Australia’s world-first social media ban for children under age 16 takes effect on December 10, leaving kids scrambling for alternatives and the Australian government with the daunting task of enforcing the ambitious ban.
What is the Australian social media ban, who and what services does it cover, and what steps can affected children take? We’ll cover all that, plus the compliance and enforcement challenges facing both social media companies and the Australian government – and the move toward similar bans in other parts of the world.
Australian Social Media Ban Supported by Most – But Not All
In September 2024, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that his government would introduce legislation to set a minimum age requirement for social media because of concerns about the effect of social media on the mental health of children.
The amendment to the Online Safety Act 2021 passed in November 2024 with the overwhelming support of the Australian Parliament. The measure has met with overwhelming support – even as most parents say they don’t plan to fully enforce the ban with their children.
The law already faces a legal challenge from The Digital Freedom Project, and the Australian Financial Review reported that Reddit may file a challenge too.
Services affected by the ban – which proponents call a social media “delay” – include the following 10 services:
- Kick
- Snapchat
- Threads
- TikTok
- Twitch
- X
- YouTube
Those services must take steps by Wednesday to remove accounts held by users under 16 in Australia and prevent children from registering new accounts. Many services began to comply before the Dec. 10 implementation date, although X had not yet communicated its policy to the government as of Dec. 9, according to The Guardian.
Companies that fail to comply with the ban face fines of up to AUD $49.5 million, while there are no penalties for parents or children who fail to comply.
Opposition From a Wide Range of Groups – And Efforts Elsewhere
Opposition to the law has come from a range of groups, including those concerned about the privacy issues resulting from age verification processes such as facial recognition and assessment technology or use of government IDs. Others have said the ban could force children toward darker, less regulated platforms, and one group noted that children often reach out for mental health help on social media.
Amnesty International also opposed the ban. The international human rights group called the ban “an ineffective quick fix that’s out of step with the realities of a generation that lives both on and offline.”
Amnesty said strong regulation and safeguards would be a better solution.
“The most effective way to protect children and young people online is by protecting all social media users through better regulation, stronger data protection laws and better platform design,” Amnesty said. “Robust safeguards are needed to ensure social media platforms stop exposing users to harms through their relentless pursuit of user engagement and exploitation of people’s personal data.
“Many young people will no doubt find ways to avoid the restrictions,” the group added. “A ban simply means they will continue to be exposed to the same harms but in secret, leaving them at even greater risk.”
Even the prestigious medical journal The Lancet suggested that a ban may be too blunt an instrument and that 16-year-olds will still face the same harmful content and risks. Jasmine Fardouly of the University of Sydney School of Psychology noted in a Lancet commentary that “Further government regulations and support for parents and children are needed to help make social media safe for all users while preserving its benefits.”
Still, despite the chorus of concerns, the idea of a social media ban for children is catching on in other places, including the EU and Malaysia.
Australian Children Seek Alternatives as Compliance Challenges Loom
The Australian social media ban leaves open a range of options for under-16 users, among them Yope, Lemon8, Pinterest, Discord, WhatsApp, Messenger, iMessage, Signal, and communities that have been sources of controversy such as Telegram and 4chan.
Users have exchanged phone numbers with friends and other users, and many have downloaded their personal data from apps where they’ll be losing access, including photos, videos, posts, comments, interactions and platform profile data.
Many have investigated VPNs as a possible way around the ban, but a VPN is unlikely to work with an existing account that has already been identified as an underage Australian account.
In the meantime, social media services face the daunting task of trying to confirm the age of account holders, a process that even Albanese has acknowledged “won’t be 100 per cent perfect.” There have already been reports of visual age checks failing, and a government-funded report released in August admitted the process will be imperfect.
The government has published substantial guidance for helping social media companies comply with the law, but it will no doubt take time to determine what “reasonable steps” to comply look like.
In the meantime, social media companies will have to navigate compliance guidance like the following passage:
“Providers may choose to offer the option to end-users to provide government-issued identification or use the services of an accredited provider. However, if a provider wants to employ an age assurance method that requires the collection of government-issued identification, then the provider must always offer a reasonable alternative that doesn’t require the collection of government-issued identification. A provider can never require an end-user to give government-issued identification as the sole method of age assurance and must always give end-users an alternative choice if one of the age assurance options is to use government-issued identification. A provider also cannot implement an age assurance system which requires end-users to use the services of an accredited provider without providing the end-user with other choices.”
