Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat Push Back Against YouTube's Exemption

In a surprising turn of events, the Australian government has found itself in the midst of a heated debate over its new social media regulations. The legislation, passed in November 2024, aims to ban children and teenagers under the age of 16 from using major social media platforms, citing widespread safety concerns from Australian parents. However, the government's decision to exempt YouTube from the ban has sparked a coordinated public campaign against the move by its competitors, Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat.

The draft rules set out several exemption categories, including one for services that have the sole or primary purpose of supporting the education of end users. The government has specified that YouTube is covered by this education carve-out, arguing that it is an important source of education and informational content relied on by children, parents, and educational institutions. This contrasts substantially with other content streaming services, which are predominantly used by young people to view short-form entertainment content.

However, the exemption for YouTube has been met with fierce criticism from its competitors. In their private submissions to the government's consultation, Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat have argued that the exemption is illogical, anti-competitive, and short-sighted. They contend that YouTube's functions and features are virtually indistinguishable from their peers', and that arguments for YouTube's "unique" educative value are incorrect. Furthermore, they argue that giving YouTube monopoly access to under-16 users in Australia would undermine competition, stifle innovation, and further entrench Google's market dominance in an already concentrated digital ecosystem.



The government has defended its decision to exempt YouTube, stating that its proposed exclusions reflect community expectations. A spokesperson for the Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said, "If community sentiment changes over time, our laws should be updated to reflect this." The government has also outlined some of its reasons for exempting YouTube in a discussion paper, emphasizing its educational value and the fact that it is relied on by children, parents, and educational institutions.

In response to the government's decision, TikTok has complained that the government has not provided any evidence to support its claim that YouTube is a unique source of educational content. TikTok's submission went on to say that there is nothing in the legislation to prevent teachers from sharing educational content from YouTube, TikTok, or Instagram with their students, even without the proposed exemption.

Independent researchers have previously published findings that YouTube's algorithm funnels many young people towards content that promotes eating disorders, misogyny, and violence, among other harmful messages. These findings mirror concerns about social media more generally, which were cited by the government in justifying the teen social media ban last year.

As the debate surrounding the exemption for YouTube continues to unfold, it remains to be seen how the Australian government will address the concerns raised by Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat. The government has committed to a public consultation period, but the tech companies have expressed frustration with the closed-door consultation process thus far. As the government works to finalize the rules for applying the ban, it will be crucial for it to consider the potential market advantages and disadvantages for each company, as well as the impact on the competitive landscape among social media platforms in Australia.