According to TechCrunch, Reddit has filed a lawsuit with Australia’s High Court seeking to overturn a new law that came into force on December 10. This legislation requires ten major services to deactivate accounts for users under 16 years old and prevent them from using the apps. In its filing, Reddit argues the law limits free political discourse by preventing minors from sharing views online. The company contends that if the law isn’t overturned, it should be exempt because it doesn’t meet the legislation’s definition of a “social media platform.” Reddit admin LastBluejay also posted that the law forces intrusive verification on adults and isolates teens from community experiences.
Reddit’s “not like other platforms” defense
Here’s the thing: Reddit’s legal argument is a masterclass in semantic gymnastics. They’re calling themselves a “collection of public fora arranged by subject.” Basically, they’re saying, “We’re not a social network where you go to be friends with people; we’re a digital library of forums where you talk about *topics*.” They even dug into dictionary definitions of the word “social” to prove their point. It’s a clever, if slightly desperate, legal strategy. But let’s be real. For millions of users, Reddit is absolutely a social experience. The interactions, the inside jokes, the community vibes in places like r/notliketheothergirls (ironically) are deeply social. Arguing otherwise feels like splitting hairs to avoid a regulatory headache.
The law’s real problems
Now, setting aside Reddit’s specific plea for exemption, their broader critique of the Australian law hits on some serious issues. Forcing age verification on *everyone* is a privacy nightmare. How do you prove you’re an adult online without handing over sensitive data? And the point about creating a “patchwork” of included platforms is huge. Who decides what’s “social media”? Is a gaming Discord server social media? What about a comments section on a news site? The law, as described, seems blunt and poorly defined. Reddit’s admin makes a fair point in their companion post: maybe allowing managed, age-appropriate accounts with restrictions is smarter than an outright ban. But is that just a convenient argument for a company that doesn’t want to lose young users?
A slippery slope for speech?
And then there’s the free speech angle. Reddit is leaning hard into the idea that banning under-16s limits “political discourse.” That’s a powerful argument in any court. Should a 15-year-old passionate about climate policy be barred from discussing it in a relevant forum? It seems counterproductive. But this is also where Reddit’s “we’re just forums” stance gets tricky. If they’re not a social platform but a public forum, doesn’t that make the free speech argument *even stronger*? They’re trying to have it both ways. I think the core tension is universal: how do you protect kids from genuine harm online without also walling them off from valuable information, community, and yes, political conversation? Australia’s law might be a well-intentioned mess, but Reddit’s defense feels equally messy.
