SYDNEY — On November 28, Australia approved legislation prohibiting social media use for children under 16 after a heated national debate. The law, one of the strictest measures against Big Tech globally, mandates platforms like Instagram, Facebook (owned by Meta), and TikTok to block underage users or face fines up to A$49.5 million (S$43 million). A trial for enforcement methods begins in January 2025, with the ban officially starting a year later.
This Social Media Minimum Age Bill positions Australia as a test case for governments considering similar restrictions, driven by concerns over the mental health effects of social media on young people.
The bill's passage, following an intense final parliamentary session, is seen as a political victory for Prime Minister Anthony Albanese ahead of the 2025 elections, despite declining poll numbers. Unlike other countries such as France and parts of the U.S., where minors can access social media with parental consent, Australia’s ban is absolute.
Opposition arose from privacy advocates and child rights groups, but polling revealed 77% public support. The legislation followed a 2024 parliamentary inquiry that heard emotional testimonies from parents of children who had suffered harm due to online bullying. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp supported the bill with a "Let Them Be Kids" campaign.
However, critics warn the law could strain Australia-U.S. relations. Elon Musk, owner of X (formerly Twitter) and ally of U.S. president-elect Donald Trump, claimed the move might pave the way for broader internet restrictions. Australia has already clashed with U.S.-based tech giants over regulations, including forcing platforms to pay royalties for news content and cracking down on scams.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook, expressed "concern" about the rushed process, arguing it overlooked existing industry efforts to create age-appropriate environments and failed to involve young people's perspectives. Meta urged the government to ensure clear, consistent guidelines that would not unduly burden parents or teens. Other companies like TikTok and X did not immediately comment.
Google's YouTube, exempt from the ban due to its educational use in schools, and other tech firms had advocated delaying the legislation until after trials for age verification methods.
Some youth advocacy groups and academics cautioned that the ban could isolate vulnerable young people, including LGBTQIA and migrant teens, from support networks. Privacy groups raised concerns about increased personal data collection and potential state surveillance.
In response to privacy concerns, a late amendment to the bill required platforms to provide alternatives to uploading ID documents for verification.
Critics like Senator Sarah Hanson-Young from the Greens described the legislation as outdated, saying, "This is boomers dictating how the internet works to feel better about themselves." The bill passed the Senate with a 34-19 vote.
Supporters of the ban, including parents and anti-bullying advocates, pointed to comments by U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who had highlighted the detrimental effects of social media on youth mental health. Ali Halkic, whose son Allem died by suicide in 2009 following online bullying, supported the ban as a step toward empowering parents and protecting younger generations.
Yet, concerns persist about unintended consequences. Enie Lam, a 16-year-old student from Sydney, noted that while social media has negative effects on body image and bullying, a total ban might push teens toward riskier corners of the internet. "It may make young people more skilled at bypassing restrictions without addressing the real issues," she warned. Lam summed up the complex sentiment, stating, "We all know social media has harmful aspects, but banning it outright isn’t the solution many young people support."
Disclaimer: This image is taken from Reuters file
.png&w=3840&q=75)
