Australia’s Social Media Ban for Under-16s

GS 2: International Relations: Regulating Social media access

Why is it in the news?

• Australia has passed the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, described as a “world-first” measure.
• Approved on November 28, the law restricts children under 16 from using social media platforms and mandates companies to enforce this rule. Social media providers face fines of up to $32 million if they fail to comply.

Key Provisions of the Bill

• The Bill requires social media providers to “take reasonable steps” to prevent children below the age limit from accessing their platforms. It will come into effect within a year, following trials of age verification technologies.
• Age verification remains a contentious issue. Currently, platforms like Instagram require users to self-report their date of birth, with no strict checks for accuracy. While some countries mandate government ID for age verification, Australia’s Bill explicitly states that no one will be compelled to use government IDs, including Digital IDs, for this purpose.
• As an alternative, companies might use facial recognition to estimate ages, though this raises concerns about data privacy and accuracy. The law mandates that personal information collected for age verification must be destroyed after use. Failure to do so would be treated as a privacy violation.
• Importantly, educational and health-related apps like Google Classroom and YouTube are exempt from these restrictions.

Rationale Behind the Ban

• The government argues that social media has negative impacts on children’s development. The legislation aims to offer greater protections during critical developmental stages.
• Psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in his 2024 book The Anxious Generation, argued that the rise of smartphones and social media has disrupted traditional play-based childhoods, increasing risks of anxiety and depression. Haidt called for strict age limits on social media use.
• However, not all experts agree with this view. Some experts argues that the social media’s effects on teenagers vary widely. While some data suggests negative impacts, other studies show positive effects, such as fostering connections. Hence experts warn against fear-based reactions and called for data-driven solutions to create a safer digital world for young users.

Criticisms of the Law

• Tech Industry Concerns: Big Tech companies like Meta criticized the rushed legislative process and questioned its practicality. Meta argued that existing measures already ensure age-appropriate experiences.
• Activists’ Worries: Activists pointed out that social media often provides vital support to vulnerable youth, including those facing bullying or belonging to marginalized communities such as LGBTQ+. A blanket ban might inadvertently harm these groups.
• Practical Challenges: Critics, including supporters of stricter social media laws, raised concerns about enforcement. Workarounds like VPNs could undermine the ban’s effectiveness, limiting its practical impact.

SC Mandates Prior Sanction for Public Servants Under PMLA

GS 2: Polity and Governance: PMLA

Why is it in the news?

• The Supreme Court (SC), in a landmark ruling, mandated that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must obtain prior government sanction to prosecute public servants accused of money laundering.

Understanding the Prior Sanction Provision

• Under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), courts cannot take cognizance of offenses by public servants, judges, or magistrates acting in their official capacity without prior government sanction. However, certain crimes like sexual offenses and human trafficking are excluded from this protection.
• The provision aims to shield public servants from frivolous prosecution but applies only when the alleged act is directly linked to their official duties. In Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2016), the SC clarified that this protection is not a cover for committing crimes but an assurance to sincere officers performing their duties.

Key Aspects of the Verdict

• The SC held that Section 197(1) of CrPC extends to cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The ruling stemmed from a case involving IAS officers Bibhu Prasad Acharya and Adityanath Das, implicated in a money laundering case involving former Andhra Pradesh CM.
• The SC upheld a 2019 Telangana High Court decision quashing the trial court’s cognizance of charges against the officers due to the absence of prior sanction. Referring to Section 65 of the PMLA, which integrates CrPC provisions unless inconsistent, the SC ruled that prior sanction was mandatory as the accused were public servants performing official duties linked to the alleged offense.
• The decision has since been cited by public servants to challenge ED chargesheets, arguing that the absence of prior sanction invalidates the prosecution.

Other Instances Requiring Prior Sanction

• Apart from the CrPC, the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) also mandates prior government sanction under Section 19(1) for offenses like bribery and undue advantage by public servants. This sanction must be sought before prosecution, and the accused must be given an opportunity to present their case to the government.
• The 2018 PCA amendment expanded these protections, introducing Section 17A, which requires prior approval for investigating public officials’ decisions or recommendations made in their official capacity. The applicability of Section 17A to pre-2018 cases is still under SC review.

Implications for ED Cases

• The SC’s ruling impacts ED’s ability to prosecute public servants under PMLA without prior sanction. While investigations and complaints can proceed, trial courts cannot take cognizance of chargesheets unless the sanction is obtained.
• This opens a pathway for public servants to challenge convictions by arguing the absence of prior sanction. The SC’s decision in P K Pradhan v. State of Sikkim (2001) allows the plea of absence of sanction to be raised at any stage, even post-conviction, provided the accused demonstrates the alleged acts were performed during official duties.
• In the Bibhu Prasad Acharya case, the SC confirmed there is no restriction on raising the absence of sanction plea after a special court takes cognizance of PMLA offenses, potentially nullifying trials or convictions lacking prior sanction.

Cyclone Fengal

GS 1: Geography and Disaster Management: Cyclones

Why is it in the news?

• Cyclone Fengal made landfall over Puducherry on November 30. Essential equipment such as boats, generators, and motor pumps were prepared, while the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and state rescue teams were deployed in vulnerable regions.

Understanding Cyclones

• A cyclone is a large-scale air system rotating around a low-pressure centre, often accompanied by storms and severe weather. According to the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), cyclones are defined by spiralling winds that rotate anticlockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere.

Types of Cyclones

• Cyclones are broadly classified into two categories: extratropical cyclones and tropical cyclones. These types differ in their formation, characteristics, and impact.

1) Extratropical Cyclones:

• Extratropical cyclones, or mid-latitude cyclones, form outside tropical regions. They have a cold air core and derive energy from the interaction of cold and warm air masses.
• The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains that these cyclones are associated with fronts, which are boundaries between different air masses—one warm and the other cold. Extratropical cyclones can occur over both land and ocean.

2) Tropical Cyclones:

• Tropical cyclones develop in the regions between the Tropics of Capricorn and Cancer and are among the most destructive natural phenomena.
• Unlike extratropical cyclones, tropical storms do not have warm or cold fronts. Instead, they derive energy from the “latent heat” released when water vapor evaporated from warm ocean surfaces condenses into liquid water.
• As tropical cyclones develop, thunderstorms near the centre intensify, and the core of the storm becomes warm. These storms are known by different names based on their location and intensity.
• For example, they are called hurricanes in the Caribbean Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and the North Atlantic Ocean, typhoons in the western North Pacific, and cyclones in the Indian Ocean region.

U.S. DOJ’s Push for Google to Divest Chrome Browser

GS 2: International Relations: Regulating Monopoly

Why is it in the news?

• In a landmark ruling, U.S. Federal Judge declared in August that Google holds illegal monopoly power in the online search market.
• Following this decision, on November 20, the S. Department of Justice (DOJ) proposed a range of remedies that could significantly impact Google’s operations, extending beyond just the search market to include the Chrome and Android businesses.

DOJ’s Proposal and Its Impact on Google

• The DOJ’s proposal aims to reduce Google’s dominance in the online search market by enforcing several key measures. These include the mandatory sale of Google’s Chrome browser, the potential divestment of its Android mobile operating system, and a five-year ban on Google entering the browser market again.
• The DOJ also wants Google to cease paying third parties, such as Apple, to make Google the default search engine on their devices. Additionally, the DOJ has suggested that Google allow publishers and content creators to block their data from being used to train AI models.
• A “technical committee” would be formed to oversee the implementation of these remedies and ensure compliance. Moreover, Google would have to make its search index available to competitors for a small fee and provide more transparency about its search technologies.
• The overarching goal of these remedies is to curb Google’s monopoly and limit its profit-making capacity in the search and browsing markets.

Google’s Response to the Proposal

• Google strongly criticized the DOJ’s proposed remedies, calling them a “radical interventionist agenda” that goes beyond the court’s decision. The President of Global Affairs and Chief Legal Officer at Google, argued that the proposals would disrupt various Google products that users depend on daily.
• Google expressed concerns about the security and privacy risks to American users, the forced disclosure of company and customer data, and the negative impact on the company’s AI investments and business partnerships.
• It also warned that the government’s overreach could harm American consumers, developers, and small businesses, and undermine the U.S.’s position as a global technology leader.

Potential Impact on Google’s Chrome Users

• The DOJ’s proposed remedies aim to change how users interact with Google services, particularly the default settings on devices. For example, the proposal suggests a “choice screen” for users, even on Google devices, ensuring they can choose a rival search engine instead of Google.
• This would prevent Google from pushing its services as the default option, which it currently does on many devices. Google has opposed this plan, noting the absurdity of requiring multiple choice screens and the involvement of a technical committee to approve their design.
• The company argued that such changes would create a cumbersome user experience.

Next Steps in the Legal Process

• The next phase in this case involves U.S. District Judge evaluating the DOJ’s proposed remedies in April. Google is also expected to propose its own set of remedies for the judge’s consideration.
• The DOJ will file a revised final argument by March 7, 2025, and will continue to monitor Google’s business activities to determine if further remedies are necessary.
• There may be additional political factors to consider, as the transition in the White House could influence the stance on this legal matter, especially given President-elect Donald Trump’s previous comments on shutting down Google, though he later backtracked.

Conclusion

• The U.S. Department of Justice’s proposal represents a significant shift in the regulatory landscape for tech giants like Google.
• While the DOJ aims to promote competition, the remedies may have far-reaching implications for both Google and its users, and the case’s future direction will depend on the decisions made by Judge in the coming months.

The Ocean’s Role in Climate Mitigation

GS 3: Environment and Biodiversity: Moderating Earth’s Climate

Why is it in the news?

• The ocean, often described as Earth’s vast blue lung, has long played a critical role in moderating the planet’s climate. It has absorbed 25% of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and more than 90% of the excess heat generated by greenhouse gases, providing humanity with precious time to tackle the worsening effects of climate change.
• However, this capacity comes with consequences, including ocean acidification, disrupted biogeochemical cycles, and harm to marine ecosystems.
• Acidification threatens organisms like coral and shellfish, while warming alters ocean circulation and deoxygenates vital marine habitats, undermining ecosystem services such as fisheries and carbon sequestration.
• Though the ocean’s natural carbon and heat absorption is crucial, it is slow and has ecological costs.

Marine Carbon Dioxide Removal (mCDR) Solutions

• As the world grapples with decarbonization and climate resilience, marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR) is gaining attention as a complementary strategy. The ocean’s vast surface area and unique chemistry present opportunities for natural and engineered solutions to combat climate change.
• Historically, efforts to reduce carbon have been land-centric, with significant investments on land, while neglecting oceans, seas, lakes, and rivers. However, studies suggest that land-based solutions have reached saturation due to damaged soils and rocks, which no longer efficiently capture carbon.
• In contrast, deep-water bodies like oceans have the ability to rapidly remove excess carbon from the atmosphere and transport it to depths where it mixes and binds with minerals.

Biotic vs. Abiotic Approaches to Carbon Sequestration

Marine carbon capture strategies fall into two categories: biotic (nature-based) and abiotic (engineered) approaches

1) Biotic solutions:

• They leverage the natural potential of ecosystems such as mangroves, macroalgae, and rivers to sequester carbon, supporting biodiversity conservation and coastal protection.
• These solutions are well-established and integrated into national climate plans, though their carbon sequestration potential is limited, generally capping at less than one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. Additionally, the carbon storage duration is limited to hundreds or thousands of years.

2) Abiotic solutions:

• They offer more scalability and permanence. For example, biomass burial at sea could sequester seven to 22 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.
• Ocean alkalinity enhancement (OAE) is another promising approach, where alkaline materials are added to seawater to neutralize its carbon content, potentially locking carbon away for tens of thousands of years. OAE could sequester one to 15 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year, significantly more than biotic methods.

Addressing the Challenges of mCDR

• While marine carbon removal methods hold promise, they face challenges and uncertainties. Techniques such as ocean iron fertilization, designed to stimulate phytoplankton blooms that capture carbon dioxide, can disrupt ecosystems and deplete oxygen in deeper waters.
• Similarly, macroalgae cultivation can alter local chemistry when decaying biomass is released. Even OAE raises concerns about its impact on marine biodiversity and the energy-intensive processes it might require.
• Public perception also complicates the implementation of abiotic techniques. Many people view such methods as unnatural or harmful and prefer biotic approaches like direct air capture.
• Monitoring and verifying carbon sequestration in the ocean is another challenge due to the high cost of oceanic monitoring. Rigorous assessments, communication, and stakeholder engagement will be crucial to overcoming skepticism.

Conclusion

• It is important to note that marine carbon removal cannot replace the need to reduce emissions. It cannot offset the current scale of fossil fuel combustion. However, as the world works toward net-zero emissions, harnessing the oceans and seas becomes indispensable.
• The careful study of geological and ecological methods could provide a critical advantage in combating climate change. Success will depend on rigorous science, effective governance, and building societal trust.
• The Indian Ocean, with its vast expanse, holds significant potential for deep carbon burial, potentially capturing 25-40% of marine carbon dioxide. By leveraging these natural systems, we may be able to turn the tide against runaway global warming, offering a powerful tool in the fight against climate change.