Australia’s 2024 scrutiny of Meta, TikTok and Google was a parliamentary inquiry into social media’s influence on Australian society—not a criminal investigation or a finding that the companies had broken the law. Representatives of the three companies appeared at a public hearing on June 28, 2024, as lawmakers examined issues including children’s safety, misinformation, democracy and the sustainability of journalism.
What happened in Australia?
The Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society was established by the federal Parliament in May 2024. Its remit covered social media’s influence and impacts on Australian society, platform business decisions, children and young people, misinformation and disinformation, journalism, and possible approaches to regulation. The committee’s account of its establishment and remit is available in its introduction to the second interim report.
On June 28, 2024, representatives of Meta, TikTok Australia and Google/YouTube gave evidence at a public hearing. The hearing also included news-media and public-interest journalism organisations; its official record identifies the witnesses and hearing materials. Other participants in the committee’s wider work included researchers, civil-society groups and young people.
Inquiry, competition investigation and enforcement are different things
Calling the 2024 process an “investigation of Meta, TikTok and Google” can imply a law-enforcement probe. More precisely, it was a parliamentary inquiry: lawmakers gathered evidence and considered policy. A hearing or a company’s appearance before the committee does not itself establish that the company caused a particular harm or violated a law.
#1 Best Overall
| Term | What it refers to |
|---|---|
| Parliamentary inquiry | The 2024 Joint Select Committee’s examination of social media’s effects on Australian society. |
| Public hearing | The June 28, 2024 session at which Meta, TikTok Australia and Google/YouTube representatives gave evidence. |
| ACCC inquiry | A separate examination of competition and consumer issues in digital-platform markets. |
| eSafety investigation | Later inquiries into possible compliance failures under Australia’s social-media minimum-age rules. |
In the hearing and committee context, “Google” principally means YouTube as a social-media service. Google Search, advertising and other Alphabet services raise different questions in digital-platform and news-market regulation. Meta’s relevant services include Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp; TikTok is operated by ByteDance.
Which social impacts were lawmakers examining?
Children’s safety and wellbeing
Evidence and policy debate covered young people’s exposure to harmful or age-inappropriate material, cyberbullying, harassment, self-harm and eating-disorder content, and whether product design encourages prolonged or difficult-to-control use. Lawmakers also considered whether platform safeguards work in practice, how children’s ages are assessed, and how privacy can be protected while restricting access. eSafety’s children-and-social-media transparency information provides context on the regulator’s subsequent engagement with platforms about children’s access, age assessment and safeguards.
Misinformation, public discourse and democracy
The committee considered concerns about election and health misinformation, manipulated or synthetic media, political-ad transparency, moderation, and the role recommendation systems may play in distributing content. These are questions about platform governance and public accountability; evidence presented to lawmakers should not be mistaken for a definitive finding that every service amplifies falsehoods in the same way.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
Another issue is whether independent researchers can obtain enough platform data to assess effects, and whether users receive understandable explanations or meaningful ways to challenge moderation decisions. The committee’s final material on regulation of social media platforms calls for more research and data collection on health and wellbeing, reflecting that important causal questions remain unsettled.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
News and public-interest journalism
The inquiry also addressed the relationship between platforms and journalism. Australian publishers have argued that platforms benefit from news while competing for audience attention and advertising revenue, and that weakening news businesses can threaten local reporting and media diversity. Platforms have argued that news is only one part of their services and that requiring payments can distort commercial negotiations.
Meta’s decision to abandon news-payment arrangements under Australia’s News Media Bargaining Code was one strand of the committee’s work, not a substitute for its separate examination of youth safety and other social effects. The parliamentary debate records the connection lawmakers drew between journalism and efforts to counter misinformation and disinformation: November 4, 2024 debate.
Privacy, harassment and harmful material
Questions about data practices, privacy, exposure to harmful content and online harassment sit alongside—but are not interchangeable with—questions about mental health or democratic debate. The inquiry brought these concerns into a broader discussion of what platforms should disclose, prevent or remedy. Whether a specific service caused a specific outcome requires evidence beyond the fact that the issue was raised at a hearing.
What did the companies say?
Meta, TikTok and Google/YouTube presented their own accounts of their products, safety systems and policies. Company testimony is a position offered to lawmakers, not an independent regulator’s finding. The hearing record is the appropriate source for the witnesses’ detailed statements and submissions.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →- Meta and TikTok emphasized existing moderation, safety and parental-control measures.
- Google discussed YouTube’s product design, age policies and moderation practices; YouTube’s format and educational uses differ from those of other social networks.
- Technology companies have raised concerns that age-assurance systems can create privacy and accuracy risks and may be circumvented.
- Platforms have also argued that some online harms reflect wider social problems and cannot be resolved through content removal alone.
These positions do not settle whether safeguards are effective. Nor does disagreement about responsibility establish that platforms have no role. The relevant questions include what risks a service can reasonably anticipate, what protections it actually applies, and what evidence is available to assess the results.
Rank #4
How the ACCC’s separate work fits in
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s Digital Platform Services Inquiry examined competition and consumer issues across digital markets, including social media. Its work addressed concerns such as market power, scams, advertising, data practices and consumer protection. The ACCC’s interim report on social media services sets out that market-focused analysis.
This was a distinct regulatory track from the parliamentary committee’s societal-impact inquiry. The ACCC completed its five-year inquiry in June 2025 and recommended further reform to address competition and consumer harms. Its final report and announcement on proposed regulatory reform explain its conclusions and recommendations.
What happened after the 2024 hearing?
| Date | Development |
|---|---|
| May 15–16, 2024 | Federal Parliament established the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society. (Committee introduction) |
| June 28, 2024 | Meta, TikTok Australia and Google/YouTube representatives appeared at a public hearing. (Hearing record) |
| 2024–2025 | The committee issued interim and final material on platform regulation, misinformation, journalism and social-media impacts. (Final report chapter on regulation) |
| June 23, 2025 | The ACCC released its final Digital Platform Services Inquiry report. (ACCC final report) |
| December 10, 2025 | Australia’s social-media minimum-age obligation took effect for covered platforms. (eSafety implementation FAQs) |
| March 31, 2026 | eSafety investigations into possible non-compliance were reported for Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube. (ABC News) |
| July 31, 2026 | Reporting indicated that many Australian teenagers continued to access social media after the restrictions began, renewing questions about enforcement and age assurance. (ABC News) |
What the under-16 rules do—and what the later investigations mean
From December 10, 2025, covered platforms have had an obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from holding accounts on services covered by the rules. This is not a ban on all internet use. eSafety maintains information on the age restrictions and platform classifications; coverage and regulatory treatment can depend on the service and its features, so YouTube should not be treated as interchangeable with Google Search.
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
The reported 2026 eSafety investigations concern possible failures to comply with that minimum-age obligation. They are separate from the 2024 parliamentary inquiry, and an investigation into possible non-compliance is not by itself a final finding of a breach or proof that a platform caused broader societal harm.
Age assurance presents practical trade-offs: methods must address underage accounts without unnecessarily exposing adults’ identity or personal data, wrongly excluding eligible users, or creating inaccessible requirements for people without standard identity documents. Systems may also be evaded through borrowed accounts or other workarounds. The evidence cited here does not establish one universally accurate age-checking method or show that Australia’s rules have resolved youth online harms.
What remains unresolved?
- Causation: A relationship between social-media use and a health outcome does not, on its own, show that a platform caused that outcome. Individual vulnerability, the type of content encountered and design choices all matter.
- Evidence access: Independent evaluation depends on researchers being able to examine relevant data and methods, while protecting users’ privacy.
- Accountability: Policymakers continue to weigh duties for platforms against the roles of families, schools, regulators and the wider community.
- Enforcement: Rules on paper do not guarantee that age checks are effective, privacy-preserving or consistently applied.
- Different services: Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube vary in product design and use; conclusions about one service should not automatically be extended to another.
Australia’s proceedings are not a universal template. Other countries have different laws, privacy protections, platform definitions and enforcement powers, and the Australian developments do not establish that any single approach has solved the problem.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
Recommended Free Tools
