Will Australia’s social media ban for under-16s create more problems than it solves? By Anabelle Bremner
AUSTRALIA has grounded its teenagers, digitally at least. No social media for under-16s. For some, it’s the end of the world. For others, it’s sweet relief. But are these new laws really the answer, or are we addressing the wrong cause?
THE GOOD:
It’s clear that social media does plenty of harm. Scrolling addictions, cyberbullying, dangerous rabbit holes – you name it, you’ll find it. That’s why a lot of teens – and parents – see promise in the idea.
Olive, 17, believes that the ban is “a must”. Cutting down on addictive scrolling and access to “revolting” content, she says, is key in preserving teens’ creativity and focus.
Parent Shana calls the ban “an acknowledgement of the fact that social media can be damaging”, admitting that while it won’t fix the problem, “it’s a start”.
AUSTRALIA has grounded its teenagers, digitally at least. No social media for under-16s. For some, it’s the end of the world. For others, it’s sweet relief. But are these new laws really the answer, or are we addressing the wrong cause?
THE GOOD:
It’s clear that social media does plenty of harm. Scrolling addictions, cyberbullying, dangerous rabbit holes – you name it, you’ll find it. That’s why a lot of teens – and parents – see promise in the idea.
Olive, 17, believes that the ban is “a must”. Cutting down on addictive scrolling and access to “revolting” content, she says, is key in preserving teens’ creativity and focus.
Parent Shana calls the ban “an acknowledgement of the fact that social media can be damaging”, admitting that while it won’t fix the problem, “it’s a start”.
Others, like Jenson, 15, note that the ban could push kids to spend more time offline. On paper, less scrolling could mean healthier hobbies and a break from the endless noise.
THE BAD:
Plenty of young people feel the policy punishes rather than protects. Scarlett, 15, argues that the ban “removes access to social interaction with peers” and “limits self expression”.
Similarly, Rose, 18, sees the importance of social media in creating “online spaces free of judgement”, especially for queer youth. Banning social media for teens strips them of crucial communities and outlets for self expression, something many fear can only lead to isolation.
Scarlett believes that the ban promotes “punishment” instead of safe ways to use social media, and “a much more effective route would be to teach kids [about] digital safety and responsible use.”
Joey, 18, uses social media to do more than just stay connected – he manages and promotes climate and humanitarian action throughout the local community. That’s a space for education, connection, and action that could be completely blocked off to under-16s. “Rather than limiting what everyday people can do, the Australian government needs to start limiting what the corporations and CEOs can do…Don’t ban us from our socials, just make it safe and accessible for us.”
He believes that the onus is on tech companies, not to ensure that teens can’t access them, but that their platforms are safe for everyone. “Teenagers like myself seek connection and education, while [tech corporations’] only motivation is profit. We need to put limits on big tech, and the first steps are right in front of us – banning graphic content, limiting the use of AI, and banning false advertising and misleading media.”
THE UGLY:
For many teenagers, the biggest fear regarding the ban isn’t losing their Snapchat streaks or missing out on the newest tiktok trends. It’s identity fraud.
“How are we supposed to keep our identities safe if the government isn’t placing laws on the ID checking that will be used?” questions Jack, 16. “Do the companies who check our IDs keep that information, do they delete it, do they sell it? We already have proof and previous lawsuits against companies using our browsing data and selling it to third parties. What’s to say they will not do the same again?”
Olive supports the ban, but she too fears the risks. “The idea behind it is thoughtful, but how is this going to be policed? If age checking is thorough, some sites will ask for proper identification using things like a passport, but that comes with a risk. It could end up in a data leak.”
It’s a common sentiment – and a question that the government doesn’t seem to have an answer for. Many of our young people feel that this law, designed to protect them, may actually put them more at risk.
I’m the first to admit that today’s teenagers – myself included – are damaged by social media. Whether it’s the content they come across, the connections they make, or simply the time down the drain each day, social media is a big problem for our young people. However, banning access for all those under 16 is not the solution. In fact, it’s likely to create a bigger problem.
Social media is a pillar of modern society and social media literacy can’t be separated from traditional media literacy. Advertising, connection, education, and news all now live in a blended landscape. Cut off teens’ access to social media, and you cut off their ability to develop literacy in any media, setting the stage for a generation of uninformed adults.
At the end of the day, the responsibility must fall on tech companies to ensure that their platforms are a safe space for people of all ages. Teenagers will grow up regardless and they will eventually encounter the full spectrum of content the internet has to offer. Sheltering them entirely doesn’t protect them, it just leaves them unprepared for the world they’re about to enter.
It’s crucial that we prioritise educating our teenagers, and holding big tech accountable, to make the world a kinder, safer, and smarter place.
Anabelle Bremner is in Year 11 at Bass Coast College.
THE BAD:
Plenty of young people feel the policy punishes rather than protects. Scarlett, 15, argues that the ban “removes access to social interaction with peers” and “limits self expression”.
Similarly, Rose, 18, sees the importance of social media in creating “online spaces free of judgement”, especially for queer youth. Banning social media for teens strips them of crucial communities and outlets for self expression, something many fear can only lead to isolation.
Scarlett believes that the ban promotes “punishment” instead of safe ways to use social media, and “a much more effective route would be to teach kids [about] digital safety and responsible use.”
Joey, 18, uses social media to do more than just stay connected – he manages and promotes climate and humanitarian action throughout the local community. That’s a space for education, connection, and action that could be completely blocked off to under-16s. “Rather than limiting what everyday people can do, the Australian government needs to start limiting what the corporations and CEOs can do…Don’t ban us from our socials, just make it safe and accessible for us.”
He believes that the onus is on tech companies, not to ensure that teens can’t access them, but that their platforms are safe for everyone. “Teenagers like myself seek connection and education, while [tech corporations’] only motivation is profit. We need to put limits on big tech, and the first steps are right in front of us – banning graphic content, limiting the use of AI, and banning false advertising and misleading media.”
THE UGLY:
For many teenagers, the biggest fear regarding the ban isn’t losing their Snapchat streaks or missing out on the newest tiktok trends. It’s identity fraud.
“How are we supposed to keep our identities safe if the government isn’t placing laws on the ID checking that will be used?” questions Jack, 16. “Do the companies who check our IDs keep that information, do they delete it, do they sell it? We already have proof and previous lawsuits against companies using our browsing data and selling it to third parties. What’s to say they will not do the same again?”
Olive supports the ban, but she too fears the risks. “The idea behind it is thoughtful, but how is this going to be policed? If age checking is thorough, some sites will ask for proper identification using things like a passport, but that comes with a risk. It could end up in a data leak.”
It’s a common sentiment – and a question that the government doesn’t seem to have an answer for. Many of our young people feel that this law, designed to protect them, may actually put them more at risk.
I’m the first to admit that today’s teenagers – myself included – are damaged by social media. Whether it’s the content they come across, the connections they make, or simply the time down the drain each day, social media is a big problem for our young people. However, banning access for all those under 16 is not the solution. In fact, it’s likely to create a bigger problem.
Social media is a pillar of modern society and social media literacy can’t be separated from traditional media literacy. Advertising, connection, education, and news all now live in a blended landscape. Cut off teens’ access to social media, and you cut off their ability to develop literacy in any media, setting the stage for a generation of uninformed adults.
At the end of the day, the responsibility must fall on tech companies to ensure that their platforms are a safe space for people of all ages. Teenagers will grow up regardless and they will eventually encounter the full spectrum of content the internet has to offer. Sheltering them entirely doesn’t protect them, it just leaves them unprepared for the world they’re about to enter.
It’s crucial that we prioritise educating our teenagers, and holding big tech accountable, to make the world a kinder, safer, and smarter place.
Anabelle Bremner is in Year 11 at Bass Coast College.