Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel does not agree with Australia’s new social media age restrictions, and he’s shared his opinion on what he sees as a flawed approach in a new opinion piece.
Spiegel’s comments, published in The Financial Times, come as more regions are considering similar bans, which could have a devastating impact on the app, with Snapchat set to lose tens of millions of users globally if regulators follow Australia’s example.
Spiegel says that the teen bans represent a flawed approach, and fail to address the most significant harms of online exposure. The Australian approach, in particular, lacks comprehensive protections, he said.
As per Spiegel: “Compliance with the law does not guarantee that Australian teens will be safer or better off. It’s not yet possible to say for certain. But there are clear gaps that call into question the law’s efficacy and I believe the downsides are going to mount and become more visible over time.”
Spiegel says that because the Australian law only regulates certain platforms, teens will be pushed toward less safe alternatives instead.
Which is a valid observation. Some who support teen social media bans seem to be under the impression that these restrictions will prompt teens to go back to playing outside, riding their bikes and kicking a ball in the park. But the realities of modern interaction, especially in the post-COVID era, mean that the internet is now a critical connector, in various ways, and if kids can’t engage on one app or platform, they’ll just go to another one.
Spiegel also says age estimation technology is highly imperfect, making enforcement and platform compliance difficult. He also notes that the science supporting social media restrictions is also inconclusive, with many reports suggesting that most teens actually benefit from social media connection.
Spiegel says that a better alternative here would be to focus on digital literacy education in order to “help build digital resilience and ensure teens have developmentally appropriate experiences online.” But if restrictions are going to be put in place, Spiegel says they should be implemented at the app store level to ensure widespread compliance.
“App store-level verification would create one consistent age signal per device and would limit how often personal information must be shared, significantly reducing privacy risks,” Spiegel said. “More importantly, it applies universally across the entire digital ecosystem.”
And given the impact the change has had on Snap, Spiegel’s perspective here is no surprise.
Of all the platforms that are being held to this new standard, Snapchat is likely the worst impacted, due its popularity among younger audiences. Snapchat says it has removed or restricted 415,000 Australian teen accounts as a result of the new laws, and while that is only a fraction of Snap’s overall 474 million daily active users (note: Snapchat lost 3 million users overall in Q4), it is still a big blow to its local business.
But Spiegel’s notes also make sense. Australia’s policy was pieced together with partial information and limited scientific backing, and seems, for the most part, to be a populist policy approach to appeal to older voters.
Indeed, research suggests that older users are actually more susceptible to online harms than more digitally literate teens. Meanwhile, younger users can, and do still use social media platforms in Australia, even if that means turning to more unsafe alternatives.
So there are challenges on various fronts. For one, are teen social media bans needed, or would it be better to let teens continue to access these larger platforms, which have a broader set of established protective measures? Two, how can age checks be enforced at a level that ensures industry-wide compliance and a level playing field for all competitors?
And finally, what’s the reality, and what kind of result can be expected as a result of these bans?
Will teens be happier, less exposed to harm or less isolated?
The answers to these questions are the key considerations, rather than identifying social media as the definitive bad guy and demonizing social apps.
