Is Australia’s social media teen ban justified?

Do you think Australia was right to ban social media for teens, and do you think other countries will follow suit? We put this question to our network for their thoughts and insight.

Beth Blance — associate creative director at SocialChain

The problem with criminalising an existing activity is that you effectively force it underground. Without legislating age restrictions for general internet use and smartphone ownership, there’s no real way to police ‘social media’. It is an evolving category, not a set entity. After all, young people who have grown up online will seek out, and even create, alternatives to traditional platforms. These will be less regulated than globally recognised providers like Meta and TikTok. And given the new law, the use of any loophole forms of social will likely be secretive, potentially heightening the risk factors which this ban proposes to reduce. Governments globally would be better advised to put social media providers under a spotlight — which the UK has started to address with the likes of the Online Safety Act — rather than driving its users into the darkness.

Oliver Lewis — CEO and founder of THE FIFTH

The issues surrounding social media’s impact on wellbeing are undoubtedly pressing, and any effort to address them is a step in the right direction. However, this approach feels outdated and overly simplistic, offering a quick fix rather than tackling the deeper, underlying problems. Much like teaching children to swim rather than banning them from the sea, the focus should be on equipping users to engage with social media responsibly, with proper oversight and guidance. This stance also risks further marginalising underrepresented groups, such as LGBTQ+ individuals or those who are neurodivergent; who often find vital support and acceptance online. Restrictive measures could isolate them or drive them towards less safe spaces. With the legislation still light on specifics, defining social media and rethinking platform responsibilities will be key. Treating platforms more like broadcasters or publishers could enhance moderation and accountability. The problem is exemplified when you consider they are excluding Youtube, gaming and messaging apps. This raises concerns about its overall effectiveness; of a ban riddled with holes and complexity.

Chloe Singleton — channel director at eight&four

The intention here is good, but the execution is flawed. When a recently approved law leaves only a string of unanswered questions and concerns of murky logistics, you probably haven’t addressed the actual problem. In its simplest form, the ban gives control and visibility back to guardians. But in doing so it removes young people’s voices, autonomy, and the ability to access something that can actually have a positive role. Have they considered it’s a space for communities and connections, to have a forum for passions, and to be able to learn and generally be entertained? Pro-ban arguments focus solely on the negative impacts of social. We’re not naïve to the horrors that live on the internet, but the subject itself is incredibly complex, and one that needed more input from distinct groups and perspectives. Imposing this blanket ban feels like a rushed and lazy fix.

Nick Seymour — co-founder and director at Komodo

The Australian social media ban for under-16s feels like an extreme response that does not address the real issues. A more balanced approach could have looked at ways of restricting access without cutting teens off entirely. Kids spend a significant amount of time on social media. Instead of being outside, playing footy or engaging in face-to-face activities, they’re scrolling through TikTok. While outright bans might feel like a solution, a better approach could involve daily usage limits or screen time caps for younger users to encourage healthier habits. Content moderation is also key.

Platforms like TikTok have introduced tools for younger audiences, but we could go further by prioritising educational content and filtering what kids under 16 can see. Messaging restrictions could also help, such as default private accounts and limiting interactions to people they know. We also need to recognise that social media is more than entertainment for many teens — it’s a career aspiration. Influencers and creators can be important role models for Gen Z and Gen Alpha, much like athletes and actors were for millennials. Instead of shutting down access we should be educating teens about the dangers, while providing them with the knowledge and skills to make the most of social media.

Larissa Andrianakos — community manager at Iris

Australia’s social media ban for teens might have limited success without proper safety measures. Social media (which has been around since the early 2000s) has become a key part of teenage life, offering more than just connection. Platforms like Instagram provide aspirational content through influencers and memes, while TikTok serves as both an educational tool and a social search engine. These platforms allow teens to express themselves, explore ideas, and engage in communities like BookTok or fandoms, often forming real-life friendships or pen pal connections. Restricting access could stifle creativity, and remove safe spaces for inspiration and connection. It might also backfire, with teens finding ways around the ban, proving the saying, ‘strict parents create sneaky kids’ — with ‘parents’ being the law in this case. A balanced approach is needed, combining platform safety features with education through workshops and school programmes. Other countries may watch Australia closely, as technology continues to shape the lives of future generations.

Fi Case — director at Bandstand

I’m creating a new product with algorithms designed to be highly addictive, quickly altering users’ neural pathways. This will impair their focus, attention, and communication skills. The product will grant peers constant access to users’ lives, exposing them to harmful content like pornography, narcissism, violence, and online predators. It will promote social isolation, bullying, self-harm, eating disorders, suicidal thoughts, insecurity, anxiety, depression, and a significant increase in suicides. Lax policing will allow anyone to join anonymously, facilitating abuse and coercion. I will use advanced marketing to target both adults and children without parental consent, leveraging herd mentality, FOMO, and peer pressure for success; all with current government approval.

Now obviously the above is extreme for effect, but you get my point. There are enormous upsides and benefits to social media. It can educate, inspire, entertain, and foster friendships and societal growth, but there have to be some guardrails or protections for our kids. On 13 January 2025 at 4.30pm, the UK government will debate a petition set up by a mother who lost her 14-year-old son to suicide; advocating for parents’ right to access their children’s social media accounts. She seeks to understand what drove her son to suicide — information locked behind his account password. The government has stated it is committed to tackling online harm and supporting families in accessing such information after a bereavement. So, in answer to the question, ’Do you think Australia is right to ban social media for teens?’ Absolutely. ‘Do you think other countries will follow suit?’ Only time will tell.

Nick Morgan — founder and CEO at Vudoo

As a father of two children under seven years old I wholeheartedly support banning social media for under-16s. These platforms are online playgrounds without supervision, exposing young minds to influences they aren’t equipped to handle. Social media, frankly, is a digital drug — addictive, divisive, and damaging to development. From an industry perspective this legislation should serve as a wake-up call. Brands targeting younger audiences must rethink strategies — instead of relying on algorithm-driven engagement on unregulated platforms, advertising investment should be redirected to premium publishers.

Premium environments offer curated, responsible content, ensuring ads are presented alongside material that aligns with brand values. These spaces provide a safer and more controlled setting for younger audiences, fostering trust and meaningful engagement. Australia’s legislation could pave the way for global change, encouraging brands to innovate responsibly and prioritise child safeguarding over profit.

Fiona Salmon — managing director at Mantis

TikTok is currently the most popular news source for 12- to 15-year-olds in the UK, and the Australian under-16s social media ban would set a positive global example, to encourage reducing the online overexposure that children suffer from. Less screen time is proven to boost positive mental health, particularly important in still-developing minds. Other campaigns that champion intervention, such as the ‘Wait Until 8th’ pledge in the US, are important, but put the onus on parents. The UK’s proposed Safer Phones Bill could also be a step towards governments being proactive in reducing screen time, and ensuring that digital environments are safer for children. However, platforms should take responsibility too, by filtering out potentially harmful content before it spreads, and promoting and prioritising high-quality journalism among younger audiences. Through a combination of tighter regulation and dynamic safety tools, a safer and healthier digital landscape can be created for children.

Featured image: Pixabay