LinkedIn: We are too boring for kids to ban social media.

Career networking site LinkedIn has told Australian lawmakers it is too slow to warrant its inclusion in a proposed ban on social media for children under 16.

“LinkedIn simply does not have interesting and engaging content for minors,” the Microsoft-owned company said in a submission to an Australian Senate committee.

The Australian government has said this. Will introduce “world-leading” legislation. Preventing children from accessing social media platforms.

But the companies behind some of the most popular platforms with young people — Meta, Google, Snapchat owner Snap Inc and TikTok — have challenged the planned law in submissions to lawmakers.

Prime Minister Anthony Albany has said the proposed legislation aims to address the harm social media is causing to Australian children.

She said it’s for “moms and dads” who, like her, are “concerned about our children’s online safety.”

Other countries are watching closely what happens with legislation with some – Including the UK – Saying they are open to follow up.

Australia’s Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee gave respondents a day to comment on the bill, which would amend its existing online safety act.

His Report to the Senate It concludes that the bill should pass – it considers providing recommendations, such as involving young people in the implementation of legislation.

However, in their responses, the world’s biggest tech firms are explaining why they are unhappy with the proposed law.

Google – which owns YouTube – and Instagram parent Meta have said they need more time to consider the legislation.

Metta said its current form would “fail to achieve its aim of reducing the burden on parents to manage the safety of young people on social media”.

It also claimed it “ignores evidence” presented by child protection and mental health experts – a view shared by Snapchat in its submission.

X (formerly Twitter) meanwhile questioned the legality of the bill’s proposals.

TikTok Australia said it had “significant concerns” with the bill as proposed.

Like other platforms commenting on the legislation, it said it “remains convinced” of the ongoing age-assurance lawsuit by looking at technologies that can effectively verify a user’s age.

Ella Woods-Joyce, director of public policy for TikTok Australia and New Zealand, wrote in the company’s submission that the bill’s “rapid passage poses a serious risk of further unintended consequences.”

But LinkedIn has taken a different approach – arguing in its submission that it is a platform of no interest to children.

The company said its minimum age of 16 means they can’t access it, adding that when it removes a child’s accounts.

If LinkedIn can successfully argue that it should not be included in the legislation, it will likely avoid the cost and disruption involved in introducing an additional age verification process to the site.

“Subjecting LinkedIn’s platform to regulation under the proposed legislation would create unnecessary barriers and costs to age assurance for LinkedIn members in Australia,” it said.

The Australian government has said it wants to introduce legislation before the end of the parliamentary year.

But experts have said that the bill’s time frame and current structure fail to allow for proper scrutiny.

Carly Kind, the country’s privacy commissioner, said In a LinkedIn post After appearing at a public Senate hearing on Monday that he was worried about the “broader privacy implications of the ban on social media.”

Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Findlay described the one-day window for submitting responses to the legislation as “grossly inadequate”. In a LinkedIn post on Thursday.

“We need real consultation, not just the appearance of it,” he said.

However, the Australian government’s plans have sparked interest elsewhere.

In Britain, technology secretary Peter Kyle told the BBC this month that similar legislation was “on the table.”

France has already introduced legislation requiring social media platforms to block access to children under 15 without parental consent – although research shows that around half of users use a simple V were able to circumvent the ban using PN.