Prohibiting Under 16s From Using Social Media: A Futile Response to Far Deeper Issues

The Australian Government has confirmed it will introduce legislation into Parliament with a view to achieving what seems to be the impossible – prohibiting those under the age of 16 years from accessing social media platforms.

And while the populist rhetoric is that the prohibition will go some way towards addressing the adverse effects of social media use by young teens, the reality is the proposal is raises more questions than it answers, and can be seen as a knee-jerk reaction to a far deeper problem.

Some of the questions raised include: couldn’t young persons easily circumvent such a ban by creating fake accounts? How could the prohibition possibly be monitored and enforced? Could suddenly banning young people who have used accounts for years be counterproductive, potentially fostering contempt for the law? Who would be accountable; specifically, would there be offences against young people, or only social media companies? And isn’t a better way to deal with the adverse impact of social media to educate, provide better mechanisms for parents to implement restrictions and, importantly, take the advice of those who have worked within companies such as Meta and X by implementing enforceable prohibitions on the publication of harmful content such as self-harm and body dysmorphia which, experts assert, is easily achievable through the manipulation of existing algorithms.

The list of questions is endless, but like many government policies, it seems that a poorly considered proposal backed by populist rhetoric could win out, once again.

Proposed ban on under 16s accessing social media

Following its initial proposal in 2021 to conduct age checks on those who subscribe to social media accounts, in September 2024, the Federal Government announced its new plan – to implement and enforce a minimum age to access to social media by young persons.

The country cited the main concerns of inactivity, poor health, lack of in-person social interaction, and mental health issues.

Personal rights’ advocates were up in arms about how these stringent regulations could negatively impact ‘underground’ activity, which could become difficult to monitor. Along with the difficult monitoring, people were also uncertain about the efficacy of the new laws when it came to enforcing the proposed changes.

However, despite the backlash and concerns from worried citizens, the Government pressed ahead with a plan that had flawed logic as ways to fight against online bullying, cyber attacks, and a nationwide health epidemic, under the guise that banning teens from using social media would be the end-all cure-all for the societal and health problems that plague Australian youth.

Now, the plans have been actioned. Communications Minister Michelle Rowland stated this morning that none of the main social media platforms would be exempt from the new legislation, which states that anyone under 16 years old will not be allowed to use these ‘age-restricted’ services.

So, despite the protests from youths in Australia and parents who are concerned about freedom of speech and government access to personal information, the Government has pressed forward with the limitations on teens’ rights to use social media—adopting a form of censorship that raises questions regarding data access, inhibition of free speech, data privacy, and censorship in the country.

A year to figure it out

The Government announced that Australian children and teens under 16 years old will be banned from using social media, even if they currently have an account.

Aussie teens have at least a year to figure out ways to get around the upcoming ban, as the new legislation has some hoops to jump through before it can be enforced. The House of Representatives and Senate must approve the bill, followed by social media platforms enforcing their regulations that must comply with their current technological framework.

Although a few platforms might be exempt from the ban, like healthcare apps or educational-based platforms, all of the main players—Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and Facebook—are not exempt from the nationwide ban.

For those who break the rules, the eSafety Commissioner is in charge of creating the guidelines and steps that platforms must take to uphold the standard.

The purpose of the ban — too much or not enough?

The ban might come as a shock to those who believe that freedom of speech is a fundamental human right above all others. However, for concerned adults who see the trends of youth in the country, imposing a ban could lead to potential positive outcomes. This drastic action could pave the way for a healthier, more balanced relationship with social media.

The negative health effects of social media have been proven time and time again. Albanese has stated that limiting screen time is not only beneficial for physical health but can also help mental and psychological health, reducing the negative impact of social media in terms of comparisons, body image, self-esteem, and reduced self-confidence.

Furthermore, studies have shown that excessive social media usage is linked to lower levels of physical health, with those who frequently use social media platforms having higher levels of chronic pain, aches, and migraines. Plus, teens aged 12-15 years old have a much higher level of anxiety, negative mental health symptoms, and depression than those who do not, prompting

But does combating the possible adverse mental and physical health effects of excessive phone and social media usage mean the necessary cessation of social platforms altogether, or is this a massive infringement on a person’s rights? Censorship has been a constant threat looming on the verge of our country for some time now, with the Government already announcing ‘age assurance’ technology back in May and the push for age verification technology starting in March 2023.

Social media platforms to be accountable

Now that Australia has established legislation banning under-16s from accessing social media platforms and requiring compliance from already-existing sites, social platforms will have at least one year before the law comes into effect to try to find loopholes around the ban.

Social media companies will no doubt try to develop new products, apps, or platforms that tie into existing sites, like Instagram, to keep their target audience, get around age laws, and avoid the law.

With the new legislation, Alabnesese stated that the onus of upholding the law is in the hands of the social media platforms — not the kids, parents, adults, or the Government. Therefore, why would social media platforms go out of their way to uphold a law that directly lowers the number of users on their sites?

Free speech vs. censorship

When it comes to debating what is too far, the argument of free speech versus censorship lives rent-free in Australia’s heads. In 2023, the Australian Communications and Media Authority was granted the power to enact an industry code against misinformation, coupled with an online policing act, the Online Safety Act 2021, that requires platforms and companies to monitor threatening content.

But, over-regulation makes it difficult to determine what is considered ‘disinformation’, who has access to unfettered information, and who bears the onus of proof when it comes to responsibility for allowing online content.

Regarding the new youth/teen laws in Australia, the Government will have to develop a better solution for policing who can have a social media account rather than just the sites, who ultimately have a not-so-secret motive of keeping as many users on their sites as possible.