Australia’s Under 16s Social Media Ban

---

Australia has introduced a ban on social media use for under-16s with the aim of protecting

young people from potential harm. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has described the

policy as “a profound reform which will continue to reverberate around the world.” But is this a desirable outcome? While many parents welcome the ban as a necessary safeguard for their children, social media companies have been reluctant to enforce it.

Social media has frequently been linked to rising levels of anxiety and depression among

young people. A 2015 study found that nearly half of psychiatric patients were social media

users. However, this association does not necessarily indicate causation. For many young

people, social media provides mental health support through organisations such as Mind

and the YoungMinds Campaign. These platforms have become increasingly important at a

time when access to mental health services is limited, suggesting that a complete ban may

inadvertently remove essential sources of support for young people.

Concerns have also been raised regarding excessive screen time, with reports indicating

that young people spend an average of 7 hours and 22 minutes per day on their devices

prompting questions about the impact on academic performance. On the other hand, screen time alone may not be inherently harmful. Many young people use social media productively, accessing educational content and study-focused accounts that provide immediate academic support. Therefore, high screen time does not automatically equate to negative outcomes.

Social media can play a crucial role in helping young people maintain relationships. The

ability to communicate with friends and family regardless of location can strengthen social

bonds, particularly for those unable to attend school due to illness or hospitalisation. For

these individuals, social media may reduce feelings of isolation and loneliness that could

otherwise worsen their wellbeing.

Banning social media for under-16s may unintentionally function as a form of mass

censorship. As news and political information are increasingly consumed through platforms such as Instagram and Facebook, excluding young people from these spaces risks limiting their political awareness. This could create a metaphorical blindfold, preventing under-16s from engaging with the wider political world. Rather than enforcing an outright ban, a more effective approach may involve regulating and monitoring the content accessible to young users.

Overall, social media is a powerful tool capable of producing both positive and negative

outcomes depending on how it is used. While the intention behind the under-16 ban is to

protect young people, an outright prohibition risks socially excluding them if it truly does

“reverberate around the world. ” A more nuanced strategy focused on monitoring social

media usage may be a more effective alternative for protecting young people.

Edited by Abi Hall