Australia has enacted a world-first ban on social media for users aged under 16, causing millions of children and teenagers to lose access to their accounts.
Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Kick, Twitch and TikTok are expected to have taken steps from Wednesday to remove accounts held by users under 16 years of age in Australia, and prevent those teens from registering new accounts.
Platforms that do not comply risk fines of up to $49.5m.
There have been some teething problems with the ban’s implementation. Guardian Australia has received several reports of those under 16 passing the facial age assurance tests, but the government has flagged it is not expecting the ban will be perfect from day one.
All listed platforms apart from X had confirmed by Tuesday they would comply with the ban. The eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, said it had recently had a conversation with X about how it would comply, but the company had not communicated its policy to users.
Bluesky, an X alternative, announced on Tuesday it would also ban under-16s, despite eSafety assessing the platform as “low risk” due to its small user base of 50,000 in Australia.
Parents of children affected by the ban shared a spectrum of views on the policy. One parent told the Guardian their 15-year-old daughter was “very distressed” because “all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat”. Since she had been identified as under 16, they feared “her friends will keep using Snapchat to talk and organise social events and she will be left out”.
Others said the ban “can’t come quickly enough”. One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media and the ban “provides us with a support framework to keep her off these platforms”.
“The fact that teenagers occasionally find a way to have a drink doesn’t diminish the value of having a clear, national standard.”
Polling has consistently shown that two-thirds of voters support raising the minimum age for social media to 16. The opposition, including leader Sussan Ley, have recently voiced alarm about the ban, despite waving the legislation through parliament and the former Liberal leader Peter Dutton championing it.
The ban has garnered worldwide attention, with several nations indicating they will adopt a ban of their own, including Malaysia, Denmark and Norway. The European Union passed a resolution to adopt similar restrictions, while a spokesperson for the British government told Reuters it was “closely monitoring Australia’s approach to age restrictions”.
social media does have its benefits though, like the democratisation of the press.
I’m of the opinion that simply banning advertisements outright destroys the incentive structure that exists to keep social media bad
Banning advertisements to kids is the correct approach. I’ve observed with my own kids, they genuinely don’t yet have the mental faculties to be critical of advertisements. They see something advertised, they want it, simple as that. Their brains aren’t developed enough for content with advertising nor product placement.
Maybe there’s a sweet spot in limiting it to toy ads and ads for other content on the same platform that they’re watching. I’m not sure, I’m not a child psychologist, but kids should not be presented ads for energy drinks/drink supplements (I wish I was kidding but I’ve specifically had to have a conversation with my daughter about why we’re not buying the drink band owned by a certain YouTube celebrity who got himself banned from returning to Japan) nor for restaurants (especially not fast food!) nor for sketchy paid mod launchers for games (fuck you to the like only YouTuber who focuses entirely on Wobbly Life and is constantly advertising that!), nor most of the other things I’ve seen advertised to the kids recently