Australia Says No to Young Teens on Social Media—It Won’t Work

J.B. Branch is a lawyer and former teacher.

Australia's bold move to ban social media for teens under 16 has sparked international debate about child online safety. The Parliament passed the new law last month, which will go into effect at the earliest in December 2025. It requires social media companies to implement measures to prevent underage users from creating accounts, with non-compliance fines of up to$33 million. Other nations, including Norway and the United Kingdom, are now considering following Australia’s lead.

While bold, the law is not dissimilar to legislation passed in the US. In 2023, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed the Social Media Safety Act, requiring minors to obtain parental consent before creating new social media accounts. It may come as no surprise that the Arkansas law was quickly blocked by a judge who cited, among other concerns, freedom of speech.

As a former middle and high school teacher and former attorney for juveniles and foster children, I believe Australia’s ban is excessive and impractical. Self-expression and the sense of community users get when people engage with their posts is a central appeal of social media. This sentiment is true for LGTBQ and other teens who find community online, whereas in their schools, they may feel alone. It is equally true for the Black community, whose unique lexicon and culture birthed the culturally iconic Black Twitter. Further still, social media is one of the few places where teens can authentically express themselves. Unlike school or their household, on social media, youth can flex their creative muscles, expressing themselves in manners that may otherwise be censored.

Related Reading

• Australia’s Online Safety Populism: New Social Media Age Restrictions a Symptom of a Larger Problem with Policy Approach
• Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024
• Tech Policy Press/YouGov Poll Finds Support for US Surgeon General Warning Label for Social Media

The trend of legislating under 18 social media bans both within the US and internationally signals an acknowledgment by society that social media has some negative impact on children’s development. Both the US Surgeon General and the United Nations have flagged social media as a pressing concern for children’s mental health. A 2019 study found that adolescents who spend more than three hours daily on social media “may be at heightened risk for mental health problems.”.

Real-world tragedies underscore the urgency of this issue, too. For example, 17-year-old Jordan DeMay from Michigan died by suicide after falling victim to an online sextortion scheme. Such incidents highlight the risks inherent in unsupervised social media use, where predators exploit platform vulnerabilities. Similarly, the emotional attachment some teens develop to AI chatbots, as in the case of Sewell Setzer III, who also died by suicide, points to the broader psychological dangers of unregulated digital environments.

These types of reactions may seem extreme, but neuroscience provides a critical lens through which to view adolescent social media usage. The prefrontal cortex—the brain region responsible for decision-making and impulse control—remains underdeveloped until the mid-20s. This makes teens more susceptible to risky behaviors, including over-sharing personal information and succumbing to harmful online trends.

There is now global recognition that teens are particularly susceptible to harm in digital spaces. As stewards of our communities, global leaders have both the authority and responsibility to safeguard our children. The world stands at a critical juncture with momentum building towards full-fledged bans against teen access to social media like Australia’s.

Proponents of such comprehensive bans may find inspiration in Australia’s social media ban, but such bans simply won’t stop kids from finding loopholes or workarounds. More to the point, these comprehensive bans not only infringe on teens' right to speech but also invite endless litigation, are difficult to enforce, and accomplish little in practice.

Concerningly, the underlying framework of Australia’s social media ban will likely be adopted by other countries, similar to the global reaction to the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act. But instead of banning teens from accessing social media platforms outright, countries should find a middle ground focused on something we all agree on—keeping children safe online.

Regulators can focus on platform designs like limiting infinite scrolling and algorithms that may expose teens to harmful content. Governments can impose a “duty of care” on platforms mandating them to maintain a safe online environment for their teen users, limiting exposure to posts or videos of self-harm, eating disorders, and substance abuse. Yes, some social media companies may bemoan such regulation, but it is important to note that Instagram, one of the most popular social media platforms for teens, has already voluntarily taken the responsibility of enacting many of these features.

Global leaders should pursue these realistic regulations that allow teens access to social media while offering a safer online experience. Inaction isn’t just a missed opportunity. Every day that countries go without providing safeguards for teen social media users leaves millions of children exposed to preventable harm. The question isn’t whether our global leaders should act; it’s whether they’re willing to let more teens pay the price for our delay.