Copyright thewest
Snapchat has argued it should be exempt from Australia’s under 16s social media ban because it was not like other “toxic” apps that encourage comments and “likes” on content. The app’s parent company, Snap, told a Senate inquiry on Tuesday that while it would comply with the Albanese Government’s ban, it did not agree with eSafety Commissioner’s assessment that it was a social media platform. “We don’t agree. We have provided compelling evidence to the eSafety Commissioner showing that Snapchat’s primary purpose is messaging,” Snap representative Jennifer Stout said. Ms Stout argued that Snap was unlike other more “toxic” platforms which harmed mental health because they promoted “likes” and comments on content but rather it allowed for direct communication between users. “Since its founding, Snapchat was designed to help close friends communicate in the moment, to stay connected through photos, videos and chats that reflect real life, while we’ve added features over the years, messaging remains the core purpose of Snapchat and the primary way our community uses it,” she said. “We don’t agree. We have provided compelling evidence to the eSafety Commissioner showing that Snapchat’s primary purpose is messaging. Ms Stout appeared alongside representatives from TikTok and Meta in a special hearing of the committee after the three major platforms snubbed an earlier session on October 13. Greens Senator and committee chair Sarah Hanson-Young had threatened to subpoena the trio after their non-appearance. We don’t agree. We have provided compelling evidence to the eSafety Commissioner showing that Snapchat’s primary purpose is messaging. She was again bitter on Tuesday after Ms Stout, TikTok’s Ella Woods-Joyce and Meta’s Mia Garlick didn’t attend in person but rather tuned in virtually to the Canberra-based Senators. “I just want to thank you all for making yourselves available today. I do express disappointment that you’re not physically in the room,” Senator Hanson-Young said during the Environment and Communications References Committee hearing. “I understand that the number of you requested to appear by video because of things going on in your life. Understandable. We all have that. But just to make it clear, we would prefer you to have been here in person.” In their evidence, both Ms Stout and Ms Garlick also added that their platforms would prefer if the Government instead targeted the sellers of phones rather than apps over age restrictions. Ms Stout said instead of requiring thousands of apps to implement age assurance separately, the government could mandate “device-level age assurance” from major firms like Apple or Samsung, allowing age verification at the point of phone purchase. She said while apps “don’t have the luxury of that”, Snap would ensure it complies by kicking young users off the app when the ban comes into effect on December 10. “We don’t agree. We have provided compelling evidence to the eSafety Commissioner showing that Snapchat’s primary purpose is messaging,” she said.
