In Australia it is illegal to use social networks for anyone under the age of 16. It is the first “ban” of this type in the world: an unprecedented decision carefully observed by governments and regulators around the world, which some teenagers have already resorted to. The objective of the law, which came into force today, Wednesday 10 December 2025, is to reduce exposure to harmful content among young people. The Canberra government states, in fact, that it wants to mitigate the negative impact of the «social media design features that encourage (young people) to spend more time in front of screens, while providing content that can harm their health and well-being». In this in-depth analysis we will analyze more closely the reasons behind the legislation, which does not punish minors but places the burden of verifying the age of users on the platforms. We will also see what the main doubts are about the feasibility of this, such as those relating to privacy risks, the possibility of evading controls via VPN or fake accounts and the limited coverage of the measure.
Because Australia has banned social media for children under 16
To understand the reasons behind the law in Australia that prohibits the use of social media by those under 16, we mention a study by Age Assurance Technology Trial commissioned in early 2025 that 96% of young people aged between 10 and 15 were using social media and that 7 in 10 of them had been exposed to harmful content, including misogynistic, violent content, promoting eating disorders and even suicide. In 1 in 7 cases, dangerous situations were revealed, such as solicitation by adults, and at least 5 in 10 users among those participating in the study were victims of cyberbullying.
Faced with such a worrying picture, the executive has introduced a minimum age threshold which, technically, does not represent a ban on minors, given that it does not provide sanctions for them or their parents: rather it is an obligation imposed on the platforms that provide these online services to adopt realistic measures to keep under 16s out of their ecosystems. Regarding the latter, all those that satisfy three conditions fall within the scope of the provision:
- Allow social interactions between users.
- Allow connections or mutual visibility.
- Offer the possibility to publish content.
This is the list of platforms identified as social media unusable by under 16s by the eSafety Commissioner, the independent agency of the Australian government responsible for regulating online safety:
- TikTok
- Threads
- Snapchat
- X (formerly Twitter)
- YouTube
- Twitch
- Kick.
Services that are not primarily based on sociality are excluded (for example YouTube Kids, Google Classroom or “pure” messaging apps), but also some clearly social platforms, such as LinkedIn (the latter excluded, most likely, due to the fact that it is used mainly by professionals and workers in general). It must also be said, however, that hybrid platforms, those that combine messaging and social functions (see WhatsApp and Telegram) could easily fall within the definition of “social network” given that they have functions that lean towards the latter direction (like the State). Their absence from the Australian government’s “black list” could create an interpretative boundary that is not always clear and perfectly coherent.
Doubts about the feasibility of the Australian “social media ban”.
The big tech companies concerned have greeted the Australian law with some hostility. Some, like YouTube, claim that they are not true “social networks” and say that the regulation could push young people towards unmonitored ways of using it, for example by logging in without an account and thus losing security filters. Others, like Meta, have started processes to deactivate teen accounts, while recognizing that the entire ecosystem could prove inconsistent: kids could migrate to other services that are not currently under the Canberra government’s lens, or create accounts via VPNs and alternative identities.
The most significant criticisms, however, concern privacy: to effectively enforce the age limit requires enormous amounts of data, including identity documents and biometric information, and in a country that has suffered major cybersecurity breaches in recent years the topic is quite sensitive. The government, in defending its position, argues that all information collected for age verification purposes will have to be destroyed after verification, with severe penalties for misuse.
Still on the subject of sanctions, doubts have been raised regarding the real usefulness of those imposed on platforms in the event of any non-compliance. Former Facebook executive Stephen Scheeler said that «It takes Meta approximately one hour and 52 minutes to achieve sales of A$50 million». By virtue of this, how much of a deterrent can inflicting the maximum sentence (49.5 million Australian dollars, the equivalent of approximately 28.2 million euros) on such a giant be?
Finally, the issue of the real effectiveness of the measure remains. Critics believe that an approach based solely on restricting access is insufficient to mitigate risks and that more robust education programs would have a greater impact in the long run.
In any case, it will be interesting to see how the approach used by Australia can influence other countries. Just to name a couple, Denmark has announced its intention to ban social media for those under 15 and Norway is also considering a similar solution. We will see.
