It’s been two months since Australia’s landmark social media ban for under 16s came into effect, and the rest of the world is watching closely. Spain, Greece, France and Germany are all beginning to explore their own versions of the ban, but according to young Aussies, they might as well not bother.
“It’s not working,” Isaac*, a 14-year-old in Sydney, told PEDESTRIAN.TV. “Me and my friends are still messaging each other on the same apps… everything has stayed the same.”
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant claims that 4.7 million social media accounts belonging to under 16s have been successfully removed, but teenagers P.TV spoke to — not to mention the social platforms themselves — tell a different story.
It begs the question: how effective is the ‘so-called’ social media ban?
How’d We Get Here?
Good question.
Voices asking for a ban started coming from all sides, pretty quickly. From radio host Michael Wipfli (of Fitzy & Wippa fame) picking up the baton after connecting with families affected by teen suicide to News Corp’s ‘Let Them Be Kids Campaign’, along with murmurs about age restrictions in South Australia. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese ultimately picked up the call, announcing in late 2024 he’d be pursuing a social media ban.
His legislation hinged on two key changes: first, raising the minimum age to use social media to 16 (most major apps stipulate that you must be 13 years old, although this isn’t rigorously enforced); and two, putting the responsibility on social media companies themselves to stop under age users from accessing their platforms. This second part is key.
Since the ban came into effect last December, it’s largely focused on making sure social media companies play along, bringing in penalties of up to $49.5 million for companies that don’t comply
This involves introducing extensive age verification technology and check points, as well as platforms having to actively remove existing and any new accounts which they believe belong to users under the age limit.
“We don’t argue that the changes that we will be legislating will fix everything immediately,” Albanese said in November 2024 when announcing the ban, “but those laws set what the parameters are for our society and they assist in ensuring the right outcomes.”
Experts raised their hands pretty immediately, flagging the need for more tailored, long-term strategies that focus on educating young people on how to deal with social media, rather than just a blanket ban.
“One-size-fits-all, abstinence-based approaches may have downsides, particularly for older adolescents,” Adelaide University researcher Dr Ben Singh told P.TV. “The goal should be reducing problematic/high use while supporting healthy connection. The concerns that motivated the ban are understandable, but the evidence also points to a more nuanced picture than ‘social media = always bad’.”
Were All Social Platforms Banned?
In short, no — and it’s proved contentious to say the least.
Facebook, Instagram and Threads (all of which are owned by Meta) are on the banned list, as are TikTok, Snapchat, Kick, Reddit, Twitch and X (formerly Twitter).
However, platforms including YouTube Kids, Discord, WhatsApp, Messenger (owned by Meta), Roblox, Pinterest, GitHub, Google Classroom and Steam are not.
The apps banned for under 16s, versus those that weren’t, were decided via the government’s criteria list, which determined that platforms with the sole purpose of messaging, calling, playing a game, sharing information or learning could be excluded.
However, some platforms (like YouTube) can be accessed without an account, meaning under 16s can still consume content.
Additionally, there is concern that only the most established social platforms have been subject to the ban so far, meaning newer platforms — such as TikTok’s sister platform Lemon8 — were able to fly under the radar. ByteDance (which owns both TikTok and Lemon8) was even running ads on TikTok in the lead-up to the ban, promoting Lemon8 as an alternative, which saw the app surge in popularity as the ban came into effect. However, ByteDance has since confirmed Lemon8 would comply with age restrictions, with the eSafety commissioner continuing to investigate new social platforms.
“Our expectation is clear: any company that allows [under 16s to access banned platforms] is breaking the law,” Communications Minister Anika Wells told the National Press Club last December.
“We know it won’t be perfect from day one but we won’t give up — and we won’t let the platforms off the hook.”
So, Is It Working?
It doesn’t seem like it, at least not measured against the government’s goals in creating the ban.
Initial reporting from Meta, Snapchat and TikTok suggest less than half of the accounts held by under 16s have actually been removed, and that’s not even counting all those who have managed to re-gain access to certain platforms.
Isaac*, 14, told P.TV he still has access to Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube. “Basically, most people I know my age still have access,” he said.
“[The ban is] not working. Me and my friends are still messaging each other on the same apps… everything has stayed the same.”
Sarah*, 15, from Sydney paints a similar picture. “Most of my friends and [other] kids at school do still have access to social media,” she said. “Many people got banned at the beginning but then got their accounts back with Face ID thinking they’re older or by making new accounts.”
Both Isaac and Sarah said Snapchat was the toughest platform when it came to enforcing the ban. Although Isaac was initially kicked out of his Snapchat account, he was able to regain entry by making a second account. “I had created a second account as a back up,” he said. “All my mates did this. It took me back to my main account, which let me in.”
Additionally, when it came to his Instagram account, Isaac told us: “I was kicked out the day before the ban and then tried to get back in, which didn’t work. Then I put my age at 60 years old and it let me create an account without asking for anything.”
For Josh*, 15, from Sydney, “nothing happened in the first place”. He still has access to the same platforms he was using prior to the ban: Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube.
According to self-reporting, TikTok has removed 200,000 accounts, which is roughly 31 per cent of under 16s using the platform prior to the ban. Meta said it had removed just 550,000 accounts (330,639 of which were from Instagram), which the ABC estimates would only account for 44 per cent of users. (The eSafety commissioner would not comment on why so many under 16s were still able to access these platforms.)
According to the teens P.TV spoke to, access is patchy across platforms and accounts. While some have no issues regaining entry, others remain locked out — which creates additional problems of its own.
“A strict ban may reduce exposure to harms for some, but it could also increase social isolation or ‘missed connections’ for others, especially if peers are still connecting online,” Singh said.
“If access becomes patchy, you can end up with a two-tier peer group, some adolescents still plugged into the main social channels, others left out… so forced exclusion may heighten disconnection for some teens.”
Where Do We (And Others) Go From Here?
There are two major faults with the ban in its current form:
- It’s not actually banning teens (awkward).
- The ban itself is flawed.
For these to be resolved, both technical and educational measures need to be expanded. The government’s job is far from done and yet when P.TV asked the eSafety Commissioner how or whether her office was addressing these faults, they were unable to provide a response.
Snapchat CEO Evan Spiegel has suggested an App Store-based age verification to ensure a more uniform age profile across all platforms.
“The technical realities are challenging… some under-16s will get through the gate” he wrote in a recent piece for the Financial Times. “Some over-16s will be incorrectly locked out. At the scale at which we operate, it will be difficult to achieve 100 per cent accuracy.”
Meaningfully solving the risks of excessive, unregulated social media use is more complicated than a social media ban, but arguably far more important.
“It could become more effective if it’s part of a broader strategy, not just removing accounts, but also strengthening digital literacy, emotional regulation skills, and safe reporting pathways for harmful content and bullying,” Singh suggested.
“If countries pursue bans, I’d caution them to pair restrictions with supports that build digital skills and resilience, rather than treating time-offline as the only solution.”
Over to you, Europe.
Lead photo: Getty / PEDESTRIAN.TV.
The post Aussie Teens Told Us Exactly How They’re Getting Around The Under 16s Social Media Ban appeared first on PEDESTRIAN.TV .
