Australia's teen social media ban faces problems

Topic: Government and Politics

Julie Inman Grant released the first results of the expert study on the ban (ABC News: Craig Hansen).

Years after Australia started trying to get teens off social media, the Albanese government is suddenly rushing.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said last month it was "outrageous" that the Coalition and the Greens wanted to review proposed changes to the social media minimum‑age law at an inquiry.

It was oddly urgent for a policy that had been in development for over two years – a policy he called a "success" a week before it even started.

Eight months after the law began, the world‑first rule for under‑16s has shown little visible change.

Anthony Albanese says it is "outrageous" that the Coalition and the Greens voted to scrutinise proposed reforms. (ABC News: Matt Roberts)

Early teen social media ban results show little impact

Late last month, the eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant released the first findings of the expert‑led study of the ban’s results.

The main finding was that teen use of social media barely moved. About 81.5% of teens still used social media after the ban, only a few points down from 85.9% before it.

The study also noted a 20% drop in teens who have social‑media accounts, even though the law does not force companies to stop logged‑out teens from using platforms.

An age‑check company warned that large fines might be seen as a "small price to pay" if they help portray Australia’s ban as a failure.

It found little change in kids’ offline activities, problematic internet use, wellbeing, or parental stress.

Research showed parents are more often unaware of their teens’ social‑media use, rising from 23% to 33%.

At the ban‑amendment inquiry on Friday, the eSafety Commissioner said messaging and gaming use – excluded from the ban – have increased, undermining the promise to get kids "back onto the footy field".

Wayne Holesworth of SmackTalk told the hearing that the policy has only been active for a few months and it may take three to five years to see its full effects.

Eight months on, the most positive case for Albanese’s globally praised teen ban is that it has not yet been fully implemented, so it might still work.

There were warnings

It is easy to say we could not have known how this world‑first ban would turn out.

But looking at public submissions from November 2024, some experts already had good ideas about possible outcomes.

The Australian Human Rights Commission warned that technical work‑arounds could weaken the ban’s success.

The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth said bans would push young people to other places.

Academics Marcus Carter, Taylor Hardwick and Ben Egliston said children’s social‑media use would become "more private and more hidden".

One early submission warned that age‑restriction tools were already ineffective and that bans alone would not teach safe internet use.

That submission came from the eSafety Commissioner, now tasked with enforcing the law.

Some experts and groups have expressed concerns about how well the ban works. (Reuters: Asanka Brendon)

Who’s to blame?

The government quickly blamed social‑media companies for not enforcing the ban and, by extension, its political opponents for slowing new enforcement powers.

The teen ban required tech firms to take "reasonable steps" to keep teens off their platforms.

The fact teens are still on these platforms does not prove companies broke the law as written. (Inman Grant says investigations into five platforms are ongoing.)

The government made clear it did not want companies to be too strict. The law says firms cannot only ask for ID and must offer other, less accurate methods – a deliberate loophole.

Research shows many under‑16s are still active on social media. BTN High looks at why and tests the accuracy of popular age‑estimation technology.

All this makes the government’s plan to double fines seem odd – perhaps it should first try a smaller penalty.

But let’s assume the tech firms broke the law. Why is the government surprised?

After all, it has accused the firms of not caring and causing social harm – calling them "sharks".

There are many reasons for this. US courts have called companies like Meta a "public nuisance" that causes psychological harm and sexual exploitation, and whistleblowers have shown they hid research on teen mental‑health impacts.

These companies clearly cannot be left to self‑regulate. Yet the government wrote the ban so that enforcement details are left to the very firms it does not trust.

To keep the government’s metaphor, it let the sharks design the shark nets.

Now it says the companies are not complying and it needs new powers to prove it.

Why wasn’t the law written with those powers from the start? Didn’t we say we were dealing with sharks?

The road not taken

Australia’s teen ban is often judged as all‑or‑nothing: without it we would just be idle.

There are other options that show the real cost of the ban – look at the government’s other online‑safety policies.

Since November 2024, the Albanese government says it plans a digital duty of care, a policy that would require tech firms to reduce harms from their services.

Nearly two years later, it has not been presented to parliament and may be years away from taking effect.

What if, instead of spending years developing, promoting, and fighting legal battles over the duty of care, Australia had fully pursued it?

We can’t know for sure, but it seems common sense that the ban has used resources that could have been spent elsewhere.

That brings us back to the main issue: helping young people.

The ban remains popular because Australians worry about teens.

That concern justifies spending more time on the ban to try to make it work. It is not surprising a world‑first ban isn’t perfect at first.

But eventually, the same desire to improve young lives may lead the government to reconsider its commitment and investment in a policy that has not yet shown results.

It is hard to imagine another high‑profile policy about children that faces early setbacks without sparking more debate about whether to keep pursuing it.

If Albanese is right and we cannot waste time, how much longer can we wait for the ban to work?

See more ABC coverage in your search results

Promotion

Top Stories

Topic: Bowel and Rectal Cancer

Topic: AFL

Topic: Housing Policy

Topic: Explainer

Topic: Foreign Affairs

Popular now

Topic: Bowel and Rectal Cancer

Topic: Missing Person

Topic: AFL

Top Stories

Topic: Bowel and Rectal Cancer

Topic: AFL

Topic: Housing Policy

Topic: Explainer

Topic: Foreign Affairs

Just In

Topic: Courts

Topic: Housing Policy

Topic: Courts

Topic: Police