Estimated read time: 6-7 minutes
BRISBANE, Australia — Kirra Pendergast talks to thousands of teenagers each year in her role as a cyber safety educator.
She knows what they get up to online – the texting, the bullying, the sextortion, the threats – but nothing prepared her for the hostility she faced this month in a roomful of students ages 12 and 13.
She'd been booked to give three talks at a high school in Australia but just minutes into the first session, a group of boys started shouting insults common among misogynistic online influencers about the women pictured on Pendergast's presentation.
Teachers tried to shush them, then a girl in the front row made the final expletive-filled comment that shattered Pendergast's veneer and saw the special guest speaker flee the room in tears.
"I can't believe I'm crying on film on here," Pendergast said in a selfie video filmed soon after in her car. "I believe that the behavior that I witnessed today is completely driven by things that they've seen online," she said.
"In fact, I know it is, and it has to change."
Pendergast, the founder and CEO of global cyber safety training company Safe on Social, once opposed a ban on social media for children, but now she's totally on board.
"I went through absolutely every argument that had been thrown at me and had a counter argument for every single one of them. And then I thought, 'You know what? Ban it. Just ban it,'" she told CNN.
The Australian government hopes to pass what it calls "world-leading" legislation this week to wipe social media accounts – including Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit and X – from the devices of children under 16.
If passed, the law would see courts impose fines of nearly 50 million Australian dollars ($32 million) on social media companies found not to have taken reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted children from using their service.
The government is not telling tech companies how to do it, but at the very least, it says it expects them to adopt age verification technologies. That comes with privacy issues that the government said will be addressed in the legislation.
But critics aren't convinced.
They say it's a rushed piece of legislation driven by political maneuvering ahead of a federal election, one that could push children who flout the rules deeper into unregulated areas of the internet.
Supporters say if it saves one life, it's worth it.
But is it worth it?
For many experts, the debate's not so much about the negative effects of social media – but whether an outright ban is the right response.
Last month, more than 140 experts sent a joint letter to the government saying the ban is a "blunt" response to the problem that removes the incentive for tech companies to invest in more ways to keep children safe online.
This week, a joint select committee investigating social media in Australia seemed to agree. Its final report, after months of public hearings and hundreds of submissions, did not call for a ban.
Instead, it recommended that laws be changed to "effectively bring digital platforms under Australian jurisdiction," and that any changes that affect young people should be "co-designed with young people."
Amanda Third, co-director of the Young and Resilient Research Centre at Western Sydney University, says for many children, the current sign-up age of 13 is "entirely appropriate."
"The idea of a ban is incredibly seductive for parents, because it feels like it's just going to take that off your list of things to worry about," she said. "But in actual fact, a ban is not going to deliver the relief that parents are looking for. It's a fact of life that this will continue to be a key part of parenting into the future."
She believes calls for a ban are "motivated by political and economic issues." The two major parties that support the ban will contest a federal election next year. And media heavyweight News Corporation, which has pushed for the ban, has a separate dispute with Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram.
There's a long way to go before any ban comes into place. Even if it becomes law, the government says it'll give tech companies 12 months to comply, with the switch-off date to be set by the communications minister.
DIGI, the industry body that represents social media companies including Meta, Snap, TikTok and X, faced a hostile reception on Monday during a hastily called senate committee hearing into the bill.
In a line of questioning about how providers would destroy data to meet privacy requirements, senators laughed when DIGI managing director Sunita Bose said: "Our members believe in the principle of data minimization."
Independent Senator David Pocock replied: "I hope they pay you a lot of money, because it must be a hard job trying to make some of your members look like good faith actors." The committee is due to report Tuesday before the senate looks to pass the bill on Wednesday.
In a post last week, X owner Elon Musk suggested the bill was excessive government intervention. The self-proclaimed "free speech absolutist" and close ally of US President-elect Donald Trump, posted that the ban "seemed like a backdoor way to control access to the Internet by all Australians."
Other providers have made an effort to engage on the issue.
Snap Inc., whose messaging service Snapchat was allegedly used to bully Charlotte O'Brien and Ella Catley-Crawford, said "bullying has no place" on the app, and has encouraged children who have problems to block and report offenders.
Instagram, owned by Meta, recently paired up with Kids Helpline in an anti-bullying campaign "How do you mean?" that asks content creators how they cope with bullying online. Asked why they wouldn't just log off, some said it would be "unfair and unrealistic" to leave because their community, friends and family are online.
The message was that "everyone faces mean behavior" but there are ways to deal with it – notably pressing a button to report and block – before seeking adult help.
Some parents believe there's enough mean behavior in real life, without adding social media to the mix – especially in junior high, a time, Einstein the psychologist says, when children are forming friendship groups, and sometimes ostracizing classmates who for whatever reason aren't deemed to fit in.
Pendergast, the cyber safety educator, says she's seen enough mean behavior in her travels to schools across the country to know that something needs to change.
"If a simple rule protects just one child and helps them grow into a strong, resilient young person with their privacy intact, isn't that worth it?" she wrote in a Facebook post.
"Why would we deny a child that protection? Why is child online safety being treated like a political game? And why has the debate over 'ban or no ban' turned into a competition, when the only ones losing while we argue are the kids?"
