Australia Implements a Social Media Ban for Teens Under 16
On December 10th teens across Australia woke up to find their social media accounts deactivated and blocked due to a new law that bans social media for teens under 16 years old. This makes Australia the first country in the world to put a nationwide ban on several major social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, X, YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, Kick, and Threads.
The law, which is officially known as the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act of 2024, forced the companies to block underage users through methods like government IDs, face or voice recognition, or through “age inference”, where the app analyzes online behavior to estimate a person’s age.
Companies who do not take the proper precautions can face fines up to 49.5 million Australian dollars or about 32 million U.S dollars. Children and parents won’t be punished for breaking these rules.
Some supporters see this as a first step to protect kids’ and teens’ mental health while others feel it’s not necessary, underdeveloped, and could lead to unintended consequences especially since the methods to prevent users under 16 from using those platforms are not reliable yet.
Critics of the ban also point out the selection of apps that have been chosen to be banned. While major social media networks have been chosen, gaming apps such as Discord are exempt from the ban in addition to dating apps and AI chat bots, some of which are infamous for sensual conversations with minors and encouraging children to end their lives.
“I think that some social media apps like Instagram and Snapchat should be banned but other apps like YouTube and Discord shouldn’t be included with the other apps that are banned,” said freshman Rene Chacon.
Tech companies have also voiced their own concerns about how practical the ban really is. Google and Meta have warned that age verification software is very prone to error. Others argue that age verification could lead to high data collection and surveillance of users. Some early reports already suggest that teenagers have already found ways around the restrictions.
The Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese stated that the ban is in response to growing evidence linking social media use to anxiety, depression, less sleep, and cyberbullying among teenagers. Government officials say that children are constantly being shown algorithm driven content designed to keep them engaged and by limiting their access during developmental years for their life that the ban, as said by Albanese, will give young people “the space to grow up without constant online pressure.”
Children under the age of 16 can still view public social media content without creating an account. However, they will not be able to post, comment, like, or message through those platforms.
Legal challenges have made the process more complicated. On December 12, Reddit filed a case in Australia’s High Court, arguing that the law is unconstitutional and that Reddit shouldn’t be included with the other apps under the ban. They claim the ban could restrict political discussion and anonymous participation.
In a separate case, two Australian teens Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, supported by a digital rights organization, also challenged the law stating that it unfairly limits young people’s ability to communicate. In both cases, the government stood firm in their stance and continued to implement the ban.
Some human rights organizations have also criticized the policy such as Amnesty International describing the ban as a “blunt instrument,” arguing that it does not address the root cause of online harm and risks pushing young people into less regulated digital spaces instead.
Some child development experts state that social media can be a source of support networks, educational resources, and creative outlets especially for marginalized youth. Arguing that improved moderation and education may be more effective than a ban.
Despite the many criticisms, many parents and educators in Australia have welcomed the change. Teachers in several Australian states report that ever since the ban that there has been improved focus and fewer distractions during school hours. Some parents state that the law helps to reinforce the boundaries that were difficult to enforce at home because of the pressure to be online.
The law’s impact has reached beyond Australian borders as several other countries are also closely observing the results of the ban. In late December, France announced plans to introduce a similar ban for children under 15 set to be reviewed and debated in early 2026 and aiming to be implemented by September 2026 along with a ban on phones in high school.
Other lawmakers in parts of Europe and Asia have labeled Australia’s ban as a possible model for the future. This shift toward stricter age-based social media regulation could very well mean that these kinds of bans will become more common throughout the world.
”I wouldn’t be in favor if the ban was put in the U.S, though it wouldn’t affect me necessarily. Although there should definitely be some age restrictions set in place, I certainly wouldn’t be in favor of a ban for teens. Many people rely on social media to find their sense of community. Keeping that from teens ruins their chance to find what they like and be like themselves, even when those in the real world may ridicule them for it or see them as less of a cool person,” said junior Nathan Fonseca.
As the ban continues, the Australian government said it will monitor how effective the law is and adjust regulations as necessary. They emphasize that the policy is not meant to be the final answer to online harm but part of a larger strategy including education, parental tools, and stronger platform accountability.
As it possibly lays the groundwork for more bans in other countries, it has the potential to affect millions of kids, teens, and students who rely on these apps to communicate with friends and others with shared interests. As of now, whether this ban will succeed in truly protecting children without creating other risks or preventing their rights is unclear and will need more time to actually see its effectiveness.
