The facts
The Australian government has conceded that it enacted its under-16s social media ban without scientific consensus on the link between social media use and mental health harms. In its defense before the High Court, the government argued that 'credible risks' such as addictive behaviors and anxiety in young people justify the policy. The defense was filed as part of a High Court challenge brought by the platform Reddit, which argues the ban infringes on political communications and does not effectively address harm. Reddit also stated in its submission that 'there is no scientific consensus about whether there is a causal link between social media use and particular harms.' The government's submission, filed on Friday, acknowledged 'significant credible risks' of children developing addictive behaviors, disrupted sleep, and worsening depression, anxiety, or suicidal ideation. The government stated, 'Uncertainty about causation should not delay action to protect young people,' and that 'credible risks of harm and credible causal pathways' justify the ban as a precautionary measure. The government also contended that its proposed digital duty of care legislation, allowing users to opt out of algorithms, would have a similar effect to the ban if implemented.
Our take
Fucking hell. The Australian government has officially elevated 'a feeling in our waters' to the status of national policy. In a submission to the High Court that reads like a panic attack given legal letterhead, these clowns have conceded they have no scientific consensus that social media actually causes the harms they’re banning it to prevent. Their entire argument is now, essentially, 'Well, it *seems* bad, Your Honour.' This isn't governance; it's a fucking horoscope written by terrified bureaucrats.
Let's be crystal clear about what 'credible risks' means in this context. It translates to: 'We saw some headlines, shit our pants, and decided to legislate the skid marks.' They're treating an entire generation's digital existence like a suspicious package because a few public servants got the heebie-jeebies scrolling through TikTok. It's policy by sphincter clench. The sheer, cowardly audacity to stand before the highest court in the land and say, 'Uncertainty about causation should not delay action,' is the kind of logic you'd expect from a toddler hiding a broken vase. 'I wasn't sure hitting it would break it, but I had a credible risk it might, so I pre-emptively smashed the fuck out of it.' Bravo, you absolute fuckwits.
And the backup plan? A 'digital duty of care' that lets users opt out of algorithms. Oh, perfect! It's the legislative equivalent of saying, 'We've set your house on fire to protect you from the cold, but here's a single ice cube to suck on if you get too toasty.' It's a useless, performative fig leaf designed to cover the fact their main policy is a knee-jerk ban erected on a foundation of fuck-all. They haven't solved a problem; they've just created a new, more embarrassing one and called it 'protection.'
This is the pinnacle of nanny-state bullshit, executed by people too intellectually lazy to parse data but powerful enough to just ban the thing that confuses them. They’re not protecting kids; they’re protecting their own political arses from ever having to say, 'We need to study this more.' It's a coward's charter, signed in bullshit and defended with vibes. A total fucking disgrace from a pack of evidence-averse dickheads who think governing is just guessing really, really loudly.
