The Australian government is taking bold steps to protect children from the potential harms of social media. A new proposal aims to restrict access to platforms like X, TikTok, Facebook, and Instagram for those under 16, sparking a heated debate across the country. Politically, this move enjoys broad support, including backing from opposition leaders and state officials across Australia. But while the plan is popular in theory, experts warn that practical challenges could render it ineffective or even counterproductive.
Next week, as details of the proposal are set to be tabled in Parliament, policymakers are being urged to consider the complex realities of implementing such a restriction in the digital age. For supporters, this legislative effort is a necessary, albeit imperfect, step to safeguard children’s well-being. Critics, however, argue that a blanket ban may only delay a young person’s exposure to social media without adequately addressing its risks.
The political backing for a social media age restriction is virtually unanimous across Australia. The national and regional political leaders agree that rising concerns over the mental health and safety of children warrant stringent action. The opposition has pledged that, had the current government not acted, it would have championed a similar approach after the upcoming election. Even Tasmania, which expressed a preference for a lower age limit of 14, has rallied behind the proposal.
The motivations behind the bipartisan support stem from a shared sense of urgency around issues like online bullying, exposure to explicit content, and predatory behaviors targeting minors. Politicians and advocacy groups alike argue that children do not possess the necessary maturity or life skills to navigate the complexities and pressures of social media responsibly.
Not everyone sees the ban as a step in the right direction. Seventeen-year-old Leo Puglisi, who founded the streaming platform 6 News Australia at just 11, has voiced concerns that those crafting the legislation may lack the lived experience to make informed decisions on the matter. According to Puglisi, social media has become deeply embedded in young people’s lives, serving as an essential tool for education, entertainment, and social engagement.
“With respect to the government and prime minister, they didn’t grow up in the social media age,” Puglisi stated. “Young people aren’t listening to the radio or reading newspapers or watching free-to-air TV. The reality is this ban, if implemented, is just kicking the can down the road for when a young person goes on social media.”
Puglisi’s stance is not without merit. Social media has indeed transformed into a cultural mainstay, shaping how young people consume information and communicate. As a nominee for the Young Australian of the Year award, his contributions to fostering informed discourse among youth exemplify the platform’s potential for positive influence.
For those advocating in favor of a strict age limit, social media poses undeniable risks to children, and an outright ban offers a means to reduce exposure to these dangers. Sonya Ryan, a cyber safety campaigner whose own daughter Carly fell victim to an online predator in 2007, believes that social media can be perilous for young users. Carly’s tragic case was one of Australia’s earliest instances of a fatal encounter between a minor and an online predator, illustrating the profound consequences of digital naivety.
“Kids are being exposed to harmful pornography, they’re being fed misinformation, there are body image issues, sextortion, online predators, bullying,” Ryan emphasized. “There are so many different harms for them to try and manage, and kids just don’t have the skills or life experience to be able to manage those well.”
Ryan’s story resonates deeply with parents and guardians across Australia, particularly amid a rising tide of social media-related incidents and mental health crises among minors. The campaigner is currently advising the Australian government on a national strategy to combat child sexual abuse, further underscoring her belief that keeping young children off social media can help avert potentially life-altering harm.
Yet, the technical means of enforcing this ban pose a significant challenge, especially with respect to user privacy. The enforcement mechanism that has gained traction among policymakers is digital identification technology. However, age estimation technology alone is notoriously unreliable, often leading to errors in user verification. Consequently, the most feasible option appears to involve digital IDs, requiring minors to present verifiable proof of age before accessing social media.
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, an agency tasked with enhancing online safety, has suggested it could serve as an independent authenticator of users’ ages. Under this model, users would verify their age with the commissioner’s office, allowing social media platforms to learn only whether an account holder is 16 or older without handling sensitive identity documents.
But this solution has its detractors. Professor Tama Leaver of Curtin University’s Internet Studies Department fears that responsibility for age verification might ultimately fall to social media companies themselves, a scenario he finds deeply problematic.
“The worst possible outcome seems to be the one that the government may be inadvertently pushing towards, which would be that the social media platforms themselves would end up being the identity arbiter,” Leaver warned. “They would be the holder of identity documents, which would be absolutely terrible because they have a fairly poor track record so far of holding on to personal data well.”
The proposal raises serious questions about the long-term implications of requiring digital identification, especially in an era of heightened privacy concerns. Cybersecurity breaches, hacking incidents, and data leaks are common, and the prospect of handing sensitive information to social media platforms could backfire, jeopardizing users’ privacy and safety.
The legislation, if passed, will grant social media platforms a year to comply with the new age restriction. During this period, platforms must establish procedures to enforce the age limit, either by developing or integrating identity verification mechanisms that meet regulatory standards. Compliance will be closely monitored by the eSafety Commissioner’s office, which has already made clear its intention to hold social media companies accountable for adherence to the new regulations.
Critics argue, however, that even a year may not be enough for platforms to adopt reliable verification methods. Social media companies have long grappled with fake accounts, underage users, and circumvention tactics, and experts contend that resourceful children may still find ways to bypass age restrictions.
Some experts are concerned that the ban could inadvertently amplify other issues that children face online. A recent study highlighted how restricting young people from mainstream social media platforms may push them toward less regulated, potentially more dangerous corners of the internet. By imposing a blanket ban, critics argue, the legislation could make it more challenging to monitor and guide children’s online activities.
A group of 140 technology and child welfare experts recently penned an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemning the 16-year age limit as “too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively.” Their letter suggests that a more nuanced approach could better protect children while allowing them to reap the benefits of social media under safe conditions. Many within this cohort advocate for enhanced digital literacy education to equip young users with the knowledge to navigate online spaces safely.
The question of how to regulate children’s access to social media touches on broader debates around children’s digital rights. While adults generally agree on the need to protect minors from online harm, the age at which children should begin to exercise autonomy in their online interactions is less clear. Critics of the proposed age limit argue that instead of blanket restrictions, young people should receive age-appropriate digital literacy education that emphasizes personal responsibility, critical thinking, and online safety.
“What is the cost if we don’t? If we don’t put the safety of our children ahead of profit and privacy?” Ryan posits, highlighting the urgency felt by many supporters of the ban.
The Australian government’s proposed social media ban for children under 16 represents an ambitious response to growing concerns around online safety. For proponents, the risks of doing nothing outweigh the potential drawbacks of a ban, particularly when the stakes include protecting vulnerable young people from predatory behavior, misinformation, and psychological distress.
However, as the legislation heads for debate, lawmakers face a delicate balancing act. Implementing an effective ban will require careful consideration of privacy concerns, technological limitations, and the impact on young people’s access to information and digital communities. Furthermore, with digital identification on the table, the government will need to navigate ethical and legal questions surrounding data privacy.
