Is GitHub a social network that endangers children? Australia wants to know
- Reference: 1758774188
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/09/25/australia_social_media_ban_github/
- Source link:
The reason for the cyber-safety regulator’s correspondence is Australia’s imminent [1]requirement that some social media platforms restrict access to Australian residents under 16 years of age, on the grounds that such services can be harmful to children.
[2]GitHub moves to tighten npm security amid phishing, malware plague
The ban on providing service to kids under 16 starts on December 10th, but the eSafety Commission – Australia’s cyber-safety regulator – does not decide which platforms have obligations to block children under Australia’s Online Safety Act. The Commission has said that Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X and YouTube “meet many of the conditions” in the Act.
But it’s also written to many other services – see the list in the box to the right – to point out that they need to complete a self-assessment process to check if they need to comply with the Act.
The eSafety Commissioner’s ‘initial list’ of entities it has asked to consider if they need to comply with Australia’s social media age restrictions names the following outfits:
Meta – Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp
Snap
TikTok
YouTube
X
Roblox
Discord
Lego Play
Kick
GitHub
HubApp
Match
Steam
Twitch The Commission could decide to ask more services to consider their obligations.
At first glance, GitHub will not have to deny service to Australians under 16 years of age, because the criteria that require a platform to do so are:
Having the sole, or a significant purpose, of enabling online social interaction between two or more end-users;
Allowing users to link to, or interact with, other end-users;
Allowing users to post material on the service;
Hosting material that is accessible to, or delivered to, end-users in Australia .
GitHub’s purpose is not to enable social interaction.
However, the platform is not always a safe space, as GitHub allows comments and developers can be brutal to each other. The site can also host images, and the [3]GitHub Pages service allows users to create websites based on their repos.
So there’s plenty of potential for GitHub to host revolting material that could be bad for kids. And of course it's not as if creeps and crims haven't already discovered GitHub and used it to host malware galore.
[4]
That GitHub is even a candidate to be regulated under a law that aims to keep kids off social media is yet another oddity of Australia’s plan, which doesn’t prevent kids from accessing social media using accounts registered by adults. It also won’t stop them using such services without signing in, which The Guardian recently [5]found allows anyone to see some truly vile stuff. ®
Get our [6]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/17/australia_kids_social_ban_guidance/
[2] https://www.theregister.com/2025/09/23/github_npm_registry_security/
[3] https://docs.github.com/en/pages
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aNUSs1sP09RknXrsHu6XOAAAAoY&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/sep/22/under-16s-may-still-see-gambling-violent-far-right-content-under-australia-social-media-ban-simply-by-not-logging-in-zero-neo-nazis
[6] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Never fear. If this works like they expect, they'll ban libraries and close city parks next.
How Harmful Is It?
Github: "consider if it’s a social network that endangers children". OK ... considering ... and the answer is, 'No!". What rubbish.
I don't have access to all the data that the eSafety Commissioner says she's considering. It would help if the Aus Government published all the data they relied on, given the widespread impact of their legislation, as I have a sneaking suspicion that they're exaggerating ... a lot. Just today, Australia's PM, Communications Minister and high-profile advocates went to the UN and sold Australia's "world leading" social media ban for under-16s, quoting as part justification that social media was causing suicides amongst young people. Emotive examples were given:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-09-25/united-nations-general-assembly-social-media-ban/105814246
The implication was that there's been an avalanche of suicides. Any death by suicide is tragic but ... and this may well draw crabs but it's important to say ... I can't see the disaster. Here's the actual data so you can see for yourself:
https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/population-groups/young-people/suicide-self-harm-young-people
The trend is relatively flat, *slightly* upward over two decades in the youth brackets but, critically, that gentle trend **predates social media** by a significant margin. The 18-24 age bracket is far higher per capita. The youth figures are similar to elderly (i.e. not on social media) suicides with what looks like the same multi-decadal trend. All of these pale in comparison to Veteran suicides. You can check that yourself as well:
https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/population-groups/older-people
https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/population-groups/adf-members
It's no surprise that emotive arguments are used to justify this kind of invasive policy because (I strongly suspect) it wouldn't stack up on the data alone.
My position remains that, while protecting kids from online harms is a laudable goal, the method chosen by the Aus Government via their OSA (similar to the UK's OSA) is the worst of the possible approaches because it affects far more adults than kids, is damaging to privacy (at a time when improving privacy is critical), is difficult to implement, difficult to monitor, difficult to adjust without being arbitrary, too easily lends itself to 'mission creep', can be targeted at particular sites/services, and lacks 'measures of effectiveness' so it's easy to claim "it's working" at any later date. That's just for starters.
The Aus Government didn't approach this with an open mind at all. There's more to be said and much has been said already. I'll leave more for another post.
In the meantime, there are more pertinent comments here: https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2025/09/19/ofcom_osa_enforcement/
Are they trying to stifle any of their kids from learning to code??
Will somebody please think of the children...
the perpetual abyss of abuse and smut that is the social network StackOverflow is not included, I'm shocked
git and by extension github are harmful but to productivity.
Can be argued that they are harmful to delevoper's health too, but for now it's a bit of a stretch.
I mean, obviously
Hands off Facebook, Twitter & co, go after the real villains!
Re: I mean, obviously
> Hands off Facebook, Twitter & co, go after the real villains!
Where does anyone, other than you, say they are keeping their hands off FB, X and co?
You *did* see the list - and the explicit
>> The Commission has said that Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X and YouTube “meet many of the conditions” in the Act. But it’s also written to many other services...
And that list isn't in any way final:
>> The Commission could decide to ask more services to consider their obligations.
So if you think they have missed any, do your duty and email the Commission (then blather about it here)
Re: I mean, obviously
Whoosh/
And in the UK, the OSA
will probably be making OFCOM ask the same question.
Wait till their hear about USENET !
Re: And in the UK, the OSA
First they came for our ASCII Art and we did nothing...
GitHub’s purpose is not to enable social interaction
Sharing code isn't social behaviour?
Encouraging building on other's code isn't social? "Fork on Github..."
Enabling collaboration isn't social? Pull requests, wikis...
Asking for help isn't social? Bug reports, improvement requests or other issues
What is "Social interaction" limited to in your world? If it is anything more than a picture of your cat in a cardboard box, it is - what? Just posted in the expectation that nobody will ever see or react to it? Just pissing into the wind?
(None of the above makes any statement about the Oz reaction to "social media" in any way, shape or form: whatever you, or I, think of the appropriateness, workability, sense, or lack thereof)
Hosting images is fair enough - it includes GUI elements and comes under the heading of code.
But "GitHub Pages service allows users to create websites based on their repos" - Mission creep?
"But "GitHub Pages service allows users to create websites based on their repos" - Mission creep?"
It's not mission creep. Generating a 'website' from a GitHub repo just allows users to more easily navigate through your project and collaborate. Think of Sharepoint vs a plain old directory listing.
https://github.com/collections/github-pages-examples
Utter nonsense
"However, the platform is not always a safe space, as GitHub allows comments and developers can be brutal to each other."
It would be interesting to know how many under 16s are actively developing code and getting into fights on Github. Compared to the number of children getting into fights in the playground maybe they should ban schools instead.
And please, the words are violence argument is probably part of what got Charlie Kirk assasinated, do we really need to continue with that kind of rhetoric. Isn't it about time that the fire was extinguished. El Reg please dont stoke the Arguetainement fire