By Associate Professor James Birt
When a young people get behind the wheel for the first time, we don’t just hand them the keys and wish them luck.
We make them learn the rules, demand hours of supervised practice, and then we test them, as many times as necessary.
We do this because cars and driving can cause real harm.
Yet when a child enters the online world, including platforms powered by algorithms designed to capture attention and reward risk-taking, the safety check is often a single click and a declaration that they are 13.
That should trouble us.
We already accept, almost without question, that people need basic training before participating in systems that carry risk.
Every year workers complete compulsory modules on workplace health and safety, cybersecurity, and respectful behaviour.
University students must pass courses on consent and conduct before they graduate. Drivers log hundreds of hours before earning a licence.
None of this is controversial - it’s just how we manage risk in modern life.
So why does digital life get a free pass?
Social platforms are not neutral spaces; they shape behaviour, amplify emotion, and reward engagement through systems that many adults struggle to understand.
Young and vulnerable users are expected to navigate misinformation, synthetic images, emotional manipulation, and predatory behaviour with little more than instinct and peer advice.
Age gates don’t solve this. They are often little more than an email address and a birthday field.
There is another option, and it doesn’t require a sweeping ban or heavy-handed censorship.
What if access to major social and digital platforms came with an age-appropriate digital literacy module?
Simple questions like:
Which image is AI-generated?
Which source looks reliable?
Why might an algorithm push certain content?
What should raise a red flag?
This is not a radical idea.
Telecommunications companies were once required to introduce simplified, one-page summaries of contracts because complexity was being used to obscure risk.
Gaming companies have developed high-quality parental resources that actually work when people engage with them.
The precedent is there.
Critics will say children will cheat, get help from friends, or race through without absorbing anything.
That may be true. But even then, something changes.
They are forced to pause, are exposed to the idea that people lie online, that images can be fake, and that popularity does not equal credibility.
Even learning how to pass the test creates awareness.
We already know how to build this material.
Australia has educators, researchers, and curriculum experts who develop age-appropriate content every day.
This would not require reinventing the wheel, just applying existing knowledge to a space that has raced ahead of our safeguards.
We’re already leading what is quickly becoming a global movement working together to protect young and vulnerable people online.
The Global Online Safety Regulators Network just last month issued a position statement noting the need for age-assurance strategies to provide appropriate online experiences for young people and wants to see global alignment on regulation.
Of course, this will not magically make every young person digitally literate.
It will not solve every harm or close every loophole, just as a driving test does not prevent every crash.
But it would acknowledge something we have been reluctant to say out loud - digital environments can be dangerous, and preparation matters.
We have started a national conversation about online safety and platform responsibility.
The next step is asking what comes after compliance checklists and age declarations.
Before we hand kids the digital keys, maybe we should make sure they know how the road works.
We have to log hours behind the wheel before we get a licence to drive, so should using the online space be any different?
* Dr James Birt is Associate Professor of Film, Screen and Creative Media at Bond University.