Explained: Australia’s law banning social media for children under 16, its criticisms

Here is what to know about the provisions and why the Bill has been criticised not only by tech companies but also by some activists and groups working on teen mental health.

What does the Bill say?

The Bill notes, “There are age restrictions for certain social media platforms. A provider of such a platform must take reasonable steps to prevent children who have not reached a minimum age from having accounts.”

Having passed the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Bill will come into effect within a year. A trial is ongoing to test age verification. Minister of Communications Michelle Rowland said, “Over the next 12 months, we’ll work closely with industry and experts to ensure the minimum age is effectively implemented, informed by the findings of the Age Assurance Technology Trial currently underway.”

One of the key concerns around such a Bil has been user age verification. Currently, social media websites such as Instagram require users to provide their date of birth and meet the age criteria to create an account. However, companies do not check if this information is correct.

In some countries, social media companies are mandated to require government IDs as proof of age, but serious privacy concerns have been raised around sensitive personal data being provided to companies. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in a statement, “The bill also makes clear that no Australian will be compelled to use government identification (including Digital ID) for age assurance on social media. Platforms must offer reasonable alternatives to users.”

As a result, facial recognition technology could be an alternative for estimating users’ ages, but it could be prone to errors and result in minors’ private data being collected. The Bill adds that if a social media entity holds personal information, collected to prevent age-restricted users from having accounts, then it must “destroy the information after using or disclosing it for the purposes for which it was collected”. Failure to do so will be seen as a breach of privacy under the law.

Notably, access to online gaming and apps associated with education and health support (like Google Classroom and YouTube) will be allowed.

What was the rationale for the social media ban?

The government’s argument speaks of the negative impact of social media on children. Albanese said that the measure “will deliver greater protections for young Australians during critical stages of their development.”

Similar arguments have been made elsewhere of late, as social media has become an inescapable part of modern life. American psychologist Jonathan Haidt, in his best-selling 2024 book The Anxious Generation, said smartphones and the Internet have replaced the “play” element of childhood.

He said, “We’ve had a play-based childhood for literally 200 million years because we’re mammals and all mammals play. That’s how we wired up our brains. Somewhere in the 1990s, it stopped—and stopped dead by 2010. It faded away and was replaced, very suddenly, by the phone-based childhood… If you went through puberty on a smartphone with a front-facing camera and Instagram and social media, and five hours a day of social media, nine hours a day of screen time, you are at much, much higher risk of being anxious and depressed.”

Haidt has argued for moving away from phones and instituting strict age limits. However, his views have been criticised too, for painting a one-sided picture. Psychology professor Candice Odgers wrote an article for Nature on how data regarding the comprehensive impact of social media shows a range of findings. Several studies point to the positive effects of social media on teens.

“The telephone, rock ’n’ roll, comic books and romance novels all elicited panic. As a parent, I am sympathetic. One in three Internet users worldwide is a child, and the explosion of algorithmically selected content in particular raises legitimate concerns about responsibility and agency. Yet the design of a digital world that is safe, inclusive, stimulating and nurturing for all requires that we resist fear-based reactions. Instead, we must use the data to understand the very different experiences that young people from diverse backgrounds are having online,” she wrote.

Why has the Australian social media law been criticised?

One set of critics has been Big Tech corporations. Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, said: “We are concerned about the process which rushed the legislation through while failing to properly consider the evidence, what industry already does to ensure age-appropriate experiences, and the voices of young people.”

Sunita Bose, managing director of Digital Industry Group, which has most social media companies as members, also told Reuters that the practical implications are unclear. “The community and platforms are in the dark about what exactly is required of them,” she said.

Activists also pointed to social media providing a sense of community to young people, particularly those from vulnerable backgrounds, facing bullying, belonging to the LGBTQ community, etc. A blanket ban could, in turn, prove detrimental to their well-being.

Even among some supporters of a ban, there were concerns about workarounds such as VPNs (which can show the Internet being accessed from a different location) and the ban’s effectiveness.