research Chair in internet and e-commerce law at the University of Ottawa, said that potential data collection alone is concerning and would need to apply to all social media users regardless of age to be effective.
He noted that it can be difficult to discern between a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old by appearance alone, whether in person or online through biometrics systems.
“So what those systems tend to do then is dig deeper,” he said. “They look at who your friend circle is or the language that you use when posting to try to make a better guess.
“Well, now they’re literally engaging in increased surveillance in order to try (to identify your age), and raising even more privacy concerns in order pull this together.”
I’m skeptical that this will be any better than the bullshit we’ve seen in other jurisdictions, thanks to $millions of Meta lobbyists, but a ban isn’t the problem, it’s age verification that’s a problem.
A ban is a great idea, with absolutely no consequences for youth and no age verification. But rest circumvention doesn’t mean a ban is useless.
A ban could make it illegal for businesses to target youth under 16 for social media, ban schools from allowing social media to communicate with students (like is currently the norm for many school-sanctioned clubs and sports teams), and we could use illegal use by children as an avenue to educate parents about the harms of social media.
My guess is that Canada is about to get a terrible written-by-Meta bill announced tomorrow, but there’s a chance it could be a reasonable law. (I won’t hold my breath.)