Regulating kids’ content in a YouTube world

From December, Australia will introduce a world-first social media ban for children under 16. Originally intended to restrict access to TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X and Snapchat, the country’s ruling Labour Party surprised observers by adding YouTube to its hit list at the eleventh hour, citing the platform’s “predatory algorithms”.

YouTube, unsurprisingly, is disgruntled by the decision – and may challenge it legally on the grounds that the platform is “not social media”. Some kids’ content creators are also anxious about the impact of the rules on their businesses – with children’s musical group The Wiggles among those lobbying for YouTube to be excluded from the ban.

But Federal Communications Minister Anika Wells is in no mood to back down. Comparing online safeguarding to teaching kids to swim in open water, she said: “We can’t control the ocean, but we can police the sharks, and that is why we will not be intimidated by legal threats when this is a fi ght for the wellbeing of Australian kids.”

The Australian government’s robust stance hasn’t just stirred up a debate Down Under. With countries including the UK, Norway and Canada also looking at restrictions on kids’ social media usage, regulated access to YouTube may soon be a standard feature in major markets around the world.

Given that the Google-owned platform has become the dominant force in kids’ viewing globally, there’s understandable apprehension that this might adversely impact the ability of children’s content providers to reach young audiences (and thus generate revenues). But, as Jenny Buckland, chief executive of the Australian Children’s TV Foundation, (ACTF) notes, the sector is conflicted.

“I’ve lost count of the number of people I’ve spoken to who have pointed out all the problems with the restrictions for their business, but who finish by saying, ‘But on the other hand, as a parent, I love it.’”

To understand the extent of the threat to kids’ studios, it’s important to take a closer look at how exactly the Australian government’s new rules will impact YouTube.

In a nutshell, it has decreed that under-16s will not be able to create accounts, upload content or interact with the platform. Crucially, however, they can still view videos in a logged-out state or on another person’s profile. In other words, they’ll be able to enjoy an old-fashioned TV-style experience on YouTube, but will be prevented from engaging in an immersive and interactive manner via their own accounts.

Inevitably, this will also restrict the data available to platforms and IP owners, making it harder to gauge what their audiences want, and for audiences to stumble across their content in the first place.

Tackling social concerns

Buckland accepts that the rules could be seen as heavy-handed but says they may be necessary.

“In an ideal world, I’d have preferred more focus on how to make the online experience better for everyone – can we not regulate Meta and others to take more responsibility for the content on their platforms and who sees it?” she says. “But I don’t think big tech took enough notice of community concerns and regulator requests.”

Patrick Egerton, co-founder and chief content officer of Australian kids and family studio Cheeky Little, agrees that the regulations are addressing a genuine social problem. But he raises a couple of concerns about how they have been framed.

“The rules create some mixed messaging for the kids’ content sector,” he says. “In the past couple of years, there has been a shift in perspectives and attitudes among regulators, broadcasters, streamers and screen/funding bodies towards the importance of embracing YouTube.

“And that’s not just in Australia, it’s also in the UK, where regulator Ofcom has been encouraging public broadcasters to build a presence on YouTube. So it’s unfortunate the ban should come just as bodies like ACTF and Screen Australia are developing strategies and launching programmes like the Kids IP incubator to support a move to YouTube as a primary distribution platform.”

In Egerton’s view, this isn’t simply a commercial issue – but one that goes to the heart of public service broadcasting. Last year, the Australian government’s Transparency Portal put the ABC’s domestic reach at 61.9% – down from 65.4% in 2023. “If the ABC and producers aren’t able to engage with YouTube, there’s a large section of our children who aren’t being reached with quality content specifically created for them.”

Egerton also questions how the ban will actually work, given that most under-10s watch on family accounts rather than their own. “We make animated series such as Kangaroo Beach, Vegesaurs and Spongo, Fuzz & Jalapeña. For the young audiences that watch shows like these, I don’t think much will change.”

“My concern is that the regulations may choke off opportunity, without really addressing the safeguarding issue”
Patrick Egerton, Cheeky Little

This, of course, begs a question – why should content creators like The Wiggles be concerned?

“There may be an impact at the top level,” speculates Egerton, “where broadcasters and screen bodies are trying to wrap their arms around YouTube and enable producers to engage with the platform. At a time when the ABC is the only body commissioning kids’ content in Australia, my concern is that the regulations may choke off this new opportunity, without really addressing the safeguarding issue.”

The debate is different when it comes to older kids, namely the 11 to 15 year-olds who are probably using their own YouTube accounts. Here, Egerton wonders about the impact it might have on smaller studios that target this demographic – and on kids’ own creativity. “This age group is making its own content for its peers, so I would expect the new rules to have an immediate impact on this area.”

“We need to be on guard against kids being secretive about their online behaviour, going to darker places”
Jenny Buckland, ACTF

Like Egerton, ACTF’s Buckland is “struggling to see how the rules will change the behaviour of under 10s”, but says older kids will need to be monitored. “Most likely they’ll find a way around the ban,” she adds. “So we need to be on guard against kids being secretive about their online behaviour, going to darker places.”

What she hopes is that the ban will generate some positives. For example, one way to stop teens going rogue might be “a teen version of YouTube Kids, which enables some kind of user-generated sharing and other content”. This, she says, “might also motivate other organisations to look at walled-garden destinations for children and teens”.

She also hopes it might remind parents of the value of public broadcasting, which produced the international hit Bluey: “The ABC has been losing audience to YouTube and streaming platforms and it would be great to see families leaning back in to watching the ABC.”

So how does this debate look in other territories?

 Jane O’ Connor, associate professor in childhood studies at Birmingham City University in the UK, says there is an issue to address – and not just because of inappropriate content: “Educational research indicates children are having trouble concentrating at school and are losing the ability to sit still and listen, and this has been suggested to be connected to the short-form, attention-grabbing videos fed to them on platforms such as YouTube.”

Commercial impact

O’Connor thinks Australia has “made a bold move in the right direction by banning YouTube accounts for under 16s”, pointing out that “children can still access content, but the app won’t be able to collect data about them and direct their viewing via algorithms”.

While there is nothing to suggest that the new regime will stop the next CoComelon from establishing an adoring audience, O’Connor expects the rules to be “a commercial blow to child/teen influencers and those that profit from them”.

She points out that in the UK, the top 10 kidfluencers have a combined subscriber count of 57,824,000 and have accumulated more than 19 billion video views (according to research by London School of Economics academics Miriam Rahali and Sonia Livingstone).

However, O’Connor is not concerned if this particular sub-sector loses momentum: “Preventing kids under 16 from creating and uploading content on their own channel is prudent. My research into child celebrities identified a range of risks to the mental health and social wellbeing of children who become famous at a young age.”

Regarding the UK’s approach, O’Connor points to the Online Safety Act, which requires online platforms to implement strict age verifications to protect kids from encountering potentially harmful content. “This is having a big impact on content creators who are having videos filtered, blocked and removed.”

Justine Bannister, founder of consultant Just B, says there is a risk that the kids industry could lose fresh voices because of increased regulation of YouTube. But she argues that the climate for digital-first content creators was already challenging: “When COPPA (the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act) was introduced by the US in 2020, kids’ creators on YouTube saw their returns plummet overnight: targeted ads disappeared, comments were cut off, and suddenly it was much harder to get visibility and revenue. That legislation was about protecting kids’ data, but it made it really tough for smaller creators to build a business – even a modest one.”

Norway is looking to introduce a ban on social media platforms offering their services to children under the age of 15. And there are also reports that Canadian province Nova Scotia is planning a similar move, something that could trigger a domino effect in this key kids’ production territory.

Catherine Winder, chief executive of Canadian producer Wind Sun Sky, says YouTube “has become commercially vital to our strategy not just as a distribution platform, but as an early proving ground for scaling IP”. She points to Future Chicken!, a series of animated videos with an environmentally friendly message, which her company launched directly on YouTube, allowing it to experiment with tone, character and storytelling.

At Mipcom, Winder will be showcasing her partnership with creators The McCarty Family and Viral Nation, which integrates animated characters into the McCartys’ live-action videos. The company has been using YouTube to test fan reactions.

Winder acknowledges the importance of protecting kids online, but doubts that regulator-led intervention can do that job. “Realistically, it’s unlikely to significantly change behaviour unless it’s paired with broader digital literacy and parental support,” she says. “The industry is moving so fast, and kids are so smart they will find workarounds.”

With the kids industry navigating fragmented audiences, the arrival of AI and uncertain monetisation, Winder says the answer lies with innovation: “Producers need to go where the audience is. The real question is: how do we build environments that kids want to be in and that are safe by design, not just safe by restriction?”