Introduction: Is Australia’s Social Media Ban a Misstep?
Imagine waking up to find out that, by law, your teenager can no longer access social media platforms like Instagram or TikTok, regardless of whether you as a parent say it’s okay. That’s the reality Australians might soon face under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s proposed social media ban for those under 16. It’s an attempt to tackle the widely acknowledged mental health crisis exacerbated by these platforms. But here’s the question: Is this ban a logical step forward, or is it a deeply flawed overreach that risks more harm than good?
As someone who follows the constant upheavals in both political decision-making and the ever-evolving technology landscape, I have mixed feelings here — and so do a lot of others. On the surface, the ban sounds like a reasonable move to protect our children from the perils of social media, but when we dig deeper, it reveals several glaring issues.
Exploring the Threat Landscape: What Are We Protecting from?
To start, let’s address the government’s main motivation behind the ban: the rapid rise in mental health issues, reportedly linked to young people’s use of social media. The figures are worrying. According to mental health surveys, anxiety, and depression among teens increased by up to 50% between 2010 and 2020, coinciding with the rise of apps like Instagram and TikTok. These platforms have been directly linked to exacerbating self-esteem issues, cyberbullying, and even exposing teenagers to harmful content.
The Albanese government reasons that we, as a society, must “call time” on what social media is doing to our kids. Fair enough, but the methods used to curb this problem need to be examined closely. The ban includes a blanket restriction — no one under 16 will be allowed on platforms like Instagram or TikTok, with no exceptions. And tech companies will be tasked with enforcing it by ensuring age verification systems are in place.
But banning 16-year-olds from social media altogether? Isn’t that a bit of overkill?
Is a Ban Really the Best Solution?
One glaring concern with this approach is that such restrictions hinge on age-old assumptions about protecting young people — but does shutting off access actually make social media safer? Lisa M. Given, a professor and expert in this space, argues that the blanket ban is “deeply flawed” and could even give parents a false sense of security. After all, young people are extremely resourceful, and as Australia’s eSafety Commissioner noted, kids will almost certainly find workarounds— whether by borrowing accounts or using VPNs.
- Using an older sibling’s account or borrowing a parent’s phone
- Downloading the apps on devices less likely to be monitored
- Employing VPNs that make their user’s identity and location harder to track
Having spent a significant amount of time researching the issue of internet safety, I can see why traditional solutions like outright bans may not be foolproof. From my vantage point, a ban only seems to scratch the surface of a much deeper issue that won’t be resolved by tech measures alone. Why hasn’t more of the conversation focused on improving digital literacy among teens and parents?
Social Media: Isn’t There Any Good?
Here’s where Albanese’s proposal starts to lose me. While much of the media coverage highlights the risks of social media, it tends to underreport the positive opportunities social platforms can offer to young people. Many teenagers use social media as a tool to connect with career opportunities, apply for jobs, or interact with educational institutions. There’s a world of report sites that underscore how young, tech-savvy individuals build communities from shared interests, some tackling challenges like mental health, sexuality, and diversity.
For culturally diverse teenagers, social networking sites might be the only place where they can engage with others who share their experiences. Isn’t it a bit shortsighted to lump all these platforms together as “dangerous” when they also serve as resource hubs for young people grappling with who they are and who they want to be?
Take Riya, for example: This Melbourne-based 15-year-old has been using LinkedIn to follow thought leaders in her desired field — architecture. By following these professionals, she’s been exposed to the kinds of projects and internships that will help guide her future career. Under this new policy, individuals like Riya are essentially shut out of such career-building opportunities, which feels like an unintended but significant consequence.
Real-World Examples: How Do Other Countries Handle This?
If we look outside of Australia, other nations are also grappling with ways to manage young people’s use of social media. In Europe, there’s no consensus on age limits for these platforms. France, for example, enacted a law requiring parental consent for those under 15, while the U.S. state of Texas goes even further by requiring parental consent for all users under 18.
This begs the question: Why has the Albanese government zeroed in on 16, when there doesn’t seem to be an international standard to back it up?
Could more customized solutions — like age verification anchored in parental controls and educational campaigns rather than blanket bans — offer a more nuanced approach? Parental involvement, after all, is paramount. Parents should be partners, not sidelined by heavy-handed regulations that imply they don’t know what’s best for their children. Imagine trying to ban kids from something as universally accessible as the internet if their guardians deem it appropriate for their maturity levels— it feels like the wrong road to travel.
Conclusion: More Harm Than Help?
At first glance, Anthony Albanese’s social media ban seems like a plausible response to the undeniable dangers posed by online platforms. And he’s not wrong— social media has its pitfalls, especially for young users. Still, the ban, as it stands, feels like it could end up doing more harm than good. The risks haven’t been sealed off— just pushed out to unmonitored spaces, while denying young people the benefits of online communities, learning spaces, and career networking.
So where does that leave us? A sensible solution involves teaching digital literacy, promoting stronger parental engagement, and holding tech companies accountable to filter harmful content. Above all, we need to empower, not isolate, the next generation.
Maybe this is a conversation worth reopening before the final laws take effect.