As a media and communications lecturer, I've been closely following the developments around Australia's proposed social media minimum age legislation, particularly given my expertise in digital communications and my commitment to fostering safe and constructive online communities.

The accelerated timeline for passing this legislation raises significant concerns about proper consultation and careful consideration of its implications. While I share the goal of protecting young people online, my experience researching digital communications suggests that blanket prohibitions often have unintended consequences.

Several key observations stand out to me:

1. The need for nuanced approaches: My research indicates that social media can benefit and harm young people. Rather than an outright ban, we need to focus on developing digital literacy and creating safer online spaces. The bill's current form may inadvertently push young people toward less regulated spaces.

2. The importance of youth voices: The Senate committee's inability to hear directly from young people in such a compressed timeframe is concerning. As someone who works with young people, I know their perspectives are crucial for developing effective policy.

3. Privacy and implementation challenges: The proposed age verification requirements raise important privacy considerations that warrant careful examination. We must ensure that protecting young people doesn't compromise everyone's digital privacy rights.

4. Support for parents and educators: While the bill aims to empower parents, complementary measures focused on digital literacy education and support for families navigating these challenges are needed.

The government's social media ban for children under 16 is defensible based upon the toxic nature of the social media platforms being banned. There are certainly going to be problems with implementing the ban effectively, and it is concerning that the government seems to be ramming the legislation through without proper community feedback; as a result there are real concerns about the effectiveness of this move.

However, this legislation recognises a central problem that social media presents: we are letting private companies, designed primarily to make profit out of our most personal weaknesses, occupy the role of public space that is so central in the formation of our identities. There is a place for well constructed and well meaning social media in the lives of both adults and teenagers; but the platforms targeted by this legislation do not care about the well being of their users. 

It is clear that parents are calling for regulation that better protects their children online. However, the legislation that passed through parliament yesterday is a blunt instrument that will not better protect our children online, and appears to undermine other regulatory mechanisms designed to hold technology platforms to account, such as the very important statutory duty of care. But crucially, this legislation lets down our next generation. It deprives them of an important source of social connection and support, access to information, education, and one of the few means available to them to express their views on civic and political issues that impact their everyday worlds and futures.

The government will have to work very hard indeed in the coming twelve months to ensure that they consult properly – with experts and with children and young people – on the implementation of this legislation, to make sure that it is properly thought through and does not lead to unintended consequences. Currently, political expediency has trumped what is best for our children and young people. From here on, I want to see our government genuinely put children’s and young people’s needs, rights and aspirations first.

While protecting young people online is crucial, the details of Australia's world-first social media age ban legislation reveal significant implementation challenges and definitional nuances that warrant careful consideration.

The legislation takes a principles-based approach to defining covered platforms rather than naming specific services. It establishes a three-part test focusing on the purpose of enabling social interaction, user-to-user connections, and content posting capabilities. While media reports have suggested certain platforms will be included or exempt, the actual legislation leaves this to be determined through the application of these criteria and subsequent legislative rules.

This framework-based approach provides flexibility but may create implementation challenges as platforms evolve and blend social, educational, and communication features. The eSafety Commissioner will play a crucial role in interpreting these definitions and developing guidelines for compliance.

The 12-month implementation period is established in law, not just policy, with specific privacy protections mandated for any age verification systems. Platforms must destroy verification data after use, and all consent must be 'voluntary, informed, current, specific and unambiguous.'

Most critically, while the legislation gives the eSafety Commissioner power to create guidelines for 'reasonable steps' in age verification, it leaves the technical implementation largely undefined. This flexibility could allow for evolving technological solutions but also creates uncertainty for platforms.

The 30,000 penalty unit maximum fine (approximately $49.5 million) applies not just to age verification failures but also to privacy breaches in the verification process - suggesting privacy protection is being treated as seriously as age restriction itself.

I was pleased to hear of the social media ban for under 16s in Australia. Given the established research on social media’s negative effects on mental health and body image, and because our early teenage years are a crucial time for identity and brain development, banning social media for this age group and under is an important step towards protecting young people’s mental health.

It is vital that research continues in this area, so that we can properly evaluate the potential benefits of this change in the hope that other countries will follow. 

There are literally thousands of social media platforms, and the government will not be able to police all of them. It also seems that this decision has been made without careful review of the 15000 submissions made by the public regarding this legislation.

Banning technology on its own is not the answer and may also have negative consequences.

Research from the University of the Sunshine Coast’s Thompson Institute suggests that in a cyberbullying situation, cutting off access to technology can have negative impacts because it also isolates the victim from their support network.

This problem is much more complex than a ban can fix. There needs to be greater education for children, parents, and the wider community regarding the critical, safe, and responsible use of technology including social media.

The social media ban is an important first step in ensuring children return to a healthy developmental environment for their physical, psychosocial and emotional development.  All of which are foundations to building good interpersonal relationships, self-regulation and advanced cognitive skills such as critical thinking and theory of mind (understanding the mindsets, intentions and agendas of other people).  The logistics of the ban remain under question, and I look forward to seeing how this will be managed.  However, if successful, this will give parents and families the opportunity to reclaim childhood, and ensure the building blocks of the brain are set in place before exposure to what has proved to be a most pernicious influence.  I suspect the rest of the world is taking such an extraordinary interest in this Australian initiative, to see when and how they can best follow suit for improved wellbeing of their future generations.

The Australian government has rushed through the Social Media Minimum Age Bill. The Bill bans young Australians under the age of 16 from holding accounts on online services that meet the definition of age-restricted social media. The ban will not help young people long-term, will be unenforceable and will create more harm than good. Young people and youth services have not been sufficiently consulted.

The Bill will drive innovation in age assurance systems, rather than improving the online spaces that young people inhabit. This will mean that social media spaces will not become less harmful but potentially more so, as dis/misinformation and targeted algorithmic advertising intensifies. 

Age assurance systems are experimental and require the sharing of sensitive personal documents such as proof of ID or biometric data. This will apply to all Australians, not just young people, and will likely result in significantly reduced data privacy and security. We found in our eSafety funded research that parents and young people do not trust social media companies to be responsible with their personal information.

Young people under 16 who rely heavily on social media to access mental health help and communities of support, will now be excluded and this could lead to increased social isolation and compounding harms, because some will continue to access social media through other means, including newer and less well known ‘fringe’ platforms.  The ban does not provide for the digital skills and regulations that parents and carers need to effectively support their children to maximise the benefits of online services for their wellbeing. 

The Bill shows a lack of understanding of the internet today and its governance needs. The internet has become platformised and almost all platforms now have social media functionality. The powers given to the Communications Minister to determine which platforms are included in the definition of age-restricted means that one person will have extraordinary powers to determine what children have access to. There are no clear mechanisms for how these decisions will be determined.

One thing that is clear from the dialogue on this social media ban is that people really care about young people, and that parents, lawmakers and academics are all acting in good faith. At the same time, the evidence in support of this intervention is a minefield, and it’s no surprise that there are strong opinions on both sides of the debate.

I am confident our young people will be fine without social media, but I do worry about what we as a society might have lost. The internet and social media have been great places for diverse people to find their voice, mobilise against climate change, and debate new ideas.

That is going to be a lot harder for our young people now.

I also think there needs to be a trade-off here. So many laws take things away, but don’t offer positive solutions either.

Our premiers at last month’s Social Media Summit made a commitment to making our urban spaces more inviting and encouraging to youth. We need to see follow through on this. Our culture needs to match that enthusiasm too and demonstrate a willingness to support young people being outdoors, collectivising and choosing their own path.

I welcome the idea of a social media ban in theory, but I don’t think it’s practical and it’s too difficult to govern or police.

It will probably push some social media activity underground because teens have a unique way of getting around things.

The resources needed to enforce this ban could be better used to educate parents on the negative impacts of social media use and how they can police it better in the home.

There is a fairly robust degree of literature that shows us screen devices are having a negative impact on the neurophysiology of the developing brain early in life.

In terms of social media, there’s a growing amount of evidence that shows us, by and large, that being on social media displaces young people from engaging in the types of activities they need to engage in for social and emotional development.

Social media allows them to be alone together living in a virtual world, but that does not afford them the benefits of being together in the same space in the real world.

This is a world-first.  But I don't think Australia has gotten this right and only time will tell how this is going to operate in reality.  Australia's knee-jerk reaction to ban under 16s from social media will not address harm online. It is largely based on moral panic and a limited diet of evidence, ignoring diverse perspectives, diverse evidence and research. The ban will likely push children into less regulated corners of the online world. Age verification technologies haven't yet been decided upon and global evidence shows their ineffectiveness. Youth voice has been missing from this process. Young people from the LGBTQI+ community, youth with disabilities, youth in rural and regional areas, and marginalised groups will lose their ways to connect and sense of belonging. It will negatively restrict young people's political and civil rights in organising climate action protests and connecting with global movements internationally. The social media ban is not compatible with international human rights instruments that Australia has signed up to.  This blunt instrument has been rushed through without proper consideration. Australia's better move would be to focus on introducing a duty of care, which would be more of a game-changer than banning kids.

The government’s social media ban is a reinforcement of the importance of dealing with the known harms of social media when it comes to adolescents’ mental health, sense of identity, and body image. This ban provides a welcome ‘window of opportunity’ – a chance to apply what we’ve learned through the substantial amount of research in this field, and the valuable resources that have already been developed. These resources can be used to help parents and young people cultivate the skills needed to navigate social media effectively and positively when the time comes. It would be incredible to see young people entering the world of social media equipped with skills of self-awareness, compassion for themselves and others, and the ability to critically consider the content they’re consuming. In addition, this ban sends a powerful message to social media platforms, asking them to take greater responsibility and improve their practices to ensure the well-being of young people, not just in Australia but all over the world.  

The Albanese government’s proposed bill to restrict social media use to those over 16 aims to protect children from harm, but faces constitutional hurdles under the implied freedom of political communication (IFPC). This freedom, rooted in Australia’s Constitution, protects against legislative burdens (for example, bans or restrictions) on communication about political issues.

Social media is essential for children’s political engagement, allowing for conversation, debate and galvanisation (unlike legacy media). Prominent youth activists like Greta Thunberg exemplify children’s role in shaping political discourse. Banning under-16s would disrupt their ability to participate and deprive society of their political voices. It would stunt the growth of personal political identities, which often begin in childhood.

If a case was brought, the High Court would assess whether the ban passes a proportionality test. While protecting children is a legitimate goal, the law must be suitable, necessary, and appropriately balanced against its impact on political communication. Questions arise about the law’s suitability, given potential implementation challenges and possible harm to children, such as isolation from supportive online communities. Additionally, the law’s necessity is dubious, as less restrictive measures, like platform duties of care, have been suggested by many, including a parliamentary inquiry.

The bill’s sweeping impact on political communication could outweigh its protective intent, which might render it constitutionally invalid. With the IFPC being a frequent subject of High Court scrutiny, this law could become the subject of a landmark case testing the limits of legislative power to restrict speech for protective purposes.

Discussions around alternatives to social media bans must prioritise sustainable, long-term strategies over quick fixes. While it’s crucial to protect young people from immediate harm like online hate and scams, banning social media doesn’t address the root causes or equip them with skills to navigate online risks.

Young people need support from peers, families and professionals to build self-worth and manage cyberbullying, scams and reputational damage effectively. This includes fostering critical thinking and critical literacy to distinguish between misinformation, opinion and fact.

Schools are well-placed to teach critical analysis of online content. Research shows students who learn these skills in school can apply them outside the classroom to critique social media.

Banning children from social media lets tech companies avoid accountability while depriving young people of potentially beneficial content and experiences.

With the passing of the bill this week to ban young people from social media, we need to keep talking about alternatives so the Senate approaches this with a long-term view, not a quick fix. Adults created this online genie, that we now seem to want to put back in the bottle, but at what cost to young people?

Certainly, young people who are experiencing vitriolic, damaging online hate via social media and have fallen prey to scams need to be protected from immediate harm. Removing the source of the hate or scam is important in the first instance, however, we also need to help young people develop robust self-worth through support from peers, family and professionals to navigate cyberbullying and other potentially harmful content such as sextortion scams. Long-term reputational damage to a young person’s self-image via the online spreading of lies can be devastating and life-threatening as we have sadly seen.  But as the cyber juggernaut continues to grow and morph, online bullying will likely never go away, so we cannot wrap kids in cotton wool forever.

Removing the source of potentially problematic content from within the reach of young people does nothing to help them traverse these spaces with a healthy, critical disposition. They will not miraculously wake up at 16 and be able to do this. They need to develop critical thinking and critical literacy practices to be able to distinguish mis/disinformation and opinion from truth and to work out what they think and believe. The Australian Curriculum: English provides ample opportunity for this to be covered in school lessons with a specific mandate for teachers to help students ‘learn to identify the opinions, assumptions, and points of view in texts’ and to ‘analyse how language is used to position individuals and groups’. Social media and advertising provide ideal material to do this. My research has shown how Australian school students are able to critically analyse social media out of school because they are learning how to do this in school.

Banning children from accessing social media lets the makers and peddlers of mis/disinformation and harmful opinion get away with it without taking responsibility for their part in its existence. Big tech companies making millions continue to benefit while young people are denied access to what can be innocuous, enjoyable material on social media just because some of it may be harmful.

What are some alternatives to banning social media for young people?

• Talk with young people about the time they spend on social media and what they get out of it/don’t get out of it. My research with 15-year-olds shows they are more critical of it than we think. We should encourage this critical view.  Work out with them how they want to balance it with other activities such as sport, music, reading books. Give them some control over how they use it. Banning and removing it will only make them angry and rebel and potentially push them to the dark web.
• Agree on designated spaces/places for being on social media - public places in the home - and others for where it is not used, for example in bed late at night.
• Encourage young people to see social media as just one of many spaces for learning from and enjoying information sharing.
• Discuss social media posts/videos openly in families as soon as kids are mature enough - bring it out in the open and defuse its power. The more we make it the bogey man, the more we will fear it.
• Discuss the ways people interact online. Often people hide behind anonymity in the online world to posit what is nothing more than emotion-fuelled (and at times alcohol and drug-fuelled) opinion. They would never say it to our face which says more about them.
• Play fact checker games - spot the false claim with Snopes.com rumour checker.
• Model responsible use of social media to your children and discuss - what are we as adults prepared to put online? Why? Why not?

When I have gone through the research being used in this debate with a fine-tooth comb, the source data does not support the claim that there are mental health benefits with unregulated social media use for under 16's. And even if there were to be some benefit, it is far outweighed by the harm. Our group published a scientific paper in October which showed that although a school program could impact social media use, it was not enough to change anxiety, depression or Fear of Missing Out.

I support this bill together with a raft of other initiatives to address algorithms, education for the whole community, and access of data for researchers. There is a crisis in our schools, families and young teens. In psychologists' and paediatricians' offices, we see the myriad of ways that social media use destabilises mental health. Parents are correct. This bill together with other changes will help many and influence our culture. In Australia we are going to prioritise the child’s right to healthy development.

For more information see my OpEd in the AFR (Social media hurts mental health); my article in The Conversation (There is reliable evidence social media harms young people debates about it are a misdirection), my article on LinkedIn (We must question mental health benefits of social media for under 16's My call to support the age legislation) as well as the evidence I submitted to the enquiry (written with 6 other esteemed clinical psychologists) and my opening statement at the Inquiry on Monday.

Although parliament has passed legislation to ban people under 16 from social media, there are many unanswered questions and challenges ahead. The legislation does not ban all children from viewing social media content. Rather, it bans them from having an account on some social media platforms. Content that can be viewed online without an account (e.g., from YouTube or Facebook) can still be viewed online. Messaging platforms and gaming platforms will be excluded, as will social media services whose "primary purpose” is “supporting the health and education” of users. The tech companies will be required to demonstrate they have taken “reasonable steps” to keep under 16s off the platforms, but these steps are not yet clearly defined. Tech companies may require individuals – of all ages – to provide ID to prove their age, or they may use facial recognition software to guess a user’s age. However, both strategies raise privacy concerns for users. We do not yet have the results of the UK-based trial on age assurance, and those results will not be available until mid-2025.
 
Not only will this ban be very difficult to enforce, technically, it will not hold tech companies responsible for eliminating potentially harmful content at source. The government’s proposed “digital duty of care” legislation (similar to the type of legislation already in place in the UK and the European Union) provided more concrete steps for managing harm, such as requiring tech companies to remove content and giving users clear pathways to complain about harmful content, including through the courts. However, that legislation has not yet been passed. One key concern about the passing of the social media ban is that parents may now become complacent, not realising that children can still access potentially harmful content online in other ways, and not believing they will need to provide support for social media use until children are over age 16. Parents are supportive of this legislation, but they may have a false sense of security and not realise the limitations and challenges that will come with implementation.
 
Social media play a major role in all people’s lives, including connecting those who are isolated and marginalised, as well as for educational purposes, including supporting mental health and wellbeing. Children and teens do need support in using social media, including technical and information literacy to use these platforms, which is a key role that teachers and parents can play in supporting them. They also need support in navigating harmful behaviour online (e.g., bullying), where adult support is critical. Young people may find ways to circumvent these bans (e.g., accessing content via older siblings’ accounts or using VPNs) but may not disclose to adults they have encountered harmful content due to being banned. Children need to gain the skills needed to navigate their online worlds – including via social media. Technology companies should be regulated to keep harmful content (e.g., deepfake pornography) off their sites and to ensure safety protocols are in place, to support all users."

For more information, please see my recent articles in The Conversation:
 
“Australia’s social media ban for kids under 16 just became law. How it will work remains a mystery.” The Conversation
 
“Australia will impose a “digital duty of care” on tech companies to reduce online harm. It’s a good idea – if it can be enforced” The Conversation

Social media has certainly had many negative impacts on society, including on vulnerable young people, but it also offers the opportunity for connection and belonging, to give people a voice, and to learn about the world. The challenge for governments in regulating social media is how to minimise harm, while still allowing opportunity to benefit from its positive aspects. Whether they have accounts or not, young people will still be able to access content circulating on social media and can thus still be harmed by it if it is perpetuating hate, promoting falsehoods, and dividing society. It is important the government continues to explore different ways to regulate all kinds of media – social media and mainstream media – to make sure the entire media ecosystem is contributing positively to society, and not causing harm.

We need to empower young people to use social media in a pro-social way to counteract bullying and to support mental health and wellbeing overall. The ban has merit; however, we need to further support health literacies and services to enable young people to explore and engage in helpful ways beyond a possible ban. Young people from diverse backgrounds access social media as a form of education and connection to resources to assist with their burgeoning identities. First Nations youth engage with cultural stories, sights and sounds via social media. Young people access diverse languages through international social media. Social media is beneficial for queer youth exploring lived experiences from other young people in different situations and circumstances.
 
Young people in general are able to access helpful health information and resources to assist with their wellbeing via online platforms. This includes information on mental health resources and support, alcohol, and other drug harm minimisation education and approaches.

LGBTIQ+ young people and those that are questioning or exploring their gender or sexuality identity are particularly affected by social media bans. This is because social media allows them to explore and understand different identities, find connection and community, and access resources, information and support. Content on platforms such as Instagram and TikTok allow young people to put words and concepts to the spectrum of gender and sexuality identities, and potentially recognise themselves in these. Social media has also long been a place for young people to find friends and communities that share their interests, identities, and/or experiences, even if they might be distanced geographically – this is particularly important for LGBTIQ+ youth.
 
Additionally, social media and social media algorithms provide resources for young people to negotiate important relationships, to consider how schools should support or accommodate them, to understand legal obligations or to find other systems of support for various elements of their health and wellbeing.

As an online games researcher, I am particularly concerned by the possibility that a future Communications Minister could expand the ban to include online social video games such as Minecraft, Roblox or Fortnite, or gaming platforms like Discord, Xbox Live or PlayStation Network, which are very popular with young people. In a recent study by the eSafety Commissioner, over three-quarters of young gamers indicated that gaming had helped them with skill development, such as learning something new, using digital technologies, solving problems, and thinking faster. The possibility that games could be included in the ban is a serious risk of harm to children.        
 
Secondly, children’s lives are now lived online, and this amendment will not change that. Children will seek out alternative social media sites to those included in the amendment: TikTok will be replaced by the similar ‘YouTube shorts’, Instagram by the similar Tumblr, X by the similar Blue Sky, or Mastodon, or Threads. If the Communications Minister subsequently expands the scope of the ban to these sites, children will undoubtedly seek out fringe social media sites outside of the government’s jurisdiction that provide the same social connection and integration in youth culture, but with fewer safety features and more harmful content. Children’s social media use will become more private, and more hidden from those able to support children to navigate the online world.

It is incredibly disappointing to see the legislation pass the House this week, which ignores the evidence from a range of experts in Australia and from across the world that says a social media ban will not work. The government have failed to acknowledge just how embedded social media is in our digital lives, including with adults, and suggesting 16 is an age that solves the problems of platforms is short-sighted. Platforms, not young people and their carers, need to be held accountable for their content and the kneejerk policy reaction has caused chaos for industry, angered users and will require substantial work from a range of stakeholders. Banning young people on social media will not get them outside ‘kicking footballs around’ as our PM suggested, it will instead force them to darker, unmoderated spaces of the internet.

The social media ban for children under 16 is rushed policy, and a blunt instrument trying to solve what every parent knows is a complicated problem. There remains too little known about how it will operate in practice to be able to judge whether it will achieve the government’s stated aims of reducing harm and mental health impacts for kids and teens online. Instead, there remains significant concern about the potential negative impacts of this ban. These include its technical effectiveness, its impact on online privacy, and unintended consequences on vulnerable teens.
 
We do not currently have technologies able to accurately assess somebody’s age without also exposing their online privacy. The burden of proof is therefore on the government to demonstrate that this ban is technically feasible to implement without weakening Australians’ internet security and privacy.
 
Incredibly basic questions remain unanswered: a year from now, will it be harder for teens to access Snapchat than it will be for them to access online pornography? It remains unclear how this legislation will affect adult internet users. Widespread concerns have also been raised about the negative impacts of cutting off marginalised teens from their online communities.

The Australian government's move to ban under-16s from using social media is a well-intentioned effort to address the concerning impacts of these platforms on teen mental health. Numerous studies have linked social media use to rising rates of poor mental health and addictive behaviours among teens, and the profit-driven business models of major platforms raise ethical concerns (platforms made $11bn in ad revenue from teens in 2022).
 
However, this legislation could have unintended consequences. Age-verification technologies, used to enforce the ban, could pose significant privacy risks. Additionally, restricting teens from accessing social media could ironically lead to a deterioration in mental health, as many rely on these platforms for social connection and support networks.
 
It will be critical to develop comprehensive social support mechanisms to aid families, schools, and communities in helping teens navigate this change.

There is no doubt this law is bad law—rushed, ill thought through, technically challenging, and a response to a moral panic. It is also likely to be harmful to many young people and teens—gay teens living with conservative families, teens who use social media as their primary means of socialising and who would struggle to socialise in person (remember lockdown? Kids did a lot of social development online). What has been little discussed, though, is that this law has highly gendered implications. Women do the lion's share of childcare in Australia. Most of the sport Albanese is talking about will be facilitated by mothers. All the negotiation around social media in households will be done by mothers. All the learning kids used to be able to do on Youtube will be facilitated by mothers. And when young people access something they shouldn't, mothers will pick up the pieces. Had we instead made safe social media the responsibility of tech companies, that work would have been borne by a much smaller number of people who are paid to do that work, mostly men. This law is bad for teens, bad for kids, and bad for women. Who is it good for?

Social media is designed to capture attention, whether through polarising opinions and clickbait style headlines, or by providing dopamine hits to the brain through engagement in an online popularity contest. We are working to better understand the impact of digital socialisation on developing brains. There is growing evidence that image-based services have negative impacts on mental health. Social networks can provide supportive communities for young people by providing connection across distance; however, they also present risks to privacy, digital identity, and through attention theft. Fundamentally, we need to remember that these systems are funded by advertising, so they are designed to capture attention and encourage constant connection.
 
The proprietary nature of underpinning algorithms alongside the rise of AI generated content are creating further murkiness in already opaque systems. It is important that technology companies are held accountable for the impacts of their services and that these are created in ethical and responsible ways, which engage constructively with the user base.
 
This legislation is a step forward in recognising the impacts of social media and supporting young people to develop digital literacy prior to engaging with these systems. I am interested to hear more about how implementation will be managed, and positive that this will support constructive engagement with digital technologies, while we all navigate this rapidly changing terrain.

The new legislation banning social media use for young people under 16 is a disappointing move by the government. This legislation ignores evidence demonstrating that banning access does not lead to improved health and social outcomes, and ignores expert warnings that age verification technology is largely untested and unproven. This ban will also isolate vulnerable young people for whom social media provides connection and affirmation. 
 
While the prime minister's acknowledgement of the harms of exposure to online misogyny is important, critical education and digital literacies continue to be overlooked as effective ways to equip young people with the skills they need for lifelong social media use. We expect that this legislation will be largely ineffective in achieving any of the aims the government hopes it will.

While there are many factors that contribute to the development of an eating disorder, body dissatisfaction is the highest modifiable risk factor and this dissatisfaction has been shown to be negatively impacted by social media use.

The devastating figures highlight how prevalent this issue is in today’s society. While social media isn’t solely responsible for growing body image concerns, it certainly plays a part.

The work that we did to provide evidence for the damaging effects for those with eating and body image disorders was quoted as pivotal in the decision behind this vote.

I really do think that this is an important decision in the protection of our children’s mental health.

This is poor legislation, rushed through parliament too late at night on the last sitting day, completely lacking due diligence and time for proper scrutiny and debate. As it stands, it is unclear how age verification or age assurance will operate, as trialling those technologies is to happen next year. It’s unclear which platforms are definitely in or out, as the government reshuffled that list in the days leading up to the Bill, and they aren’t specified in the legislation at all. It will be at the Minister’s discretion to determine which platforms are in, or out once the law is operational. The bans don’t actually activate for 12 months, so there’s a lot between now and then, including an election, so whoever the Minister is by that time, they will wield an incredible amount of power in deciding which platforms are actually covered by this Bill.
 
But what we can definitively say is that this Bill will give parents a false sense of security, as if the challenges of social media have somehow been addressed already. They haven’t. The same risks and challenges will still exist. A few platforms might end up being blocked, but others won’t be, and young people will almost certainly end up spending more of their time using less well known, less, regulated platforms and spaces to interact online. Disadvantaged and at-risk young people who’ve relied on social media as a conduit to community, care and support will have that door closed.
 
Unless we’re incredibly careful, and introduce much more robust and systematic digital literacy and digital citizenship across the national curriculum, this Bill could very well make young people less literate, less able to navigate social media or the online world successfully, and could actually make the online harms for young people worse.

The Australian government’s new social media ban for those under 16 has now passed into law, but over the next 12 months we are likely to witness the predictable unraveling of this ill-conceived regulation. Despite its intent to protect young Australians, the legislation sets the government, platforms, and children up for failure. It demands compliance with vague and unworkable age-verification requirements that rely on speculative technologies while offering little practical enforcement.

Platforms, large and small, now face a daunting task: de-platform millions of young users while somehow avoiding violations of privacy, security, and anti-discrimination principles. Meanwhile, exemptions to services like anonymous forums and messaging apps remain just as accessible, rendering the regulation ineffectual at tackling many of the online harms it claims to address.

This regulatory theatre distracts from reforms that could genuinely reduce harm. Evidence-based measures such as a children’s online privacy code, a duty of care for digital platforms, and increased user control over algorithms were all recommended during the government's hasty formation of this bill, but ignored in favour of this blunt, headline-grabbing approach.

Over the next year, the government’s misplaced priorities will likely become clearer, leaving Australians to grapple with wasted time and resources while platforms escape meaningful accountability. Real solutions remain sidelined, and young Australians deserve better.

The social media ban is not going to make the internet safer for young people. A ban is a blunt legal instrument that punishes young people, and potentially infringes their human rights, rather than placing the onus on platforms to create social media that is safe by design.

Ironically, to implement the ban the government will trial “age assurance” technologies. Proposed tools for age verification range from uploading ID documents (either directly to platforms or via third party providers) and the use of facial recognition technologies. Most of these methods are fraught with problems, including privacy risks and potential for bias toward ethnic and racial groups.

Research has also pointed out how essential social media is for marginalised young people to stay connected to peers and community. In a recent project we conducted with culturally diverse young people (aged 13–18), we found that they use social media platforms to connect with family living overseas, to learn about culture and community, and to engage in advocacy around issues that affect them and their communities, such as racism. By banning their access to social media, these skills and literacies become lost, while diverse voices critical to realising and building a safer internet for all of us are also excluded.

The majority of young people access news through social media, rather than traditional outlets. This ban will make it more difficult for young people to learn about what's happening in the world.
 
Social media is a key way that young people can have their say in public debates. For example, it's been used by Australian high schoolers to organise climate change protests. The ban will silence young people and further, exclude them from democracy.
 
The ban is a blunt and likely ineffective instrument. It will do little to make social media companies improve their platforms and start contributing to the public good.
 
The speed with which this bill was passed, and the limited public engagement, was undemocratic. It shows the influence that big media companies like News Corp have over Australian politicians.

The government's social media ban is heavy-handed but light on details—jeopardising the privacy and security of all Australians.

Numerous computer scientists who contributed to the Senate Inquiry concur: age assurance technology is far from ready for widespread implementation. Private companies promoting these technologies routinely overstate how effective the blocks are while downplaying their implications.

As a result, many adults could have their data needlessly collected and their access unfairly restricted, while tech-savvy teens are likely to bypass the measures with ease. A rushed legislative process has led to rubbish results.

An ill-implemented ban will cause more harm than good. 

An incomplete ban that can be easily circumvented has the potential for some young people to feel and be excluded from a space in which they are having a significant portion of their social interactions. Social exclusion and isolation is one thing we do know is a significant risk factor for poorer mental health. The ban will also take away positive affordances of interacting online for young people from minorities for whom it's harder to find peers with shared experiences in their daily lives. For example, gender and sexuality diverse young people, who are at much higher risk for mental health problems compared to their peers.

What's the alternative? Supporting young people with education around digital hygiene. Significant investment in bullying prevention and age-restricting access to online pornography – these are urgent issues with an evidence base to support them! Investment in research to understand who benefits from what and when in online environments. And then educating parents and young people about what the state-of-the-science is, continuously updating guidelines to make them scientifically-informed and responding to technological developments. 

Working together with young people and becoming their ally, as they learn to navigate interacting with others online and being exposed to potentially harmful content. We can do all this without taking away young people’s autonomy.

I actually support this ban because I don’t believe that social media platforms like Snapchat and X are currently safe for young children. There are definitely others I’d add to that list that are not currently included but perhaps we can add them. 

I don’t think leaving it wide open with the words “some form of age assurance system” is particularly helpful to anyone except the platforms. Leaving the definition of what a social media platform actually is a bit loose means that we can add platforms more easily in future, which I personally think is a good thing.