A groundbreaking Australian law banning minors under the age of 16 from accessing social media platforms has sparked intense debate among experts, educators, and parents. Hailed as one of the strictest regulations of its kind globally, the legislation was passed with overwhelming support in parliament on Thursday. While some believe the law will mitigate online bullying and improve mental health, others warn it could drive children to unsafe corners of the internet.
The new law mandates that technology companies implement stringent age verification measures to prevent minors from creating accounts on platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and X (formerly Twitter). Companies failing to comply could face substantial fines. The ban is set to take effect in 12 months, following a trial period to refine enforcement mechanisms.
Clinical psychologist Danielle Einstein, a prominent advocate for the law, believes it addresses a pressing issue: the negative impact of social media on the mental well-being of young people.
Einstein, an adjunct fellow at Macquarie University specializing in social media’s effects on anxiety, highlighted the increasing challenges faced by schools. “Teachers are dedicating more time and resources to managing bullying that stems directly from social media interactions,” she said.
She linked these issues to a range of emotional challenges young people face, particularly during their formative years. “For children in early high school, there’s immense pressure to fit in, worry about whether people like you, and scrutinize how you look. Social media amplifies these insecurities,” Einstein explained.
She also noted the behavioral changes linked to excessive social media use, such as a lack of attentiveness, disengagement from real-life responsibilities, and an incessant need to check notifications. These habits, she argued, interfere with healthy development and contribute to mental health struggles.
Einstein dismissed privacy concerns about age verification as overblown, pointing out that similar data is already used in services like online banking. She drew comparisons to Australia’s ban on mobile phones in public schools, which led to a reported decrease in behavioral issues and an improvement in academic outcomes. “The phone ban proved to be beneficial. I expect this social media ban to yield similar improvements,” she said.
While proponents see the law as a step toward addressing online harm, critics argue it might have unintended consequences. Professor Amanda Third, co-director of the Young and Resilient Research Centre at Western Sydney University, expressed skepticism about its efficacy.
“Evicting children from social media platforms removes any incentive for tech companies to create safe, age-appropriate spaces for them,” Third argued. She warned that the ban could push young users toward unregulated platforms or hidden online forums where risks are greater.
This migration could expose minors to darker corners of the internet, where harmful content is prevalent and protective measures are absent. Moreover, Third cautioned, children circumventing the ban might avoid seeking help for fear of punishment. “When kids engage with illegal platforms, they lose the ability to reach out for support without fear of repercussions,” she said.
Critics like Third also stress that social media plays a pivotal role in shaping young people’s identities and fostering meaningful engagement. “Young people use these platforms to debate, learn new skills, and mobilize around issues such as climate change, which directly affect their futures,” she explained.
She contended that banning minors from social media would deprive them of opportunities to participate in critical conversations and advocacy efforts. “We’re placing significant barriers in front of their ability to engage meaningfully with their world,” she said.
Third also criticized the lack of youth involvement in crafting the law, noting that the policy was driven largely by parental anxieties. “While parents’ concerns are valid, a more inclusive approach could have resulted in strategies that better protect and empower young people in online spaces,” she said.
The mixed reactions reflect the complexity of balancing online safety with children’s rights to digital participation. Proponents of the law, like Einstein, argue that the long-term benefits outweigh the challenges. They believe the regulation will reduce the emotional toll of social media on young users and provide them with healthier developmental environments.
Critics, however, fear that banning access could have counterproductive effects, pushing children to unsafe alternatives and curtailing their digital freedoms. They argue that education and collaboration with tech companies would be more effective in ensuring safer online experiences.
The Australian government has announced a year-long trial period to refine the law’s enforcement strategies. This phase will likely involve collaboration with tech companies to establish robust age-verification systems and measures to address privacy concerns.
As Australia becomes a global pioneer with this landmark legislation, other nations are closely watching. Whether the law achieves its intended goals or amplifies unintended risks will likely influence similar efforts worldwide.
For Australian parents, educators, and policymakers, the coming months will be a crucial test of how to strike the right balance between protecting young minds and empowering them in an increasingly digital world.
