\n
![\"At](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/FromTheLandStill_presents_size_thumb_.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThe BC-based public broadcaster delivers 12 powerful films and original series to mark Indigenous History Month.<\/p>\n
Introduced by the federal government on June 10, Bill C-34<\/a>, or the Safe Social Media Act, would prevent people under 16 years old from creating or having accounts on some of the most popular social media platforms. <\/p>\n However, companies can be exempted from the restrictions if they take steps to limit access to seven types of harmful content listed in the bill: <\/p>\n
Recent research has highlighted the potential harms<\/a> of unregulated social media and AI chatbot access for children and youth, including significant mental health<\/a> impacts for girls, in particular. <\/p>\n Whistleblowers<\/a> and now a court case<\/a> have revealed the design of social media apps is intentionally addictive. Features like infinite scroll, video autoplay and continual refresh of chat feeds are used to keep users on their platforms.<\/p>\n As well, AI chatbots have been linked to several deaths by suicide<\/a>, murder<\/a> and incidents of self-harm and have contributed to delusional episodes for both adults and youth. <\/p>\n Grok, the AI chatbot exclusively for X users, made headlines<\/a> earlier this year for creating millions of sexualized and nearly naked images of both real and imaginary women and children. <\/p>\n The day after Bill C-34 was announced, Canada\u2019s privacy commissioner, Philippe Dufresne, announced his investigation into Grok has concluded<\/a> that generating the fake images violates federal privacy laws. <\/p>\n \u201cWhat we\u2019re seeing rolling out around the world in terms of bans is an increased appetite for safer, healthier places for young people to be online,\u201d said Kara Brisson-Boivin, director of research for digital media literacy organization MediaSmarts. <\/p>\n At the same time, she added, \u201cthe ban itself doesn\u2019t really do anything itself to change the environment of the online spaces that young people are engaging in.\u201d<\/p>\n The government\u2019s explanation for why Bill C-34 is necessary includes reports that a quarter of kids aged 12 to 17 have experienced cyberbullying at least once. It also states<\/a> that youth who have been victimized online are more likely to report mental health issues and suicidal ideation. And it alleges that online child sexual exploitation and abuse reports to police have increased in recent years. <\/p>\n Bill C-34 would create a new federal Digital Safety Commission of Canada, which would enforce the ban, monitor and investigate companies\u2019 compliance, and receive and assess complaints from the public.<\/p>\n Next week is the last of the House of Commons\u2019 current session before breaking for the summer. It is unlikely Bill C-34 will be voted on before the House reconvenes in mid-September.<\/p>\n The bill is vague, and there are many outstanding questions about how such a ban would be enforced and whether it will have the intended impact of protecting kids and youth \u2014 especially when reports from Australia, which implemented similar legislation in 2025, show<\/a> that most young people know how to get around the country\u2019s age restrictions. <\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s never going to be perfect, a ban. Kids are going to get around it, and kids are still vulnerable when they\u2019re 16. So when they do access these spaces, they need to access safe ones,\u201d said Emily Laidlaw, the Canada Research Chair in cybersecurity law and an associate professor of law at the University of Calgary.<\/p>\n Canada has picked a \u201cmiddle-of-the-road approach,\u201d she said, compared with other countries that ban social media access outright for youth under 16. <\/p>\n Instead Canada\u2019s age restriction acts more like a social media pause, while companies work to remove harmful or potentially harmful content and design from children\u2019s view. <\/p>\n The Tyee interviewed Laidlaw and Brisson-Boivin to answer some of our most pressing questions about the proposed age restrictions. <\/p>\n
How did we get here?<\/p>\n This is not Canada\u2019s first attempt at passing an online safety bill. Bill C-63 or the Online Harms Act, which did not include age restrictions on social media or AI chatbot accounts, died when Parliament was prorogued for the spring 2025 election. <\/p>\n But social media bans weren\u2019t \u201con the radar,\u201d Laidlaw told The Tyee, until Australia\u2019s legislation banning youth under 16 from having social media accounts came into effect in December. <\/p>\n The United Kingdom has also introduced similar legislation. Its law names some of the specific platforms it will target and is set to come into effect next spring<\/a>. <\/p>\n \u201cIt seems like such a clean solution to a complex problem,\u201d Laidlaw said, adding that the bans in the United Kingdom and Australia are \u201cblunt\u201d instruments in that they are outright bans on children\u2019s accounts on the platform, unlike Canada\u2019s proposed pause on kids\u2019 accounts until platforms improve. <\/p>\n As well, the United Kingdom is planning to implement social media feature restrictions for 16- and 17-year-olds. <\/p>\n This isn\u2019t the first time the idea of banning children and younger teenagers from certain areas of the internet has been raised. <\/p>\n The rise in popularity of the internet and its use both at home and in schools in the mid-1990s led to calls to ban online pornography in the United States to protect children, which ultimately did not pan out<\/a>. However, more recently the United Kingdom<\/a> and several U.S. states<\/a> have moved to further restrict access to online pornography. <\/p>\n \u201cThe challenge is that it\u2019s hard to compare to some of the early solutions and the pushback, because the internet was so different\u201d 30 years ago compared with today, Laidlaw said. <\/p>\n \u201cThe addictive design challenges we\u2019re seeing, the extraordinary power of these companies, it\u2019s unprecedented. Policymakers are right to look at different types of solutions. I just think the answer is there\u2019s no easy solution here.\u201d<\/p>\n How will it work?<\/p>\n Most social media platforms already limit account creation to people aged 13 and older. But up to now there\u2019s been no outside enforcement of these rules, and young people report no issue<\/a> gaining access to platforms, regardless of their age. <\/p>\n Under the proposed Canadian law, social media and AI chatbot companies would be subjected to a duty to act responsibly, a duty to protect children, a duty to make certain content inaccessible and a duty to be transparent. <\/p>\n Those duties are \u201cthe gold standard,\u201d said Laidlaw. \u201cIn particular because it\u2019s focused on companies putting in place risk mitigation measures. It\u2019s about consumer protection more than anything. It\u2019s the only way to really address improving child safety online.\u201d<\/p>\n Bill C-34 is short on details regarding which social media platforms and AI chatbots will be included, how social media account access will be age restricted, the specifics of what is harmful content, and how the age restrictions would be enforced. <\/p>\n That\u2019s because the yet-to-be-established Digital Safety Commission is expected to introduce these regulations and assess their criteria, Laidlaw said.<\/p>\n \u201cWe can expect that it will be different for each platform,\u201d she said. \u201cBut some of it would be things like curated algorithms for children that do not push harmful content, like promoting eating disorders and self-harm.\u201d<\/p>\n Other potential regulations include a restriction on infinite scrolling, the ability of users to continually refresh their social media feeds for new content without limit, Laidlaw said.<\/p>\n It could also include improved user complaint mechanisms for identifying and removing harmful content, she added. Or a ban on platform use during hours that children \u2014 and even adults \u2014 would otherwise be asleep. <\/p>\n \u201cSome of the platforms may be disabling livestreaming or access to certain chat features that might make children more vulnerable,\u201d Laidlaw said. \u201cDesign-based decisions that minimize their exposure to certain types of harmful content, that also minimize the addictive nature of these platforms.\u201d<\/p>\n The bill\u2019s requirement that companies act responsibly and transparently and protect children will push social media and AI chatbot companies to examine the design of their online spaces, how their algorithms operate and how they handle reports of harm and other user complaints, Laidlaw said. <\/p>\n \u201cUp front, the companies need to look at how they design their entire space for child protection,\u201d she said. \u201cThey also need to be transparent about these practices.\u201d<\/p>\n The Digital Safety Commission of Canada will have the power to investigate companies that do not comply with the age restriction law, hold hearings and impose fines of up to $20 million or five per cent of gross global revenue, whichever is higher. <\/p>\n \u201cWhat we want to see are platforms held accountable for prioritizing children\u2019s well-being and safety, and that includes the design choices that companies are making,\u201d said MediaSmarts\u2019 Brisson-Boivin. <\/p>\n \u201cRight now, companies are following corporate motivations, and I think there\u2019s an opportunity to shift that focus more towards well-being, safety and children\u2019s rights, by design.\u201d<\/p>\n The method of determining whether a social media account holder is under 16 is not prescribed in the legislation, though the proposed law does say the commission must be satisfied that the measures ensure users\u2019 private data is protected until age is verified, and is then destroyed.<\/p>\n Laidlaw doesn\u2019t think the companies will go the route of asking users for government identification and wouldn\u2019t recommend that method for privacy reasons. <\/p>\n But she said it could include biometrics like facial recognition technology, estimating age based on the content a user interacts with most or even checking when the account was created. <\/p>\n And all users, not just those suspected of being under 16, can be subjected to age verification measures, Brisson-Boivin added.<\/p>\n But while young people will be banned from having social media accounts, there is nothing to stop anyone without an account from accessing content on platforms such as YouTube or TikTok, for example. <\/p>\n Other sites, such as X, require users to have accounts to view much of their content. X has also restricted use of Grok, its AI chatbot, to X account holders. <\/p>\n Bill C-34 is \u201cnot quite as extreme as it seems,\u201d Laidlaw said, adding that the Canadian age restriction as the bill is currently written applies only to large social media platforms, or platforms that demonstrate a significant risk of harm to kids and youth.<\/p>\n \u201cIt\u2019s not going to be all social media…. That could create an incentive for kids to move to other platforms that are potentially more dangerous,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n MediaSmarts\u2019 Brisson-Boivin said that\u2019s already happening in Australia<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cMost importantly it runs the risk of having unintended backfire effects: young people engaging in closeted social media use, and not turning to the adults in their lives for supports, for fear of punishment,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n For kids made more vulnerable by our society, such as those who are LGBTQ2S+, cutting off access to social media could cut off their only access to supportive community and services, Brisson-Boivin added. <\/p>\n \u201cThere are going to be adverse effects,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n That being said, the age restrictions could also lead to a cultural change in Canada where social media accounts for kids under 16 are no longer viewed as acceptable, Brisson-Boivin added. <\/p>\n
How effective will it be?<\/p>\n The Australian government has begun investigating social media companies to find out why their ban isn\u2019t working, Laidlaw said. <\/p>\n \u201cIs it because the companies aren\u2019t complying to the threshold that they should? Or is it not working because it\u2019s never going to work the way that we hope?\u201d she asked.<\/p>\n \u201cThe goal is never perfection; it\u2019s always to make things better in this kind of space. So we have to ask, Is it making things better? We also don\u2019t quite know that yet.\u201d<\/p>\n Removing kids from social media platforms will reduce the risk of their exploitation or harm through social media, Laidlaw said. <\/p>\n But, unlike the United Kingdom\u2019s legislation, Bill C-34 does not currently include online gaming platforms or private messaging services, such as Roblox<\/a> or Telegram, where children are also potentially at risk of harm from predatory adults. <\/p>\n The bill is structured in such a way that it can expand to gaming and messaging services in the future, Laidlaw added. <\/p>\n But, she said, adding age restrictions to online gaming could loop in games that don\u2019t put kids at risk of exploitation, bullying or harassment. <\/p>\n <\/a> <\/p>\n Young People Turn to TikTok for News. What Do They Get?<\/p>\n \t\t\t\tread more <\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n Private messaging restriction comes with its own complexities, too. <\/p>\n \u201cYou can\u2019t create a law that requires that companies undermine encryption in order to moderate for harmful content,\u201d Laidlaw said. <\/p>\n An alternative she suggested is improving user complaint avenues for reporting harmful content or behaviour to the company. Or telling a user when a friend request is coming from another country, warning that they may be a stranger. <\/p>\n Unlike similar legislation in the United Kingdom and Australia, Bill C-34 does not tackle digital media literacy education, which MediaSmarts argues is essential for everyone using social media. <\/p>\n \u201cWe have been advocating for decades now for a national strategy for digital media literacy education,\u201d said Brisson-Boivin. <\/p>\n Canada has a long history of digital policy-making, she added, mainly devoted to improving and expanding telecommunications infrastructure. <\/p>\n \u201cWhat\u2019s been missing from these discussions is the critical approach. Thinking about education, ensuring all people using technology, the internet, from very young children to older adults, have the critical supports that they need,\u201d said Brisson-Boivin, adding that the concept of media literacy was founded in Canada<\/a>. <\/p>\n \u201cWe can\u2019t teach digital media literacy once in Grade 10 and then consider the job done. Technology moves too fast. The online environment and the challenges we all face move too fast.\u201d<\/p>\n Should Bill C-34 become law, it must be reviewed again in three years. And every five years thereafter. <\/p>\n If more countries decide to pursue a similar ban or pause on children\u2019s access to social media, it could have the intended effect of forcing social media giants such as Meta and TikTok to implement changes to reduce risk of harm, Laidlaw added. <\/p>\n \u201cIf enough countries all implement the same solution, it will, in the end, impact the bottom line of the company,\u201d she said. <\/p>\n \u201cAnd if they want access to the market that is children, if they see that it\u2019s a market they want to continue to serve, then they\u2019re going to have to change their business model.\u201d<\/p>\n In the meantime, Laidlaw doesn\u2019t anticipate social media companies will strike back at the legislation like Meta did<\/a> when Canada began charging tech companies for hosting Canadian news articles. <\/p>\n
\nterrorism or violent extremism content;
\ncontent that foments hate;
\ncontent used to bully a child;
\ncontent that \u201csexually victimizes\u201d a child or revictimizes a survivor;
\ncontent that causes children to hurt themselves;
\nintimate images shared without consent; and
\ncontent that incites violence.
<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n
<\/p>\n![\"image](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/TikTokNewsCollage__square_thumb.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
![\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/1781900076_330_yellowblob.png\")
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Unless social media and AI chatbot companies clean up their act, proposed federal legislation will see Canada join…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":95924,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[27825,10612,35570,32642,35571,35572,17,35573,32640,2365,35574,16355,8656,35588,35575,35576,27828,35577,35578,14032,35579,35580,35581,35582,35583,35584,35585,35586,32487,4102,13988,32486,35587],"class_list":["post-95923","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-canada","tag-aboriginal-affairs","tag-ai-chatbots","tag-australia-social-media-ban","tag-bill-c-34","tag-bill-c-63","tag-british-columbia-media","tag-canada","tag-canada-social-media-age-restriction","tag-canada-social-media-ban","tag-canadian-media","tag-canadian-newspapers","tag-child-welfare","tag-digital-media","tag-digital-media-literacy","tag-digital-safety-commission-of-canada","tag-emily-laidlaw","tag-feminism","tag-future-of-news","tag-grok-chatbot","tag-journalism","tag-journalism-in-canada","tag-kara-brisson-boivin","tag-media-in-british-columbia","tag-media-in-canada","tag-mediasmarts","tag-michael-geist","tag-new-media","tag-newspapers-in-canada","tag-online-harms-act","tag-philippe-dufresne","tag-poverty","tag-safe-social-media-act","tag-steve-anderson"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95923","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=95923"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95923\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/95924"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95923"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95923"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/canada\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95923"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}