Brisbane, Australia (CNN) — Kirra Pendergast engages with thousands of teenagers annually, utilizing her expertise as a cyber safety educator to address pressing online issues.
She is well aware of the various online activities that teenagers partake in – including texting, bullying, sextortion, and threats; however, nothing could have prepared her for the intense hostility she encountered this month from a group of students aged 12 and 13.
Booked to deliver three presentations at a high school in Australia, Pendergast faced an unexpected onslaught of insults only minutes into her first session when a group of boys started hurling misogynistic remarks reminiscent of the worst of online influencers as they viewed women portrayed in her presentation.
Despite efforts from teachers to quiet the disruptive students, the situation escalated when a girl in the front row made an expletive-laden remark that pierced Pendergast’s composure, prompting her to leave the room in tears.
“I can’t believe I’m crying on film on here,” Pendergast confessed in a selfie video recorded shortly after the incident while sitting in her car. “I believe that the behavior I witnessed today is completely driven by things they’ve seen online,” she reflected with palpable frustration.
“In fact, I know it is, and it has to change,” she emphasized, highlighting the severity of the issue.
Pendergast, who founded and serves as CEO of the global cyber safety training company Safe on Social, once stood against imposing a ban on social media for children; however, her perspective has dramatically shifted. Now, she fully supports restrictive measures aimed at safeguarding children.
“I went through absolutely every argument that had been thrown at me and had a counterargument for every single one of them. And then I thought, ‘You know what? Ban it. Just ban it,’” she recounted during an interview with CNN, clearly articulating her frustration.
The Australian government is currently moving to implement what leaders characterize as “world-leading” legislation designed to eradicate social media accounts – spanning platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and X – from the devices of children under the age of 16.
If enacted, this law would empower courts to impose hefty fines nearing 50 million Australian dollars (approximately $32 million) against social media companies that fail to take adequate steps to prevent underage children from accessing their platforms.
While the government is refraining from dictating how tech companies should enforce these measures, it insists they must adopt reliable age verification technologies, despite the potential privacy concerns that are to be addressed within the legislative framework.
However, skepticism about the efficacy of this initiative looms large among critics.
These skeptics argue that the proposed legislation is a hurriedly constructed measure driven more by political agendas ahead of the upcoming federal election than by genuine concern for children’s online safety, potentially pushing rebellious children who ignore the rules further into the unregulated recesses of the internet.
Conversely, supporters contend that if the legislation saves even one life, its implementation is justified.
Deadly bullying
In recent months, two additional young girls have tragically added to the increasing tally of children who have taken their own lives following severe online bullying.
Charlotte O’Brien’s death in September was a heartbreaking milestone, soon followed by the passing of Ella Catley-Crawford; both girls were aged just 12, with their families attributing their torment to bullies who mercilessly targeted them on Snapchat.
In Ella’s case, perpetrators allegedly engaged in catfishing by masquerading as someone else on the platform, further complicating her tragedy by disseminating private videos she had shared.
“SOCIAL MEDIA BULLYING IS REAL,” her relatives fervently stated on a GoFundMe page set up to gather funds for her funeral.
Charlotte’s grieving parents, Matthew Howard and Kelly O’Brien, have since committed themselves to advocating for a ban on social media for children under 16, honoring Charlotte’s last wish to promote awareness regarding these pressing issues.
Earlier this month, they traveled to Canberra to present a petition signed by 124,000 people—the largest advocacy effort on this topic globally—calling for the minimum age for social media participation to be elevated by three years, from 13 to 16.
“No parent wants to go through what we’re going through,” Howard passionately expressed to the 36 Months campaign group in a video shared with CNN.
Dr. Danielle Einstein, a clinical psychologist and author, asserts that schools find themselves grappling with a complex web of online interactions that continue after hours on platforms that lie beyond their control.
“Teachers are under so much pressure to solve the fact that the culture has been undermined by social media, by this sort of mean behavior that subtly is permitted to exist, just because it’s so hard to stop,” she remarked, conveying the immense challenge faced by educators.
Einstein advocates for a ban on social media, believing that the ubiquitous presence of phones and group chats is replacing essential face-to-face interactions, which are critical for children in learning how to engage socially and navigate conflicts.
“All of a sudden, any errors they make are broadcast and they go straight out to a whole group,” she elucidated. “They don’t have the opportunity to make these little mistakes, and for the mistakes not to matter.”
Political leaders push for a ban
In a rare display of unity, major political parties in Australia are presenting a united front on the issue of social media restrictions.
A proposal for an age limit on social media was put forward by the Liberal opposition party in June, receiving substantial backing from the prime minister and all state and territory leaders.
“I want to talk to Australian parents,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stated confidently in a video uploaded to Instagram, one of the platforms targeted by the proposed ban.
“Too often social media isn’t social at all, and we all know that. The truth is it’s doing harm to our children, and I’m calling time on it,” he declared emphatically.
Dany Elachi took action in his household years back, ultimately deciding against allowing his daughter to use a smartphone after realizing it overwhelmed her daily life.
“Within a matter of weeks, we saw that it overwhelmed her life,” he explained during his conversation with CNN.
“The straw that broke the camel’s back, I think, for her mom and I was catching her messaging friends under the covers at midnight. And so, we just connected all these dots together. We thought, we can’t do this for another 10 years,” he noted, articulating the often-overlooked consequences of premature smartphone access.
Consequently, they founded the Heads Up Alliance, a community initiative aimed at encouraging fellow parents to postpone granting smartphones to their children, which has seen a growing network of support.
Elachi firmly believes that social media poses significant risks to the well-being of Australian children.
“Parents are seeing with their own eyes. I mean, there are suicide notes. Children who’ve killed themselves write their suicide notes, telling us that social media played a role in their deaths, and we’re seriously still debating whether social media is harmful to our children’s mental health?”
“It’s actually disgraceful,” he stated with deep concern for the state of children’s safety.
Legislation ‘motivated by political issues’
For many experts, the ongoing debate centers not merely on the negative effects of social media—but rather on whether implementing an outright ban constitutes the correct solution.
Last month, more than 140 experts jointly addressed the government, asserting that the proposed ban is a “blunt” instrument that removes critical incentives for technology companies to prioritize children’s safety online.
This week, a joint select committee tasked with investigating social media in Australia appeared to echo those sentiments. Its final report, the culmination of months of public hearings and extensive submissions, did not call for a ban, but advocated for reformative legal changes that would “effectively bring digital platforms under Australian jurisdiction” and emphasized that any new rules affecting young people should be developed “co-designed with young people.”
Amanda Third, co-director of the Young and Resilient Research Centre at Western Sydney University, argues that, for many children, the existing 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 explained, outlining the allure of quick fixes.
“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,” Third added, firmly highlighting the importance of ongoing dialogues about online safety.
She believes that the push for a ban is “motivated by political and economic issues.” The two prominent parties supporting the ban will contend in a federal election next year, lending credibility to the notion that this initiative is driven by interests beyond child safety. Additionally, media titan News Corporation, which has actively campaigned for the ban, is embroiled in an ongoing dispute with Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram.
Meta announced in March that it would cease payments to Australian providers for news content, triggering a severe backlash from News Corp, which dominates Australia’s concentrated news landscape.
News Corp Australia executive chairman Michael Miller delivered a widely televised address in June, calling on the government to compel Meta to engage in financial negotiations, asserting, “We can’t let ourselves be bullied.”
News Corp’s “Let Them Be Kids” campaign, launched the month prior, has actively highlighted tales of children adversely affected by social media while urging for a ban on those under 16.
Recent coverage by The Courier Mail has credited this campaign for initiating dialogue around the “damage caused by tech platforms to young individuals,” with discussions poised to trigger significant shifts in online regulations.
Despite the momentum, the timeline for any ban remains lengthy. Should the legislative proposal receive approval, the government has indicated it will provide technology companies with a 12-month window to comply before implementing any shutdown measures, with specific timelines to be established by the communications minister.
In its submission to the joint committee, the Digital Industry Group Inc. (DIGI), which represents various social media platforms operating in Australia, stated that prior research has not definitively established “a direct causal link between social media use and youth mental health issues in Australia or globally.”
DIGI, whose members include major players like Meta, Snap, TikTok, and X, expressed its shared commitment alongside the government toward enhancing online safety.
X’s owner Elon Musk voiced more critical sentiments in a post on his platform, asserting that the proposed ban “seemed like a backdoor way to control access to the Internet by all Australians.”
Other providers have taken tangible steps to engage with the ongoing conversation. Snap Inc., for example, whose messaging app Snapchat was allegedly used to bully both Charlotte O’Brien and Ella Catley-Crawford, voiced its commitment to eliminating bullying, encouraging users to block and report abusers.
Instagram, owned by Meta, recently allied with Kids Helpline in an anti-bullying campaign titled “How do you mean?”, which encourages featured creators to recount their experiences handling online harassment. During discussions about why they choose not to log off, many stressed the importance of their online communities, where friends and family reside.
The overarching message conveyed is that “everyone faces mean behavior,” but there are constructive avenues to address issues—most notably through report and block functions—prior to seeking assistance from adults.
Numerous parents contend that there is ample bullying occurring in the real world, making the addition of social media particularly detrimental—especially during the junior high years, a crucial period when children are developing friendship networks and sometimes excluding peers deemed different, as noted by Dr. Einstein.
Pendergast, the dedicated cyber safety educator, emphatically recognizes the urgent need for change based on her extensive experience visiting schools nationwide, stating, “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?”
“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?” she critically questioned, advocating for immediate action to prioritize child safety.
How are parents and experts responding to proposed legislation aimed at regulating social media use among younger audiences?
Is popular among younger users, has initiated features aimed at enhancing parental controls and encouraging safer online engagement for children. The company has highlighted its commitment to improving platform security and user well-being as part of its broader strategy to address concerns raised by various stakeholders regarding the impact of social media on youth.
The proposed legislation and public discourse around social media restrictions have ignited passionate views from both parents and experts. While many parents support increased age limits for social media participation, experts caution against simplistic solutions, warning that bans may not adequately address the underlying issues.
The ongoing debate underscores the tension between parental concerns over children’s mental health and the need for children to learn to navigate digital interactions responsibly. Advocacy for tailored educational programs and parental engagement remains a focal point, with numerous experts suggesting that policies should focus on empowering families rather than imposing blanket bans.
As the discussions continue, the Australian government is faced with the challenge of balancing the need for regulation with the evolving landscape of technology and the need for children to have safe, constructive experiences online. How this legislative proposal progresses—and its potential impact on the future of digital interactions for youth in Australia—will be closely monitored by stakeholders across the spectrum.
