Australia has just outlawed under-16s from having social media accounts, citing risks to children and teenagers caused by social media usage as the reason. But how effective is the ban in reality? Can it really protect young people online, and do they even need protection to begin with? 

‘Strong case’ for social media ban in UK children, says home secretary – but police won’t be involved

Shabana Mahmood backs preventing under-16s accessing the platforms – but says police will not be involved in regulating any ban. The government is launching a consultation on whether to implement restrictions.

As of today, The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024’s provisions have taken force, making it illegal for anyone under 16 years old in Australia to hold or create an account on most major social media companies, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, Kick and Threads. The law doesn’t just apply to new sign-ups — companies must also take “reasonable steps” to remove existing under-16 accounts. Backed by the Australian federal government, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 imposes fines of up to nearly 50 million Australian dollars on platforms that fail to comply.

This is a bold step in a world where social media is so prominent in the lives of almost everyone, especially among young people. Australia’s decision is driven by growing concerns over the mental, emotional, and social well-being of young people in the digital age. Government officials point to mounting evidence that prolonged and excessive exposure to social media can contribute to cyberbullying, online harassment, grooming, and addictive behaviours. These risks have been linked to higher rates of anxiety, depression, poor self-esteem, and other mental health challenges among teenagers. By restricting access, the government aims to reduce these harms and create a safer online environment for Australia’s youth. Beyond mental health concerns, the law reflects a preventative approach to the challenges posed by algorithm-driven platforms. Social media algorithms are designed to maximize user engagement. Algorithms can read users sometimes scarily well, pushing content that appeals to their interests or beliefs, often leading to addiction or ‘doom-scrolling’, with users mindlessly scrolling for hours on end, resulting in unproductivity and a poor sleep schedule. The algorithms also tend to push content that can be inappropriate or emotionally manipulative for young audiences. Children and early teens are particularly vulnerable to pressures from social comparison, viral trends, and misinformation, which can affect their self-image and social development.

So the Australian government’s reasoning to ban social media for under 16s is well-intentioned and understandable. It is clear that aspects of social media can be damaging for young people, impacting their wellbeing in a plethora of ways. However, is a country-wide total ban really the best way to address these problems?

The ban is arguably an excessive measure. Some argue that in a world dominated by technology and social media, young people should instead be taught safe online behaviours from early on in order to be better suited for their inevitable future use of social media and the internet. Rather than teaching young people how to navigate social media safely, it prohibits access entirely, potentially leaving them unprepared for responsible online engagement later.

There is also concern that the ban could drive under-16s to less-regulated or underground platforms, where risks of inappropriate content or privacy breaches may be even greater.

Another common concern is enforceability. Social media platforms host millions of users, and accurately verifying the age of each account presents significant difficulties. Young people can circumvent restrictions by providing false birthdates, using parental accounts, or accessing platforms through VPNs. As a result, questions remain as to whether the law will genuinely achieve its intended purpose of keeping children off social media, or whether it will only inflict administrative burdens and fines on platforms.

Many are also concerned about their privacy. Companies may be forced to implement measures such as facial recognition or ID verification. While these tools could help identify underage users, they also involve the collection and storage of sensitive personal information, raising the potential for misuse or data breaches. The question of enforceability also arises again here, as facial recognition technology could mistake a young person for someone over 16, allowing them to use the platform illegally. Alternatively, the technology could also bar someone who is actually over 16 from accessing social media if they are mistaken for someone younger.

The ban could also unintentionally isolate vulnerable groups. For many young people, social media provides crucial social and emotional support, particularly for young people in marginalised communities or those facing challenging home environments. Removing access to these social media platforms may limit opportunities for connection, guidance, and peer support for those who desperately need it at a critical stage of development – their teenage years.

The ban also carries negative implications for social media content creators, particularly those under 16 or those whose audiences are made up of primarily younger demographics. For current young creators, many of whom have built substantial followings on platforms like TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram, the legislation may abruptly halt their ability to produce or monetise content, disrupting their entire livelihood. Years of effort, creativity, and audience engagement could be disrupted overnight, affecting not only their online presence but also potential income streams and future opportunities.

Additionally, aspiring creators under 16 may find themselves excluded from a rapidly evolving digital economy that increasingly values online influence and creativity. While the Australian government argues that young people should focus on offline development, critics worry that the ban may limit opportunities for early skill-building in areas such as digital storytelling, video production, and entrepreneurship. As a result, Australia risks delaying or discouraging a new generation of digital talent.

Many ponder what this bold and controversial step taken by Australia could mean for the rest of the world. Australia is the first country to introduce such a sweeping under-16 social-media ban, meaning many governments around the world are watching closely. If Australia’s new measures reach the desired result of improved online safety, other nations may also consider similar amendments.

Australia’s under-16 social media ban marks one of the most significant shifts in the country’s digital policy landscape, and its impact is already prompting national and international discussion. On one hand, the government’s intentions are clear: to reduce exposure to online harms such as cyberbullying, grooming, addictive algorithms, and inappropriate content. However, the criticisms highlight equally significant considerations. Enforcing the ban at scale presents practical challenges, and some worry about the privacy risks associated with age-verification systems. Others argue that removing young people from social media entirely may isolate vulnerable teens or limit opportunities for early digital skill-building. Content creators and aspiring influencers may also face disruptions, potentially affecting their ability to participate in a rapidly growing digital industry or fulfil their passion of content creation. Critics additionally question whether such a broad restriction is proportionate, or whether a more targeted, education-based approach could strike a better balance and better equip Australia’s youth for their inevitable future engagement with technology. Ultimately, Australia’s decision is neither a perfect solution nor an insignificant one. It is a bold attempt to address valid concerns about young people’s online experiences, despite its many drawbacks. As the policy unfolds, its long-term effectiveness will depend not only on enforcement, but on wider conversations about the evolving role of social media in young people’s lives.

Written by Elias Reynolds (16), work experience at Loving Social Media

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/dec/10/australia-social-media-ban-platforms-still-allowing-children-teens-create-accounts-reddit-youtube