As social media platforms roll out stricter content filters for teen users, many Australians rightly see this as a step toward safer digital spaces. Shielding young people from adult themes is a sensible move, especially in a country where digital wellbeing is becoming a national priority.
But beneath these protective layers lies a deeper, more complex issue: how these rules are enforced, and what kind of data is being used to do it.
Key Takeaways
- Monitoring teen activity helps enforce safety without invading privacy, while profiling risks overreach and loss of autonomy. Australia’s Privacy Act 1988 and the proposed Children’s Online Privacy Code emphasise minimal data use and informed consent for young users.
- Ethical moderation relies on clear rules, minimal data use, and transparency, not predictive control. The eSafety Commissioner’s guidelines and the Online Safety Amendment Bill advocate for age-appropriate design and responsible content filtering without intrusive profiling.
User Activity vs. Profiling: A Crucial Distinction
Understanding the difference between monitoring user activity and profiling user behaviour is essential to protecting teen privacy.
- User activity is descriptive, it logs what users do: pages visited, buttons clicked, time spent, actions taken. This data offers a factual, moment-by-moment snapshot of behaviour without making assumptions about identity or intent.
- Profiling is inferential, It goes further, analysing patterns to predict traits, preferences, or future behaviour. Algorithms may infer a user’s age, interests, mood, or likelihood to engage with certain content, often without the user’s knowledge or consent.
In Australia, where laws like the Privacy Act 1988 and the proposed Online Privacy Bill aim to protect young users, this distinction isn’t just technical, it’s ethical. Monitoring helps enforce boundaries. Profiling risks crossing them.
Why Profiling Teens Raises Red Flags
- Loss of autonomy: AI systems may decide what teens see (or don’t see) based on inferred traits, not actual choices.
- Invisible labels: Behavioural data can lead to persistent profiling, even if a teen’s habits evolve.
- Limited transparency: Teens and parents often have no insight into how decisions are made, or how to challenge them.
Even well-intentioned safety features can become tools of quiet surveillance if they rely too heavily on profiling.
What Ethical Monitoring Looks Like
To protect teens without compromising their privacy, platforms must commit to:
- Clear rules: Filters should be based on defined standards, not predictive models.
- Minimal data use: Only collect what’s strictly necessary to enforce safety.
- User control: Give teens and parents access to settings, explanations, and appeals.
- Transparency: Clearly explain how content is filtered and what role AI plays.
Australia’s eSafety framework already champions age-appropriate design and data minimisation. Platforms must follow suit not just in policy, but in practice.
Protecting teens online doesn’t require predicting who they are. It requires respecting who they are while setting healthy, transparent boundaries. Monitoring for safety is responsible. Profiling for control? That’s where we need to draw the line.