In case you missed it (you were probably too busy searching what 6 7 means) Australia became the first country to ban under 16s from using social media platforms this week.

The move has garnered significant media and political attention worldwide, as foreign governments watch to see what happens down under.

To understand the thought process behind this law, I interviewed the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant. I wanted to know more about why this law has come into effect and how it will be enforced.

Below is an edited extract of that interview. You can also watch the full interview here.

FitzSimons:  Julie Inman Grant, thank you so much for joining The Daily Aus.

Inman Grant: Thank you for having me. 

FitzSimons: You are the eSafety Commissioner. For anyone who doesn't know. Do you want to just explain the role? 

Inman Grant: Sure. I didn't come up with a name, but essentially I am the independent regulator for online safety for Australia. And our overall mission is to help all Australians have safer, more positive experiences online.

When I was appointed to the role in 2016, we were the first online safety regulator in the world. And for my first seven years, we were the only ones. But that's changed drastically over the past two years, and now there are at least well over 30. 

FitzSimons: Wow. And so how does your role interact with the government?

Inman Grant: Well, I report up into the Minister of Communications. I work for the Minister of the day. Because I'm an independent regulator, I'm at arm's length from the government. So the regulatory decisions I make are my own. And, you know, sometimes I have opinions about policy or legislation that the government may not like, but I do have that independent voice.

FitzSimons: We're talking today because it is the day that Australia's social media ban for those under 16 comes into effect. For anyone who's not quite familiar with it, do you wanna just explain exactly what it is? 

Inman Grant: Sure. I often compare our approach to online safety as very much like Australia has approached its success in water safety.

And if you go back to probably when your parents were very young there were tragic backyard drownings and swimming pools in the backyard. So they mandated that fences be put around every pool and they're backed with enforcement. That's very similar to what schools, I think, did with the school phone bans a couple of years ago.

But when they started talking about the whole idea of banning social media or banning the internet, I said, ‘Well, that's kind of like trying to fence the entire ocean. That's an almost futile exercise.’ Even when we put fences around pools, we don't just throw our kids in without giving them swimming lessons. We continue to supervise them and when, when we go to the beach, we teach them to swim between the flags and we teach them about rips, very much like algorithmic rips that can take you out to sea. When there are predators, we put up shark nets. We do all of these things. We take a holistic approach to safety, and I think we need to do the same for online safety as well.

FitzSimons: It's interesting the water analogy because I've heard people use it in another way where they say: ‘Is this ban the government just not teaching young people to swim at all?’ Have you heard that used in that way? 

Inman Grant: I haven't, but I think I understand it. Maybe what they're saying is, ‘the only way that you can learn those critical reasoning skills and build that digital resilience is by being there and encountering the content and the conduct.’

I think there are probably a few flaws with that argument. I mean we've been doing digital and now algorithmic literacy for now that for more than 10 years 

FitzSimons: In schools, you mean? 

Inman Grant: In schools, but also on our website. We've got webinars. I mean, the most popular ones we're doing now are around adolescents and algorithms and how you can curate your feed if there's content that you don't want to see.

FitzSimons: There is this line of thought that if there is harmful content on social media, why not remove the harmful content as opposed to removing young people? 

Inman Grant: I think it's a really interesting question, and if I were to be honest, we're never going to cleanse the internet of terrible content just by virtue of the way the internet works.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Content is being created every millisecond. 

I get that argument, but I think if you think about restrictions we have around alcohol or cigarettes, it's not that you can never smoke and you can never drink.

But there is a physiological age at which it is considered that you can handle it more. And I think this is the kind of decision the government is making around social media. Like it's just not fit for purpose for under sixteens. And when I think about my own 13-year-old twins, I think, my son is kind of like not fazed, but this is really devastating for my daughter. She's really distraught because a lot of her world happens on social media. 

FitzSimons: I'm so interested that your own daughter doesn't like this.

Inman Grant: I think it's good because it gives me an empathetic lens. 

FitzSimons: There are early signs that a lot of young people are flocking to apps that aren't on the banned list. How do you decide which apps should be banned and which shouldn't? 

Inman Grant: So this is a really interesting and maybe boring answer for some of your users, but it all has to do with the definitions in the legislation.

I had to use something called a sole and significant purpose test. So if the sole or significant purpose of the app is to encourage social interaction, then it falls into the list, and then it has to have a couple of different features. It was the social interaction, and then the deceptive and harmful design features, that helped us determine who was in and who was out. 

FitzSimons: You wouldn't typically consider Spotify to be a social media platform, but they have short form videos. Just a few months ago, they introduced a messaging feature. They also have an algorithm that recommends you content. How does legislation keep up with tech companies that are just moving so fast?

Inman Grant: That is an excellent question and that is exactly why we went through this kind of self-assessment process and said there is going to be a dynamic list because features and functionality are being changed all the time. 

FitzSimons: When you say dynamic, do you mean you could add more social media apps?

Inman Grant: Well, you know, interesting that you say that… To give you an example, Roblox is another case where I was like: ‘Okay, it is an online gaming platform. Would the kids be using the chat if there weren't the games?’ Probably not. 

But they're introducing a new service called ‘Moments’, which looks like Stories, and they're positioning themselves as a Metaverse platform. So I have said, ‘Hey, we're watching you. If, if you have more online social interaction features, you may be in.’ 

FitzSimons: So they're not currently included, but you're saying that that could change. 

Inman Grant: Yes. And same with Spotify. We are talking to Spotify, by the way. 

FitzSimons: Interesting. eSafety Commissioner, thank you so much for joining The Daily Aus.

Inman Grant: Thank you for having me.

If you’re shopping for a pilates lover this Christmas, MoveActive has done the heavy lifting for you.

Their festive gift sets bundle their best-selling accessories - grip socks, resistance bands, pilates balls, mats, towels and ankle weights - with savings up to 30% off RRP.

Whether you’re gifting the reformer regular, the friend building their home studio, or someone who’s keen to start in January, these sets make it easy. Functional, good-looking gear they’ll actually use.