Australia 'Bans Social Media for Teens Under 16': A World First Sparks Global Shock

Australia's world-first social media ban for all children under 16 years old has officially commenced, creating a seismic shift in global tech regulation.

The controversial Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 came into full legal force on Wednesday, 10 December 2025, instantly barring millions of teenagers from accounts on major platforms.

The law, implemented in Australia, requires social media companies to take 'reasonable steps' to prevent users under 16 from creating or retaining accounts.

The new mandate places the entire compliance burden on digital platforms themselves, forcing global giants to overhaul their age-verification systems or face ruinous financial penalties. Crucially, the legislation imposes no penalties on the young people or their parents who may attempt to circumvent the ban.

The Great Deactivation And Compliance Challenge

The implementation of the world-first law has triggered mass deactivations across the digital landscape. Major tech firms, including Meta's Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, as well as TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, X, Reddit, Twitch, and Kick, were mandated to remove, lock, or disable accounts for users under the age limit. Local reports indicated that Meta had already begun shutting down accounts in the weeks leading up to the deadline.

Big Tech has publicly opposed the law, raising concerns about data privacy and the efficacy of age verification. Companies are deploying a mix of technologies to comply, including facial age-estimation software and age inference based on user behaviour. Snapchat, for instance, informed users that accounts would be placed into a 'frozen state,' allowing content to be saved and reactivated once the user turns 16.

However, the legislation has sparked frantic attempts by resourceful teenagers to find workarounds, often involving using their parents' or older siblings' identity details to fool the systems, a reality the government acknowledges will not be 'perfect on day one'.

Significantly, the law explicitly prohibits platforms from compelling Australians to use a government-issued ID to prove their age, requiring them to offer reasonable alternatives.

A Policy Driven by Mental Health Concerns

The Australian government's rationale for the drastic measure is rooted in the widely reported mental health crisis among young people, directly linking social media use to rising rates of anxiety, depression, and eating disorders.

Prime Minister Albanese framed the ban as giving children a 'childhood' and allowing parents to 'take back power from these big tech companies'.

The policy gained significant momentum following advocacy movements influenced by research, such as US psychologist Jonathan Haidt's book, The Anxious Generation.

The government argued that the algorithmic nature and design features of platforms, which actively encourage excessive screen time and serve up potentially harmful content, outweighed the benefits of early access.

Local data from the eSafety Commissioner showed that an estimated 96 per cent of Australian children aged 10 to 15 had used at least one social media platform. Among them, 7 in 10 reported encountering harmful content online, such as violent, misogynistic or hateful material. This provided the necessary political justification for the sweeping action.

The International Domino Effect

Australia's unique regulatory gambit is now a live case study being closely watched by policymakers around the globe.

As the first nation to enforce such a comprehensive, mandatory age restriction framework, the effectiveness of its implementation will likely shape legislation in other Western countries.

The global reaction has been one of shock and keen interest. Several European nations, weary of Big Tech's slow response to voluntary safety measures, are now signalling their intent to follow suit. Denmark, Norway, and Malaysia have openly explored adopting similar measures. Perhaps most significantly, the government is reportedly 'closely monitoring' Australia's approach, seeking to learn from its regulatory framework as it continues to grapple with the enforcement of its own comprehensive online safety laws.

Critics, including the Digital Freedom Project (which filed a High Court challenge against the law, arguing it violates the implied right to political communication in the Constitution), have warned that the blanket ban could inadvertently isolate young people, especially those in remote or minority communities who rely on social media for vital connection and self-expression. Yet the political tide clearly favours protection over access.