Australia Has Implemented a Nation-wide Ban on Social Media for Minors

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Australia’s world‑first social media ban for under‑16s has triggered an intense debate about how far governments should go to protect children online.

Protect the Kids

From 10 December 2025, children under 16 are not allowed to create or use accounts on designated “age‑restricted social media platforms,” including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, X (Twitter), YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, Threads, and others. Existing accounts held by users identified as under 16 must be deactivated or removed, and platforms must block new sign‑ups from under‑16s in Australia.

“Taking away our socials is just taking away how we talk to each other.”

The decision is pushing millions of young users away from apps that have become essential for their social lives, self-expression, and information consumption.

Supporters praise the move as a courageous public health intervention, while critics view it as a blunt and risky experiment that infringes on children’s rights and digital freedoms.

The national eSafety regulator issued detailed guidance and can investigate suspected breaches, order remedial steps, and, in extreme cases, seek fines.

What the new law entails and why Australia acted:

Reforms to Australia’s online safety laws now require social media services identified by the national regulator to prevent users under the age of 16 from creating accounts in Australia. This policy applies to both new registrations and existing accounts. Therefore, platforms must identify and either suspend or remove accounts that they believe belong to individuals under 16 years old.

The obligations fall on companies, not on children or parents; in serious cases of non‑compliance, firms can face substantial financial penalties running into tens of millions of Australian dollars.

Lawmakers and child‑safety advocates point to growing evidence that heavy social media use can contribute to problems such as cyberbullying, self‑harm content exposure, body image concerns, and disrupted sleep among adolescents. They argue that early adolescence is a particularly vulnerable stage, and that current platform safeguards have failed to prevent the dissemination of harmful content and design features, including endless feeds and the algorithmic amplification of distressing material.

Critics warn that strict age gates could encourage intrusive data practices, since verifying that someone is not a child often means collecting more personal information or biometric data from everyone. Civil liberties and digital rights groups caution that normalising facial scans or ID checks to use widely‑used communication tools risks eroding privacy for both minors and adults.​

Others argue that many teenagers will bypass controls using VPNs, false ages, or accounts registered in other countries, increasing the risk that vulnerable users will move to less regulated or more opaque platforms.

Global implications and what comes next

Australia’s move is being closely watched by policymakers in Europe, North America, and parts of Asia who are weighing stricter age limits, design‑code rules, or duty‑of‑care frameworks for online services.

If the Australian experiment appears to reduce measurable harms—such as self‑reported distress linked to social media, exposure to harmful content, or online abuse—other governments may adopt similar bans or hybrid models that combine age limits with stronger safety‑by‑design requirements.

YAME Digital Australia