With considerable fanfare and a degree of questionable premise, Australia’s attempt to shield under-16s from social media platforms entered into force in December, touted as a progressive step towards safeguarding youth wellbeing. Initial expectations – of a mass exodus from platforms like Snapchat and TikTok, a resurgence in library visits and a renewed embrace of traditional sports – have largely failed to materialize, raising questions about the efficacy and enforceability of the legislation.
The policy, enacted after bipartisan support in Parliament, mandates that social media companies take “reasonable steps” to prevent Australians under the age of 16 from creating or maintaining accounts. However, as , the official start date, arrived, reports emerged of minimal disruption. Amelie, a 15-year-old student interviewed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, expressed disappointment at the lack of visible change, noting the ease with which age verification measures could be circumvented.
The Australian initiative has sparked a global debate, with other nations – including Denmark, the United Kingdom, and members of the European Union – considering similar restrictions. However, the rollout in Australia has been met with increasing criticism, not only for its practical challenges but also for its underlying assumptions about the harms of social media.
The legislation’s foundation rests on concerns about the potential negative impacts of social media on young people’s cognitive, emotional, and social wellbeing. An impact assessment by the Office of Impact Analysis cited concerns raised by Queensland’s Chief Health Officer. However, the same report acknowledged the potential benefits of social media, including fostering a sense of belonging and reducing isolation, and conceded that research on the topic remains inconclusive.
a growing body of research challenges the narrative of inherent harm. A study from the Oxford Internet Institute, examining data from nearly one million individuals across 72 countries, found that evidence of negative psychological outcomes associated with social media use was “more speculative than conclusive.” Similarly, research by the Pew Research Center has highlighted the positive aspects of social media for teenagers, including enhanced social connection, community support, and creative expression.
More recent findings, published in in the Journal of JAMA Pediatrics, revealed a more nuanced relationship between social media use and adolescent wellbeing. A cohort study of over 100,000 Australian adolescents indicated a U-shaped association, with moderate social media use correlating with the best wellbeing outcomes. Both abstaining from social media entirely – particularly among boys – and excessive use were linked to poorer wellbeing. Researchers cautioned that these findings are observational and require further investigation.
Further complicating the picture, a study published in the Journal of Public Health examined data from 25,000 British 11- to 14-year-olds over three school years. The researchers concluded that their findings “challenge the widespread assumption that time spent on these [social media and gaming] technologies is inherently harmful and highlight the need for more nuanced perspectives that consider the context and individual differences in their use.”
Critics within Australia have also questioned the practicality of the ban. Susan McLean, founder of Cyber Safety Solutions, pointed out the ease with which children can access alternative platforms and circumvent restrictions. The legislation’s focus on age verification raises significant privacy concerns, requiring platforms to collect and store sensitive data, potentially exposing all users to risk.
The implementation of the ban has also been marred by controversy surrounding the funding of the pro-ban campaign, 36 months
. Crikey reported that the campaign was run by an advertising firm, FINCH, which also works with the online betting firm TAB, raising questions about potential conflicts of interest and the motivations behind the push for stricter regulations.
The Australian government’s prioritization of social media restrictions while simultaneously delaying action on advertising in gambling – despite recommendations from a parliamentary inquiry – has drawn further criticism. This disparity suggests a selective approach to protecting young people from potentially harmful influences.
The ban is currently facing a legal challenge in the Australian High Court, brought by two 15-year-olds, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, with support from the Digital Freedom Project. They argue that the policy is disproportionate and infringes upon the implied constitutional right to political communication. The case underscores the growing legal and ethical concerns surrounding the government’s intervention in the digital lives of young people.
As the Australian experiment unfolds, its implications extend far beyond its borders. The global debate over social media regulation is likely to intensify, with policymakers grappling with the complex challenge of balancing the need to protect young people with the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and access to information. The initial results from Australia suggest that a blanket ban may not be the answer, and that a more nuanced, evidence-based approach is required.
