Social media ban: Snapchat argues its platform is not ‘toxic’ and should be exempt from under-16s ban

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 “likes”, “comments” and “perfect posts”.

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 the 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.

“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.

“Over 75 per cent of the time on Snapchat spent in Australia is messaging and calling, the same functions used on services like WhatsApp, (Facebook) Messenger and iMessage, all of which have excluded from these restrictions.

“Yet despite this, Snapchat has been classified as an age restricted social media service.”

Ms Stout argued that Snap was unlike other more “toxic” platforms which harmed mental health because they promoted users to chase validation through “likes” on content but rather it allowed for direct communication between users.

“Unlike traditional social media that may have some toxic effects — like the chasing of likes or perfect posts or comments — there are no comments or likes on Snapchat.

“Snapchat really is designed to be a place to communicate in real time, authentically with your friends and family. Young people really see this as a place where they can be themselves.”

“On Snapchat, you can’t just find someone and start communicating with them immediately. In order to communicate, there must be two-way, bi-directional acceptance of a friendship to start a conversation. We believe that to be privacy and safety protective.”

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.”

There was also a tense moment in the hearing on Tuesday where Nationals Senator Ross Cadell accused TikTok of intimidating and bullying members of his office during a previous hearing.

He claimed while he was asking questions of one of its senior executives at a Senate parliamentary committee a member of TikTok’s team phoned through to his office.

The Senator alleged they said: “We get on very well with the leader’s office, we get on very well with the shadow minister’s office. You shouldn’t be asking these questions. You shouldn’t be saying this”.

Also 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.

The inquiry comes as a video chat app was removed from the two major mobile stores on Tuesday after the eSafety Commissioner flagged it was being used by predators to groom and sexually exploit Australian children.

Julie Inman Grant said company behind roulette-style video chat service OmeTV had failed to fulfill its safety obligations.

In August, eSafety sent a formal warning to OmeTV’s Portugal-based parent company, Bad Kitty’s Dad, LDA, for alleged breaches of Australia’s codes and standards.

Ms Inman Grant said she was pleased both Apple and Google took action as part of their obligations under the App Store Code to remove the app.

“OmeTV was a deeply risky app that paired adults and children together randomly for live video chat, and led to grooming and sexual exploitation of Australian children, as well as others globally, so it was appropriate for Apple and Google to take action under the codes and standards,” Ms Inman Grant said.

“This is a great example of how the codes and standards work in practice to improve safety across the online industry and protect children.”