\n<\/p>\n
In a move worthy of a post on the Not Like Other Girls subreddit<\/a>, Reddit, one of the world\u2019s largest social platforms, is arguing that it isn\u2019t like other, actual social media sites, as the company seeks to overturn Australia\u2019s law banning children under 16 years of age from social media.<\/p>\n In a lawsuit filed with Australia\u2019s top court<\/a>, Reddit argues the law, which came into force on December 10, limits free political discourse by preventing children from airing their views online, and should be overturned. <\/p>\n And if the legislation isn\u2019t overturned, the company says it should be exempted from the law because it doesn\u2019t meet the legislation\u2019s definition of a \u201csocial media platform.\u201d<\/p>\n Reddit is essentially asking the Australian High Court to address some of the questions raised about the legislation, which requires 10 major services to deactivate under-16s\u2019 accounts and prevent them from using the app. Critics argue that the law infringes on children\u2019s rights, and companies have sought to raise questions about what \u201csocial media\u201d even defines.<\/p>\n Indeed, calling itself a \u201ccollection of public fora arranged by subject,\u201d Reddit brought up definitions of the word \u201csocial\u201d in its filing to make the case that \u201cit is not the sole or a significant purpose of Reddit to enable persons to interact \u2018in a social manner\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cReddit enables online interactions about the content that users post on the site. It facilitates knowledge sharing from one user to other users. It is not a significant purpose of the site to enable interactions engaged in because of a particular user\u2019s relationship with or interest in another user as a person [\u2026] Reddit is significantly different from other sites that allow for users to become \u201cfriends\u201d with one another, or to post photos about themselves, or to organise events,\u201d the filing reads.<\/p>\n