LastBluejay

Here at Reddit, we take youth safety online seriously and believe child safety measures are crucial to a healthier internet overall. It’s why we’ve already proactively put global protections for minors in place and will keep working to strengthen them. It’s also why we have never marketed to young people and are with Australia’s new Social Media Minimum Age (SMMA) law.

That said, we believe there are more effective ways for the Australian government to accomplish our shared goal of protecting youth, and the SMMA law carries some serious privacy and political expression issues for everyone on the internet. So, we are filing an application to have the law reviewed by Australia’s High Court. You can read our application

What this case is about

While we agree with the importance of protecting people under 16, this law has the unfortunate effect of forcing intrusive and potentially insecure verification processes on adults as well as minors, isolating teens from the ability to engage in age-appropriate community experiences (including political discussions), and creating an illogical patchwork of which platforms are included and which aren’t. 

Even the eSafety Commissioner said the law’s approach is . Many and many of our own users have raised similar concerns.

“There are less restrictive alternatives available that could achieve the aim of protecting children and young people from online harms, but without having such a significant negative impact on other human rights.”

Lastly, this law is applied to Reddit inaccurately, since we’re a forum primarily for adults and we don’t have the traditional social media features the government has taken issue with. 

What this case is not about

This case is not an attempt to avoid compliance. We are with the law and will continue engaging with eSafety.

This is also not an effort to retain young users for business reasons. Unlike other platforms included under this law, the vast majority of Redditors are adults, we don’t market or target advertising to children under 18, and had an age rating of “17+” in the Apple App Store prior to the law. Simply put, users under 16 are not a substantial market segment for Reddit and we don’t intend them to be.

This case is also not about opposing child safety measures or even regulation. There are more targeted, privacy-preserving measures to protect young people online without resorting to blanket bans. For example, age assurance at the device or app store level – like , among the first of its kind in the world – would be easier for consumers (including parents) and better protect user privacy than forcing age verification across a bunch of platforms. 

Despite the best intentions, this law is missing the mark on actually protecting young people online. So, while we will comply with this law, we have a responsibility to share our perspective and see that it is reviewed by the courts. 

As usual, we’ll stick around and answer your questions.