Can Australia’s social media ban protect young children? Or is it a mistake in the making?

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced the Labor government’s long-mooted social media ban last week, claiming that social media was of “enormous concern” to thousands of parents and carers around Australia.

“I’ve spoken to thousands of parents, grandparents, aunties and uncles. They, like me, are worried sick about the safety of our kids online,” PM Albanese said at a Canberra press conference on 7 November.

“And I want Australian parents and families to know that the government has your back.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the responses to the age-based ban have been mixed, from fully supportive of the government’s aims to those rather more set against a straight-up ban.

On the ‘banwagon’

Professor Therese Keane of La Trobe University’s School of Education is fully behind the government and feels that social media platforms themselves are to blame for the government’s actions.

“Social media companies have been given ample opportunities to address these issues, but it is not in their best interests to do so,” Keane said.

“These companies need to face the reality that their products have a negative impact on children.”

VIEW ALL

According to Keane, “social media companies cannot and will not self-regulate their platforms”.

“It is a very encouraging and brave step the government has made to take control,” she said.

School teachers also seem keen to see the ban in place, citing the recent national ban on smartphones as proof that such measures really do work.

“Principals and teachers are watching students once again engaging socially with one another before and after school,” said Australian Government Primary Principals Association president Pat Murphy, speaking on the impact of removing smartphones from the classroom environment.

However, Murphy is concerned about what happens when smartphones are returned to children at the end of the school day.

“Ask any teacher, any principal, ask most students and they will tell you this was the right decision. And that it’s making a difference,” Murphy said.

“But when school finishes, students get their phone back, and they’re back in that social media cesspit. That’s why setting a minimum age limit for social media is so important.”

Others, however, while broadly supportive, are wondering about the details of the application of the ban.

Show you’re working

Dr Mugdha Rai of Monash University’s School of Media, Film and Journalism understands the ban is the result of “a growing frustration in Australia regarding the increasing intrusion of social media platforms in our children’s lives” and describes it as “well-intentioned”, but she has questions for the government nonetheless.

“The legislation requires social media companies to take ‘reasonable steps’ to block people under 16. What would these ‘reasonable steps’ look like? How exactly will age be verified? By the platforms themselves? By a third party? Privacy concerns will clearly need to be addressed in either case,” Rai said.

“So far, the government has indicated an awareness of these concerns and a timeline to work through them.”

Others note that work must be done to make sure that when teenagers turn 16, they should already be equipped with the skills and knowledge to take their first steps onto social media safely. Dr Martin Kraemer, security awareness advocate with KnowBe4, said a “ban alone will not solve anything”.

“Education and training must also not be forgotten. If currently, all parents were able to protect their children from unregulated access to the platforms, the legislation would not be necessary,” Kraemer said. “We must not forget that the situation does not change overnight. When teenagers enter the platform on their 16th birthday, they must be prepared to use it responsibly and to navigate the surrounding challenges carefully.”

“Training must cover protection from abuse and coercion, from social engineering, and cyber bullying. However, training must also educate teenagers about fake news and how to responsibly consume content online. Most importantly, there must be an opportunity for practice for children and parents. Whether that is as part of a school curriculum (which would be great) or a community initiative. An effort has to be made.”

Education, not restriction

Sunita Bose, managing director of the Digital Industry Group Inc (DIGI), feels the government’s solution is out of step with reality.

“Keeping young people safe online is a top priority for parents and platforms alike,” Bose said.

“But the proposed ban for teenagers to access digital platforms is a 20th-century response to 21st-century challenges. Rather than blocking access through bans, we need to take a balanced approach to create age-appropriate spaces, build digital literacy, and protect young people from online harm.”

Bose cites an open letter from the Australian Child Rights Taskforce to the government, signed by more than 100 experts, that pointed out the potential harms of such regulation, particularly among youth already in the community margins.

“Almost 100 experts, including mental health advocates and youth safety organisations, say that a ban risks preventing teenagers from accessing mental health support, making social connections, and finding communities, especially for vulnerable groups like First Nations, LGBTQI+, remote and regional youth and those with special needs,” Bose said.

PM Albanese has deployed several homey comparisons as to why the age-based ban is worth pursuing, noting in one instance that even though some teens circumvent age restrictions on the purchase of alcohol, those restrictions are still useful and largely work as intended. For her part, Bose makes a similar comparison to illustrate what she feels is a better way forward.

“Rather than blocking access, we need to work together to keep young people safe online. Swimming has risks – but we don’t ban young people from the beach, we teach them to swim between the flags,” Bose said.

“Banning teenagers from social media risks pushing them to dangerous, unregulated parts of the internet and fails to equip them with the valuable digital literacy skills they’ll need for the future.”

Bose makes a fine point. While platforms such as Facebook may be willing to take on the regulatory burden, many ‘social’ platforms will simply not play ball, and if children are driven to places where anonymity is the key – such as 4chan – the ban will almost certainly do more harm than good.

The path forward

Regardless, the government is now set on its course and plans to get the legislation passed before Christmas. With the clear support of the opposition, all that remains to be seen is the detail of how the ban will be enforced and how social media platforms will respond to and implement the government’s requirements.

“The idea that somehow you can sort of force the industry to be in a technological place that it isn’t is probably a bit misunderstood in terms of where the industry is,” Antigone Davis, global head of safety at Meta, told reporters last week.

However, recent political shifts in the United States could well place unexpected hurdles in the government’s path. If platforms and companies such as Elon Musk’s X choose to look at the ban as a possible free speech issue – which is not out of the question at all, given recent comments from members of the Trump administration – then the government’s plan to lay the onus on social media platforms themselves could see significant pushback.

David Hollingworth

David Hollingworth has been writing about technology for over 20 years, and has worked for a range of print and online titles in his career. He is enjoying getting to grips with cyber security, especially when it lets him talk about Lego.