The post Meta Considers Service Withdrawal in New Mexico Over Child Safety Law Dispute appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

For some teenagers in rural areas, the change feels immediate and personal. Riley Allen, 15, who lives on a sheep ranch near Wudinna in South Australia, worries the ban will cut him off from friends scattered across long distances during the summer school holidays.

The measure, passed by federal Parliament last year, places Australia at the forefront of global efforts to regulate children’s access to social media. Supporters argue it responds to growing concerns about online harms. Critics say it risks isolating young people and curbing their ability to communicate and participate in civic life.

Rural teens fear isolation under Australia social media ban

Riley’s home sits five kilometers from the small town of Wudinna, and some of his classmates live up to 70 kilometers away. In such a setting, digital platforms often serve as a practical bridge rather than a luxury.

“I don’t think the impact will be very positive for us,” Riley said, noting that face-to-face contact is limited by geography. With the Southern Hemisphere summer break beginning this week, he questioned how he and his friends would stay in touch.

Under the new law, children younger than 16 are barred from holding accounts on platforms including Meta’s Facebook, Instagram and Threads, as well as TikTok, Snapchat, X, Reddit, YouTube, Twitch and Kick. Companies face fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars (about $32.9 million) if they fail to take reasonable steps to remove underage accounts.

Meta was among the first major firms to respond, beginning efforts last week to exclude suspected underage users. Riley said some platforms had already asked him to verify his age, though as of Monday his accounts remained active.

Parents divided on enforcement and responsibility

Riley’s mother, Sonia Allen, a schoolteacher, said she would not help her son bypass the ban. “If the rule is there, the rule is there,” she said, though she acknowledged that some families might take a different approach.

She argued that parents still have a role in supervising their children’s online activity. A year ago, she temporarily removed Riley’s access to social media after discovering he was using it late at night and neglecting homework. She said the break helped him develop more responsible habits.

Riley, who turns 16 in April, said he understands the government’s objectives but believes alternatives could address concerns about sleep and screen time. He suggested, for example, a mandatory 10 p.m. curfew for younger users rather than a blanket prohibition.

Public health experts have frequently linked excessive screen use to disrupted sleep and mental health challenges among adolescents, concerns cited by supporters of the legislation. The law reflects a broader global conversation about how to balance digital access with child welfare.

Constitutional challenge heads to High Court

Opposition to the ban has reached Australia’s highest court. In Sydney, 15-year-old Noah Jones is one of two plaintiffs challenging the legislation in the High Court of Australia. The case was brought by the Sydney-based Digital Freedom Project, along with fellow teenager Macy Neyland.

The plaintiffs argue the law infringes on the implied constitutional freedom of political communication, affecting an estimated 2.6 million young Australians. A directions hearing is scheduled for late February to set a timetable for the full bench of seven judges to hear the case.

The federal government, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, has said it will defend the legislation. Officials maintain that many parents have called for stronger protections against online harms, including exposure to harmful content and addictive platform design.

Some children have also expressed support for the restrictions, telling Australian media they welcome limits on features designed to maximize screen time.

Advocacy group Heaps Up Alliance, which campaigned for the age restriction, argues that a universal rule avoids singling out individual children. “When everybody misses out, nobody misses out,” the group has said, framing the measure as a collective safeguard.

Academics and lawmakers raise concerns

Before Parliament approved the law, more than 140 Australian and international academics specializing in technology and child welfare signed an open letter opposing a strict age limit, describing it as “too blunt an instrument” to address complex risks.

John Ruddick, president of the Digital Freedom Project and a state lawmaker for the Libertarian Party, said his organization considered seeking an injunction to delay implementation but decided against it on legal advice. He said the case has not received funding from technology companies, though he indicated such support would be welcome.

Ruddick and others argue that determined teenagers may circumvent the restrictions using tools such as virtual private networks, potentially pushing them toward less regulated online spaces. “It’s much better for it to be out in the open,” he said, advocating for active parental supervision rather than prohibition.

Noah Jones echoed concerns about unintended consequences. He warned the ban could silence young people and limit their engagement with national debates. His mother, Renee Jones, who acts as his litigation guardian, said she recognizes the risks of social media but believes education and supervision are more effective than outright bans.

Australia’s move will likely be closely watched by other governments considering similar measures. As the law takes effect, the practical challenges of enforcement — and the broader question of how societies manage young people’s digital lives — are only beginning to unfold.

Source: AP News – Australia’s social media ban leaves a 15-year-old worried about losing touch with friends

The post Australia Social Media Ban Sparks Teen Concerns and Legal Challenge appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

In a groundbreaking shift that could reshape how social media operates in Latin America, Brazil’s Supreme Court is poised to make tech platforms like Meta, X (formerly Twitter), and Microsoft legally responsible for what users post on their platforms.

The ruling, which is still in progress, already has support from a majority of the court’s 11 justices — enough to effectively pass. Once finalized and published, it will mark a significant departure from the current legal framework and bring Brazil’s tech regulation closer to that of the European Union.

Why This Matters

The move comes amid growing concerns over illegal and harmful content circulating online — from child exploitation and violent content to the spread of misinformation and political extremism. Justice Gilmar Mendes cast the sixth and deciding vote on Wednesday, opening the door for users and victims to sue social media platforms and demand compensation for harmful content posted by others.

Supporters of the measure argue that platforms must take greater responsibility for moderating what’s shared. But critics warn the ruling could severely chill free speech and disproportionately impact smaller companies that don’t have the legal resources to comply.

A Divided Court — and a Divisive Issue

Justice Flávio Dino, who initiated Wednesday’s votes, cited disturbing examples of how violent content spreads unchecked online — including posts celebrating school shootings. “Social media hasn’t brought out the best in humanity,” Dino remarked grimly.

On the other side, Justice André Mendonça — the lone dissenter so far — warned that holding platforms directly accountable could suppress critical voices. “Freedom of expression on social media is essential for holding powerful institutions to account — including governments, political elites, and the platforms themselves,” Mendonça wrote in his opinion.

Legal Context and Political Tensions

Under Brazil’s current law, platforms are only liable for content if they fail to remove it after receiving a court order. This new ruling would change that, placing the burden on companies to act before a judge intervenes.

This legal pivot comes at a tense moment in Brazil–U.S. relations. American officials — including Secretary of State Marco Rubio — have floated possible visa restrictions for foreign authorities accused of censoring U.S. citizens. One of the figures reportedly under scrutiny is Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, known for pressuring platforms to follow Brazil’s digital regulations.

Fallout and Unanswered Questions

Even if this ruling becomes law, Brazil’s Congress could still pass legislation to override it. Meanwhile, the court has yet to outline exactly how the new standard of liability will be implemented.

Alvaro Palma de Jorge, a legal scholar at the Getulio Vargas Foundation in Rio, said platforms must be proactive: “They can’t just wait for a court order anymore. They need to adopt safeguards to prevent harm before it happens.”

But not everyone is on board.

The Brazilian Chamber of Digital Economy, which represents tech companies and startups, warned that this decision could stifle competition. “Big companies can absorb the legal costs. Small, national platforms can’t,” the organization said in a statement, adding that the move may “raise barriers to innovation and limit user freedom.”

A Step Toward EU-Style Regulation?

Brazil’s approach now closely mirrors the European Union’s efforts to rein in the influence of big tech through strict digital accountability laws. Whether this model can work in Brazil — a country with a large, polarized online population and intense political debate — remains to be seen.

For now, though, the message is clear: Brazil is no longer willing to let social media platforms take a hands-off approach to harmful content.

Source: AP News – Brazil’s Supreme Court justices agree to make social media companies liable for user content

The post Brazil’s Top Court Votes to Hold Social Media Platforms Liable for User Posts appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Australia has enacted a world-first law prohibiting children under 16 from accessing social media, placing significant accountability on tech companies to tighten security. The law, passed by the Senate on the final sitting day of the year, requires companies to take “reasonable steps” to enforce the ban or face fines of up to AUD 50 million (USD 32 million).

This unprecedented move is a response to the growing concerns about social media’s impact on youth. While other nations have introduced similar restrictions, Australia is the first to hold companies accountable for violations. Platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and X are expected to fall under the ban, with the possibility of more being added.

Government and Public Reactions

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese highlighted the growing global concern over social media’s effects on young people, describing it as a platform that can amplify bullying, anxiety, scams, and online predation. “At 16, children are better equipped to recognize fakes and dangers,” Albanese told Parliament.

The bill received bipartisan support, with Liberal Sen. Maria Kovacic calling it a “pivotal moment” in checking the power of tech giants. “We’ve drawn a line in the sand,” she said.

However, the law faced strong opposition from smaller parties and independents. Greens Sen. Sarah Hanson-Young criticized the rushed process and warned that it could push vulnerable youth into isolation. “Social media should be made safer for everyone, not banned arbitrarily,” she argued.

A Rushed Legislative Process

The bill’s rapid progression has drawn criticism for insufficient consultation. Submissions to a Senate inquiry were open for only 24 hours, followed by a brief three-hour hearing. Despite receiving over 100 submissions, most contributors expressed concerns about the lack of thorough review.

The Senate committee recommended some amendments, including prohibiting the use of government-issued documents, like passports, for age verification.

Tech Companies’ Concerns

Tech companies raised objections, citing privacy risks and the challenges of enforcing the law. Snap Inc., the maker of Snapchat, suggested “device-level age verification” as the best solution. X, owned by Elon Musk, expressed concern about freedom of expression. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, advocated for waiting on results from age verification trials expected next year.

Meta also criticized the exclusion of platforms like YouTube and online gaming from the ban, arguing this undermines the law’s intent.

Public Support and Next Steps

Despite criticisms, the law enjoys strong public backing. A recent YouGov poll showed 77% of Australians support the ban.

The government will now consult stakeholders to determine a start date. Once implemented, accounts belonging to users under 16 will be deactivated. While parents and children will not face penalties for violations, companies must demonstrate robust efforts to comply.

This landmark legislation signals a turning point in how nations address the complex relationship between social media and youth, setting a precedent for others to follow.

Source

The post Australia Bans Social Media for Under-16s: What It Means for Kids and Tech Companies appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.

Career-networking giant LinkedIn has pushed back against proposed Australian legislation aimed at banning social media access for children under 16, arguing that its platform is simply too unappealing to minors to be included in the ban.

“LinkedIn simply does not have content interesting and appealing to minors,” the Microsoft-owned company stated in a submission to the Australian Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.

Australia’s Push for a Social Media Ban

The Australian government has proposed “world-leading” legislation to restrict children’s access to social media, citing concerns over online harm. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese emphasized that the measures are designed to address the worries of parents about their children’s online safety.

While other tech giants like Meta, Google, Snapchat, and TikTok have raised objections, LinkedIn took a different stance, asserting that its professional focus and minimum age requirement of 16 make it irrelevant to younger audiences. The company added that it actively removes accounts belonging to underage users when identified.

Industry Concerns and Criticism

Other social media platforms have voiced significant concerns about the proposed legislation:

• Meta (parent company of Facebook and Instagram) argued the bill would fail to ease the burden on parents and claimed it disregards expert advice from child safety and mental health professionals.
• TikTok Australia criticized the legislation’s rushed timeline, warning it could lead to unintended consequences.
• Google, Snapchat, and X (formerly Twitter) raised legal and practical issues, including the bill’s reliance on age verification technologies still under trial.

Privacy and Consultation Issues

Privacy advocates and human rights experts have also criticized the bill for its hasty development and potential privacy implications. Carly Kind, Australia’s privacy commissioner, and Lorraine Findlay, human rights commissioner, have both called for more comprehensive consultation and scrutiny before the legislation is enacted.

LinkedIn’s Case for Exemption

LinkedIn argued that regulating its platform under the new law would impose unnecessary costs and barriers for its users in Australia. By avoiding inclusion in the legislation, the platform could also sidestep the need for additional age verification processes.

International Interest

Australia’s approach has garnered attention worldwide. In the UK, Technology Secretary Peter Kyle mentioned similar legislation as a possibility, while France has already implemented a law requiring parental consent for children under 15 to access social media. However, research suggests nearly half of French minors have bypassed the restrictions using VPNs.

What’s Next?

The Australian government plans to pass the legislation before the end of the parliamentary year. However, experts warn the current timeframe and lack of consultation could hinder its effectiveness.

As the debate continues, LinkedIn’s professional focus and limited appeal to younger audiences may ultimately exempt it from these sweeping changes.

Source

The post Why LinkedIn Says It’s Too Boring for a Social Media Ban on Minors appeared first on Journos News - Breaking News, World News, Top Stories, Todays Headlines and Flash Reports.