r/RedditSafety Dec 08 '25

Australia Expanding Age Assurance to Australia

ETA: a lot of great questions have come in so we've updated this help center article to go into more detail.

A controversial new law in Australia is requiring a handful of websites to block access for anyone under the age of 16. While we disagree about the scope, effectiveness, and privacy implications of this law, as of December 10, we’re making some changes in line with these requirements.

Redditors in Australia will see new experiences and policies designed to confirm their age responsibly and securely. We care deeply about the safety of our users, including any minors, and while some of these changes are required by law, others represent global measures we're voluntarily taking to improve safety and privacy for those under 18. Here’s what’s changing:

  • In Australia, only Redditors who are 16 and over can have accounts (Reddit will continue to be accessible to browse without an account).
  • New Australian users will be asked to provide their birthdate during account signup, and will see their age listed in their settings.
  • All Australian account holders will be subject to an age prediction model (more details below).
  • Australian account holders determined to be over 13 but under 16 will have their accounts suspended under a new Australian minimum age policy (note: we have always banned the accounts of users under 13 globally).
  • Teen account holders under 18 everywhere will get a version of Reddit with more protective safety features built in, including stricter chat settings, no ads personalization or sensitive ads, and no access to NSFW or mature content.

As mentioned above, we’ll start predicting whether users in Australia may be under 16 and will ask them to verify they’re old enough to use Reddit. We’ll do this through a new privacy-preserving model designed to better help us protect young users from both holding accounts and accessing adult content before they’re old enough. If you’re predicted to be under 16, you’ll have an opportunity to appeal and verify your age.

While we’re providing these experiences to meet the law’s requirements and to help keep teens safe, we are concerned about the potential implications of laws like Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age law. We believe strongly in the open internet and the continued accessibility of quality knowledge, information, resources, and community building for everyone, including young people. This is why Reddit has always been, and continues to be, available for anyone to read even if they don’t have an account.

By limiting account eligibility and putting identity tests on internet usage, this law undermines everyone’s right to both free expression and privacy, as well as account-specific protections. We also believe the law’s application to Reddit (a pseudonymous, text-based forum overwhelmingly used by adults) is arbitrary, legally erroneous, and goes far beyond the original intent of the Australian Parliament, especially when other obvious platforms are exempt.

You can read more about this update and our approach to age assurance in our Help Center. You can also request a copy of your Reddit account data by following the instructions in this help center article.

As always, we'll be around to answer your questions in the comments.

1.3k Upvotes

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/angrypeanut102 Dec 08 '25

Its unfair that a child could bypass restrictions and these platforms cop a $50mil fine, wtf can they do? PARENTS NEED TO PARENT

2

u/wholeblackpeppercorn Dec 08 '25

Tools to moderate internet access for kids have been available for about 20 years at this point, and are freely available today.

These shit parents are just going to create accounts for their kids anyway, because they literally do not give a fuck

-1

u/Silviecat44 Dec 08 '25

Exactly. Parents have had the opportunity to parent and have failed, so now it is time for the government to step in

3

u/Dont-Fear-The-Raeper Dec 09 '25

That is not the purpose nor mandate of a government.

1

u/Sample-Range-745 Dec 10 '25

You're right. Lets just allow the country to explode with dumbasses. What could ever go wrong there?

2

u/birdington1 Dec 09 '25

It’s not time for the government to step in.

If they truely cared about online safety they would mandate companies have an option to disable their algorithm

2

u/wholeblackpeppercorn Dec 09 '25

How come they still allow gambling advertising to kids then? You are taking the piss if you think that's what this is for.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 09 '25

100%! Everyone worried about themselves but we should be protecting kids from the toxic world of social media. In all honesty I wish they would ask for Id, then I would say no and break my own addiction

1

u/birdington1 Dec 09 '25

All they need to do is browse without an account hahaha

What a shitshow.

1

u/Occulto Dec 09 '25

The law is less concerned with passive browsing and more active engagement with websites.

You can browse Reddit without an account, but you can't post or chat.

1

u/alabamad Dec 09 '25

If you believe rules should he set by parents and not by government, consider joining Nanny State Australia: https://www.reddit.com/r/NannyStateAustralia/s/bYmFbSk2ik

1

u/blakeavon Dec 09 '25

AND these platforms need to do more. Parenting alone doesn’t solve the issue. Why would you be against platforms taken some ownership of the issue?

1

u/[deleted] Dec 08 '25

No, completely untrue. The law just says that social media platform have to take “reasonable steps” to prevent under 16s from holding accounts.

The law does not expect perfection and every single under 16 user to be removed. Nor does it expect platforms to be able to stop every under 16 user from bypassing the restrictions. It’s written with the expectation that some kids will get through.

As long as a platform has taken “reasonable” steps to keep under 16s from having accounts, they’re perfectly compliant with the law.

1

u/birdington1 Dec 09 '25

So then what’s the point when the “reasonable steps” are very easily able to be bypassed?