YouTube deserves protection from this misguided ban because it serves as an essential educational tool used by 84% of Australian teachers monthly. The platform provides free, high-quality content that helps students learn both inside and outside classrooms, making it fundamentally different from social media platforms designed for endless scrolling. Government research shows 69% of parents consider YouTube appropriate for children under 15, yet the eSafety Commissioner ignores this clear evidence.
YouTube poses the greatest risk to children among all platforms, with 37% of kids encountering harmful content there including violent videos, eating disorder promotion, and misogynistic material. The platform's addictive algorithms deliberately push users down dangerous rabbit holes they cannot escape, making any exemption inconsistent with protecting children from social media harms. No platform claiming absolute safety can be trusted when children's wellbeing is at stake.
Grant is egregiously overreaching, placing her in direct opposition to the Prime Minister and turning sensible protections into pure nanny state meddling. Parents, educators, and children's entertainers all stated that they did not want YouTube — one of the few platforms with safe content for children — banned for minors. The government is going against the wishes of parents.
The YouTube exemption is plainly preferential and makes no sense. YouTube is the most likely platform for children to see harmful material, and evidence suggests that this exemption was granted after heavy lobbying by the video-hosting site. YouTube has similar features to TikTok and others, and delivers the same addictive content. It's clear that YouTube must be part of the ban.
There's a 60% chance that Meta will settle the lawsuit brought by U.S state attorneys general alleging the platform(s) were designed to foster compulsive use by minors by March 1, 2026, according to the Metaculus prediction community.