Australia: Removing under-16 children from social media platforms, By Pinado Waba

Critics have pushed back, arguing that the ban is oversimplified, lacks robust evidence, and disregards youth perspectives.

The world is watching closely as Australia becomes the first country to attempt such a sweeping ban. Hundreds of thousands of adolescents are expected to be affected, with Instagram alone reporting approximately 350,000 Australian users aged 13 to 15. The government has positioned the ban as a protective measure, citing significant risks to young people’s mental health, including exposure to cyberbullying, harmful content, and predatory algorithms.

On Wednesday, 10 December, Australia will witness a historic moment: All young people below the age of 16 will be legally denied access to their social media accounts. This unprecedented move follows the passage of the Online Safety Amendment, also known as the social media Minimum Age Bill, in 2024.

Under this legislation, children under 16 will be excluded from major social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X, YouTube, Threads, Reddit, Twitch, and Kick. Social media companies will be required to take “reasonable steps” to remove and exclude underage users, with the responsibility for defining these steps resting with the eSafety Commission — Australia’s independent online safety regulator. The commission will also provide regulatory guidance on the implementation of these laws.

The world is watching closely as Australia becomes the first country to attempt such a sweeping ban. Hundreds of thousands of adolescents are expected to be affected, with Instagram alone reporting approximately 350,000 Australian users aged 13 to 15. The government has positioned the ban as a protective measure, citing significant risks to young people’s mental health, including exposure to cyberbullying, harmful content, and predatory algorithms. Reference is made to Jonathan Haidt’s book, The Anxious Generation, which argues that smartphone-based childhoods are fuelling a mental health epidemic — though these claims have faced criticism for the selective use of data and a narrow psychological focus.

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant has described the law as unique, noting that the initial implementation may not be perfect, while emphasising the importance of technical capability for mandatory age verification and systemic compliance with privacy standards. The legislation is also notable for involving two regulators: the eSafety Commission and the Privacy Commission, headed by Carly Kind, which oversees personal information under the Australian Privacy Act 1988. Recent amendments to this Act have introduced reforms requiring age verification for minors under 16.

Some platforms have already begun enforcing the new rules. Snapchat has implemented age restrictions, while Meta recently warned thousands of Australian children suspected to be under 16 to download their digital histories and delete their accounts from Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, before the ban takes effect. Meanwhile, Google is reportedly preparing a legal challenge against YouTube’s inclusion in the ban.

The government has stated that Meta’s platforms, Snapchat, TikTok, X, and YouTube must take reasonable steps to exclude Australian account holders under 16 or face fines of up to AU$50 million ($32 million). While acknowledging the ban’s imperfections, the government maintains that it will protect children and place greater responsibility on social media companies. The list of banned platforms may expand in future, as the eSafety Commission has indicated that it is not static.

While some have praised the move, others have condemned it, and the debate continues. For young people, there is some consolation in knowing that everyone in their age group is affected equally, reducing the fear of missing out. Some parents, previously reluctant to restrict their children’s social media use, have expressed relief that the decision has been made for them.

Critics have pushed back, arguing that the ban is oversimplified, lacks robust evidence, and disregards youth perspectives. In November, New South Wales Libertarian MP John Ruddic filed proceedings in the High Court, challenging the constitutionality of the ban and claiming that it infringes upon the implied right to freedom of political communication for 2.6 million young Australians. Ruddic has labelled the legislation “the most draconian of its type.”

Marginalised groups have also voiced concerns. While acknowledging the existence of harmful online content, many individuals report that digital environments allow them to express their authentic selves and build communities. In response, the eSafety Commission has permitted messaging and gaming apps, with platforms such as Roblox, Pinterest, and WhatsApp currently exempt, though this list remains under review.

The government anticipates that some teenagers will attempt to circumvent the ban, potentially by uploading fake IDs or using AI to alter their photos. Authorities have indicated that they will adapt to these challenges as they arise.

While some have praised the move, others have condemned it, and the debate continues. For young people, there is some consolation in knowing that everyone in their age group is affected equally, reducing the fear of missing out. Some parents, previously reluctant to restrict their children’s social media use, have expressed relief that the decision has been made for them.

Commissioner Julie Inman-Grant however has stated that authorities will monitor both the anticipated benefits and any unintended consequences, with hopes of seeing reductions in youth depression, improved school performance, and less cyberbullying.

Pinado Waba, a journalist, wrote from New South Wales, Australia.