Australia’s Under-16 Social Media Ban: Different Takes and Perspectives
Australia has enacted new legislation regarding social media usage, a move that has sparked widespread debate about online safety, parental control, and the role of technology in young people’s lives.
The Online Safety Amendment Bill, passed on November 27, 2024, sets a minimum age of 16 for accessing social media platforms.
Will this ban affect digital inclusion and access for young people in Australia? Or does everything it stands for address far more important concerns?
We asked our community of educators, leaders, digital experts, and psychologists if they supported this move or if they thought the Australian government was taking things a bit too far?
The responses we received sprung a range of debates both in favor of the move and against it. These insights offer us a deep dive into the issue, enabling us to better understand various perspectives.
Read on!
Sapna Bhandari
While the intention might be to protect young minds, the reality is far more complex.
Banning social media could make it even more enticing for tech-savvy teens, leading them to create accounts with false information, potentially exposing them to greater risks without parental oversight. As any parent knows, forbidden fruit often tastes the sweetest.
Furthermore, the ban raises questions about the broader digital landscape.
Is social media the sole culprit? What about the hours spent on visual media or the endless scroll of easily accessible content online?
The issue goes beyond just social media. Excessive smartphone use itself, even without social accounts, is impacting children’s mental health, behavior, and development. Toddlers glued to screens, rewarded with phones by well-meaning parents, are forming addictive habits without understanding the potential consequences.
Perhaps the focus should shift from outright bans to:
Digital Literacy Education: Empowering young people to navigate the online world safely and responsibly.
Parental Controls and Guidance: Equipping parents with the tools and knowledge to monitor and guide their children’s online activity.
Responsible Content Creation: Encouraging platforms to prioritize child-friendly content and implement stricter age verification measures.
While online safety is crucial, a blanket ban might not be the most effective solution. A multi-faceted approach that combines education, parental involvement, and responsible technology use is essential to protect young minds while also preparing them for a digital future.
Sapna Bhandari
Educator & Chief Editor, EduHive
Tatyana Dyachenko
This ban taps into a key psychological debate around the effects of digital platforms on adolescent well-being.
From a psychological perspective, this proposal reflects both a protective response to observed mental health trends and a complex ethical challenge regarding autonomy and adolescent development.
Adolescence is a critical period for identity formation, social comparison, and emotional development.
During this stage, teens are highly sensitive to peer influence and validation, which can be amplified by social media use. Platforms that encourage “likes” and “follows” can create a reward loop, reinforcing behaviors associated with social approval and validation.
For some adolescents, this can result in increased vulnerability to issues such as anxiety, depression, and even body image disturbances, as they seek validation and may experience rejection or exclusion.
Psychologically, a break from such platforms could theoretically give teens space to develop resilience, self-esteem, and identity without the pressures of digital feedback.
However, the proposal is not without significant challenges. Banning social media entirely may not address the root of the issue.
Adolescents are likely to find alternative ways to use social media, potentially hiding their usage and creating secrecy between them and their parents or guardians.
Additionally, social media can also provide positive support, particularly for teens who struggle to find acceptance or understanding in their immediate environment. LGBTQ+ youth, for example, often find supportive communities online that may not be available offline.
Removing this access could isolate them, impacting their mental health negatively.
Psychologically, adolescents are better served by guidance in responsible social media use rather than strict prohibitions.
Digital literacy education that encourages critical thinking, healthy boundaries, and self-regulation can empower young people to navigate these platforms more effectively.
With appropriate parental involvement and a supportive environment, teens can learn to balance the positives and negatives of social media use, which may build resilience and adaptability in today’s digital world.
Ultimately, a complete ban might overlook the psychological nuance of teenage development. Rather than blanket restrictions, a more tailored approach that balances safety with empowerment could be more effective in supporting young people’s mental health and well-being.
Tatyana Dyachenko
Psychologist and Relationship Advisor, Peaches and Screams
Zohaib Sunesara
I find this move both interesting and complex.
On one hand, I understand the desire to shield children from the potential risks associated with social media. Platforms can expose children to cyberbullying, distorted self-image, and even harmful content.
In my experience, unregulated access can impact children’s mental health, often leading to anxiety, depression, or isolation. Many parents would likely welcome this legislation as it offers a safeguard, providing peace of mind that their children are protected from potential harm.
However, I worry that this kind of blanket ban might have unintended consequences for young people’s development, especially in terms of digital inclusion.
We live in an era where digital skills aren’t just beneficial—they’re crucial. Digital literacy fosters social interaction, cultural engagement, and future career prospects. By restricting access, we risk cutting young people off from valuable opportunities for creative expression, collaborative learning, and social connection.
Many teens use these platforms for positive purposes, from exploring creative projects to engaging in supportive online communities. Banning access could mean a loss of these developmental opportunities.
In my work with families, I believe balance is the key. Instead of an outright ban, I advocate for strategies that empower parents to set appropriate boundaries while helping children navigate the digital world responsibly.
Schools could offer digital literacy programs to educate young people on online safety, privacy, and content management. Platforms could also implement stronger parental controls and age-appropriate filters to help parents manage their children’s online experiences more effectively.
Ultimately, the goal shouldn’t be to remove social media entirely but rather to guide children in using it wisely.
As a society, we have a responsibility to teach children about self-regulation and responsible digital habits rather than simply shielding them from the internet. They’re going to encounter this technology sooner or later, so it’s better to prepare them to handle it safely and constructively, with proper support.
While I respect the government’s intent to protect young people, I worry that this approach might go too far. I would suggest a framework that blends education, supervision, and engagement, empowering our children in ways that a blanket ban cannot achieve.
Zohaib Sunesara
Certified Parenting Coach & Co-Founder, Cuddle Pixie
Jeffrey Castillo
As a futurist and content strategist, I’ve seen how technology shapes young minds. This ban is a double-edged sword. While it’s important to safeguard kids from harmful content, it risks cutting them off from positive educational and social opportunities offered by these platforms.
During my collaboration with Gerard Adams on Leaders Create Leaders, we reached millions of young entrepreneurs who used content for personal growth. Blanket restrictions could hinder similar prospects for young Australians.
Instead, developing more robust digital literacy and resilience programs might be key. Such initiatives educate teens on the responsible use of digital spaces, aligning safety with the benefits of connectivity.
I’ve witnessed the shift when social media is used positively—like with the zero-budget video “Chicano,” which empowered voices from my community to reach MTV audiences.
Implementing age-appropriate tools and encouraging responsible platform use could be more impactful than broad bans, fostering a digitally inclusive environment that nurtures growth while mitigating risks.
Jeffrey Castillo aka “digitaljeff”
Founder, CheatCodesLab
Haiko de Poel Jr
While the intention behind the ban is commendable, focusing solely on prohibition may miss the mark.
In my experience with digital changes and marketing strategies, understanding technology’s potential to empower is crucial. Social media can be a platform for young entrepreneurs and creatives if guided correctly.
In my role at Palmetto Surety Corporation, I realized that comprehensive strategies, not just restrictions, lead to success. We custom digital solutions to address specific client needs, which could parallel education initiatives teaching teens digital literacy, online etiquette, and cybersecurity. A more targeted approach could harness educational tools specifically designed for safer online engagement.
Collaborating with tech firms to create age-appropriate content can bridge the gap between safety and access. Implementing AI-driven solutions to monitor usage, while providing educational content, offers a balanced method, much like our approach to handling complex surety bonds.
Such an approach ensures young users aren’t isolated from learning opportunities and community building.
Haiko de Poel Jr
Marketing Specialist, Palmetto Surety Corporation
He Xi
The ban raises important concerns regarding the issue of digital divide once again.
Though it is important to address the problems arising from the younger users, there is a danger of taking this too far and promoting a wider exclusion.
For numerous young Australians, they do not view social media as a temptation, but a source of knowledge, engagement and growth opportunities.
Such a potential blanket approach could sadly deprive them of such experiences, which are critical to their digital development.
A more balanced consideration with strong parental controls, age-based platforms, and compulsory education about technology might all be beneficial in achieving safety but not at the expense of inclusion.
Only restricting access might address the concerns related to safety in the short term but does not equip the young people with the competency to maneuver themselves in cyberspace; a competency that is as important as mathematics or reading in the present age.
He Xi
CEO, BoostVision
Rashid Al Aminour
Somewhat pro. The issues associated with social media use among young people are just too significant to ignore.
The ban is a bold move in response to well-documented concerns about the impact of social media on mental health, cyberbullying, and the potential for exploitation. This is largely uncharted territory, and taking decisive action requires considerable political will.
While some may see this as overreach, the risks to young users have grown clear enough to warrant immediate measures to protect their well-being.
This ban is not about excluding young people from the digital world, nor does it infringe on their digital inclusion.
Social media should not be equated with digital inclusion.
Young people can still engage, learn, and connect in safe, controlled environments that don’t expose them to the pitfalls of social media.
In fact, this restriction could drive innovation, encouraging the development of alternative platforms designed specifically to foster safe, enriching digital experiences for younger users.
Al Aminour Rashid
Software Developer, 8gs
Max Shak
As a digital leader, I see both sides of this complex issue.
The intention behind the legislation is undoubtedly rooted in a desire to protect young people from the unique risks associated with social media—mental health impacts, privacy concerns, and exposure to harmful content.
However, a ban on social media access for those under 16 could have unintended consequences for digital inclusion and literacy.
Social media is increasingly woven into the fabric of modern communication, learning, and expression, especially for younger generations.
Restricting access could create a digital divide, leaving teens less equipped to navigate online spaces responsibly when they do gain access.
Rather than an outright ban, a more balanced approach could be empowering parents and guardians with better tools and resources to guide safe, positive online engagement.
Education on digital safety and critical media skills might strike a balance between safeguarding young people and fostering their ability to thrive in an increasingly digital world.
Max Shak
Founder & CEO, nerDigital
What is your take on Australia’s social media ban for children under 16? Do you believe it to be a bold and essential move in the right direction? Or do you think it is a step back in the march for digital rights? Write in (stan@techronicler.com ) and let us know.
The Techronicler team thanks these leaders for taking the time to share their thoughts
If you wish to showcase your experience and expertise, participate in industry-leading discussions, and add visibility and impact to your personal brand and business, get in touch with the Techronicler team to feature in our fast-growing publication.
You may also like
