The Risk of Authoritarianism: Australia’s Teen Social Media Ban and South Africa’s Potential Move Toward Digital ID Control
As governments worldwide increasingly consider Digital ID systems, Australia’s trial to enforce a teen social media ban raises critical concerns about privacy, age verification, and the potential for authoritarian control. South Africa is no stranger to government criticism of social media, with past remarks highlighting the state’s discomfort with citizen journalism. Could South Africa’s government follow Australia’s path in adopting such measures?
The Australian government is testing technologies to enforce its teen social media ban, with various age verification methods, including Digital ID, facial analysis, and AI profiling. The Age Check Certification Scheme (ACCS) is spearheading this trial, which aims to assess these technologies for accuracy, ease of use, and compliance with privacy and human rights standards. However, the most significant decision lies not with tech companies or regulators but with politicians. They will determine what age verification methods are deemed “reasonable” for limiting social media access, a power that could have far-reaching implications for personal freedoms.
The ACCS is tasked with evaluating technologies like digital IDs, biometric age verification, and even parental consent. These tools may eventually be used to confirm a person’s age across various online platforms. Yet, no “silver bullet” technology exists for the problem; instead, policymakers will decide which methods are appropriate based on the severity of the online risks involved. Social media platforms, for instance, might only require facial scans, while more sensitive services like online gambling could demand government-issued identification.
For South Africa, the implications of such a model are clear. As digital surveillance and data collection methods become more mainstream, the risk of a shift towards authoritarian governance becomes more tangible. Past critiques of social media by South African politicians highlight a longstanding tension between government control and the rise of citizen journalism. In 2013, former Minister of Communications, Faith Muthambi, criticized social media for spreading misinformation and threatening political stability. More recently, figures like the ANC’s Dakota Legoete have called for tighter regulation of social media platforms to prevent “harmful” content. These comments underscore the government’s desire to control the narrative, particularly as digital platforms become more influential in political discourse.
The Australian government’s stance may serve as a troubling precedent for South Africa, where the state has historically wrestled with how to manage online dissent. With the rise of digital identification systems globally, the potential for governments to use such technologies for mass surveillance or to stifle free speech is high. If South Africa were to adopt similar policies, the implications for freedom of expression could be dire. Politicians may decide to restrict access to social media, forcing citizens to comply with invasive ID checks and thereby eroding privacy rights.
The government’s ability to shape what is considered “reasonable” for age verification raises further concerns about the broader societal implications of such policies. As Anthony Albanese’s government moves forward with its Digital ID trials, other nations, including South Africa, may follow suit, embedding surveillance into everyday life under the guise of protecting citizens, particularly young people, from harmful content.
The adoption of Digital ID systems for social media access could signal a worrying shift toward authoritarianism, not only in Australia but also in South Africa. As the South African government has historically voiced discomfort with the rise of citizen journalism, it’s not hard to imagine that similar methods of social media control could find their way into local legislation. The fine line between safeguarding children and enabling government overreach must be critically examined, lest societies trade privacy for security in a way that undermines democracy.
