Australia's under-16 social media ban: Protecting kids or removing an essential resource?

This week's Friday's briefing: While it has its faults, social media isn’t a luxury for many teens—it’s a lifeline.

Photo by Aman Pal on Unsplash

This week, Australia made headlines with a bold move: banning social media for anyone under 16. On paper, it’s a victory for child safety—a shield against cyberbullying, predatory algorithms, and harmful content.

But as a parent, a journalist, and a champion of diversity and equity, I can’t help but ask: At what cost?

What are we protecting—and what are we losing?

Social media has its flaws—that is indisputable. Cyberbullying is rampant, leaving teens grappling with anxiety and depression. Body image issues fueled by unrealistic content have spiralled into mental health crises.

Algorithms designed to maximise engagement often trap young users in a cycle of harmful content.

However, for many teens, it is also a lifeline.

A 2022 Trevor Project study found that 45% of LGBTQIA+ youth turn to social media for peer support and mental health resources. For neurodiverse teens, platforms like TikTok host creators who share tips, lived experiences, and advice they cannot find anywhere else.

If we cut off access, where will they go? Will they find the information they need? Or will they retreat to unregulated corners of the internet where misinformation and harm thrive?

Unintended consequences of a well-intentioned law

Essential topics—sexual health, gender identity, mental health—could become inaccessible. Bans do not erase curiosity; they redirect it.

Teens are savvy. They will find ways to bypass restrictions, leaving them exposed to risks without the safeguards that the platforms are starting to implement.

Blanket bans can alienate the people they aim to protect. Instead of shutting doors, should not we empower them with tools and education?

Safety beyond bans: A holistic approach

If safety is the goal, banning social media is a blunt tool for a nuanced problem. Here’s what we can do instead:

• Equip teens with critical thinking skills to navigate online spaces safely—partner with schools to integrate digital literacy into curricula. Help parents understand the platforms their children use.

• Platforms must create safer environments. Child-friendly versions, like YouTube Kids, show this is possible. Incentivise innovation in this space.

• Create spaces where teens can discuss sensitive topics without judgment or fear. Shutting them out will not stop the conversation; it will only make it harder to hear.

• Governments, tech companies, and educators can collaborate more effectively than unilateral bans. Therefore, stricter advertising rules, transparent algorithms, and age-appropriate content guidelines should be enforced.

What’s next?

Australia’s decision is a global test case. Will it spark meaningful change or highlight the flaws of heavy-handed approaches?

As a parent of a neurodivergent child, I’m constantly navigating how to balance protection and empowerment. How do I keep my child safe without stifling her ability to connect, learn, and grow? This law forces me to confront a hard truth: There’s no single solution.

Legislation might feel like action, but it’s not the finish line. Proper safety lies in equipping young people with the tools to navigate the world—not in trying to block it from view.

I want to hear from you.

Should governments intervene more aggressively in tech?

How do we balance safety, access, and autonomy for young people?

Essential reading

- Canada's antitrust watchdog sues Google alleging anti-competitive conduct in advertising (Reuters)

- Alibaba releases an ‘open’ challenger to OpenAI’s o1 reasoning model (TechCrunch)

- TikTok will restrict some beauty filters for people under 18 (TikTok)

- Amazon, Google and Meta are ‘pillaging culture, data and creativity’ to train AI, Australian inquiry finds (The Guardian)

- Chinese authorities issue notice to regulate online platform algorithms (Technode)