Reddit sues Australia to exempt itself from kids social media ban
- Reference: 1765520817
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2025/12/12/reddit_sues_australia_social_ban/
- Source link:
Reddit went straight to Australia’s ultimate jurisdiction, the High Court, with two arguments.
The first is that Australia’s constitution includes an implied freedom of political communication that exists to ensure Australians can “exercise a free and informed choice as electors.” Reddit argues that banning kids from social media infringes that freedom.
[1]
“The political views of children inform the electoral choices of many current electors, including their parents and their teachers, as well as others interested in the views of those soon to reach the age of maturity,” the company’s court filing states. “Preventing children from communicating their political views directly burdens political communication in Australia.”
[2]
[3]
Reddit’s second argument centers on the test Australia applies to social networks when considering if they should be banned for use by children, and the purpose of the law.
One element of that test considers whether a site’s sole or significant purpose “is to enable online social interaction between two or more end-users.” The intent of the law is to minimize harm to kids.
[4]
Reddit argues that online social interaction is not a significant purpose of the site, in part because so many users are anonymous.
The company also asserts that because Australian kids can access Reddit in read-only mode, without an account, the site can still harm them despite the ban. The filing then argues that read-only mode might be more harmful, because when users log in to Reddit they can opt in to filters that mean they don’t see age-inappropriate content.
[5]Reddit to Perplexity: Get your filthy hands off our forums
[6]Australia bans teens from social media, but nobody thinks it'll really work
[7]Reddit is people! Which means its search might not be so damaged by AI slop
[8]Australia’s spy boss says authoritarian nations ready to commit ‘high-impact sabotage’
Australia’s High Court doesn’t have to hear every case brought before it, but the nation’s government has already said it will defend the matter.
"We will stand firm to protect young Australians from experiencing harm on social media," a government spokesperson said, describing its position as being “on the side of Australian parents and kids, not platforms.”
Australia’s government says the ban is a necessary reform it’s enacted to protect the nation’s children from harmful products, claims parents support its actions and welcome the ban, and framed its actions as a combative stance against Big Tech’s power. ®
Get our [9]Tech Resources
[1] 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=2aTv1xNvdRsTR1ZG7VkXlZwAAAEo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[2] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aTv1xNvdRsTR1ZG7VkXlZwAAAEo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aTv1xNvdRsTR1ZG7VkXlZwAAAEo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[4] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_offbeat/legal&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aTv1xNvdRsTR1ZG7VkXlZwAAAEo&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[5] https://www.theregister.com/2025/10/22/reddit_sues_perplexity/
[6] https://www.theregister.com/2025/12/09/australian_social_media_ban/
[7] https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/02/reddit_ready_for_search_business/
[8] https://www.theregister.com/2025/11/12/asio_cyber_sabotage_warnings/
[9] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: Freedom of communication
I don't have any trouble via Windscribe. They're well within their rights to block your von's endpoints if they are the source of trouble for them.
Re: Freedom of communication
Never had a problem with the two providers I've used over the years... perhaps you should be looking for your service elsewhere.
Wrong way round?
"The company also asserts that because Australian kids can access Reddit in read-only mode, without an account, the site can still harm them despite the ban"
Surely the opt-in filters should be on if you don't have a account?
Re: Wrong way round?
Or logically, all access must be blocked for viewers in Australia who haven't proven their age.
Admitting that "the site can [still] harm them" does not sound like a very wise defence.
Possibly unwise but at leat trusthful
Crossing the road can harm people. If speech can be said to harm anyone even the people who aim to care, psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers, crèche or nursery workers on the wrong day might say the wrong thing. So whilst I agree in the context of the case putting a different spin on they can still see the content rather than admitting potential to harm might be a better way to win, I do not believe that reddit are wrong or that it should harm their case even though it might.
Re: Possibly unwise but at leat trusthful
But crossing the road is a useful, even necessary, activity.
Reddit really, really isn't anywhere near as important as being allowed to cross the road. And there are places in Australia where it is not allowed for anyone, let alone children, to cross the road.
Re: Surely the opt-in filters should be on if you don't have a account?
Why? If you don't trust someone under the age of majority with unrestricted internet access don't give them it. If you have reached the age of majority why should what you see be censored if the content is not illegal and you have not requested it?
Re: Surely the opt-in filters should be on if you don't have a account?
For the same reason that all films aren't banned until the viewer is 18 years old?
I mean, I'm not a lawyer, but even to me those two arguments appear pathetic.
Children are not electors.
And "anonymous" socialisation is still socialisation.
If that's the best they can come up with, they're just wasting their money.
In Aus 16 year olds can register to vote, though voting is a right that can only be exercised at 18. This social media ban blocks under 16s. Mature political discourse isn't something that happens magically - so there is an argument that first-time voters will be disadvantaged by a lack of exposure to the national debate if that debate is largely taking place online. Of course, you can also correctly argue that many adults aren't capable of engaging in mature political discourse either.
I see no reason why being able to READ the discourse but not be able to take part in it would be much of a hinderance. In the days before the interwebs kids were likely not exposed to anything going in the world either, just whatever was being discussed by their fellow youfths and whatever adults were in their lives. Even just being able to read the online discourse is a massive step up from that
How are we in a world where people are now suing countries!? Place has gone mad.
How are we in a world where a business operating what is basically a bulletin board can increase its stock price by a factor of around 5 over the course of a year?
Um, Reddit, that is not how things work
If you disagree to do something that the law of a country says is mandatory, then you simply stop operating in that country.
I know that that is a difficult concept for an American company that has lobbyists it pays fortunes to in order to ensure that the "laws" are in its favor, but that is a USA thing, not a world thing.
And you are going to have yourself kicked out of Australia's court so fast you won't even have the pleasure of meeting their jumping venomous spiders or any other of their numerous deadly creatures that would just love to snack on a juicy USAian piece of meat for a change.
I've heard that Australians are a bit wirery in the muscle department, whereas a fat American lawyer is a real delicacy.
That may be hearesay . . .
It's Time To Reign In All Of Them
Every study that's been done on social media use has come to the conclusion that social media use is bad for mental health... Not just for kids, but for everyone. It shows that the psychological trickery they use to keep peoples eyes on the site to collect data and show you ads has a negative impact on the well being of individuals... and that's before we even delve into the harm done by radicalisation and the spread of hate and misinformation.
For many years, I've been saying that all of them need to be treated as 'publishers' not as conduits... Because until you make them liable for what they allow to be posted... because let's be clear... it's their platform and they have control over it... Until they are held liable for it and punished financially for what they encourage to such a degree that it is unprofitable to continue in the way they do.
Re: It's Time To Reign In All Of Them
I profoundly disagree with 'big brother' gatekeeping of the variety being rolled out in Aus, but you're absolutely right that these platforms have grown to think of themselves as above the law, exploit everyone by design, and are sorely in need of regulation. The 'think of the kids' approach is just shuffling the deckchairs on the Titanic.
Given that these companies are bigger and more well funded than your average nation state, and the US has gone completely Tonto, is any regime agile enough to bring the sector to heel?
Don't forget ear defenders for kids in public, Free speech is damaging!
How far do our draconian governments need to take this BS.
Just be upfront and say "let us see your encrypted data now and let us track all of you or we'll pull the plug on it all !"
Freedom of communication
And yet Reddit won't let me access it via a VPN. Go figure...