Today, many of our followers have asked for our perspective and opinion on Australia’s controversial new social media Bill (1), which bans individuals under the age of 16 from accessing social media platforms, and should this be something Canada adopts. This Bill has sparked intense global debate, with both praise and criticism flooding in from experts, parents, caregivers, special interest groups, and policymakers alike. Now that this Bill has passed parliament, it is our understanding that it can now be introduced as legislation within the next 12 months.
We’ve been closely monitoring the development of this Bill for the past year, following opinions from digital literacy and internet safety experts, legal scholars, and researchers from Australia and beyond that we highly respect. It is interesting to note that the well-known and internationally respected Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has not yet publicly endorsed this new Bill. (2) While the Bill is positioned by government as a bold step toward protecting youth, we believe a deeper look reveals critical issues, including rushed policymaking, selective reliance on research, and potential unintended consequences.
It is important to note that this new legislation does not place any kind of criminal accountably on those under the age of 16, or their parent or caregiver for non-compliance – its design is to places a civil consequence on social media vendors who do not vet those under the age of 16 from joining their platform, or failure to remove an under 16yr old if discovered on their platform.
In October, the Australian governments of New South Wales (NSW) and South Australia (SA) hosted a two-day Social Media Summit to examine the pros and cons of youth social media use. (3) The event, however, was widely criticized for focusing solely on the negative impacts of social media. Two keynote speakers, Dr. Jonathan Haidt and Dr. Jean Twenge, were given prominence, while other experts and peer-reviewed studies offering a more balanced perspective or counter narrative were primarily excluded from the dialogue.
For instance, Dr. Haidt, whose book heavily critiques social media’s influence on mental health, (4) it was revealed (via a Freedom of Information request) that he had private discussions with the SA Premier prior to the summit. (5) These conversations and Haidt’s book reportedly influenced the Premier’s decision to push the legislation forward. Did the premier also speak to Dr Pete Etchells, whose recently published book “Unlocked, The Real Science of Screen Time (and how to spend it Better)” (6) that pushes back against Dr Haidt’s thesis have a discussion? – It doesn’t appear so. If not, why not?
This raises an important question for parents and caregivers – Can we trust legislation crafted without a complete, balanced consultation of all the available research? Academic studies have shown that social media can indeed have both negative and positive impacts, depending on how it is used. For example:
- Negative Impact – Prolonged exposure to unregulated platforms has been linked to mental health issues, such as anxiety, and depression for “some” youth. (7)
- Positive Impact – Platforms can foster creativity, provide educational resources, and connect youth to supportive communities, particularly for marginalized groups. (8)(9)
A balanced discussion at the summit could have provided parents, caregivers, and law makers with a clearer picture of how to guide children toward healthy social media use, and the creation of a more balanced piece of legislation.
The Australian government’s own “Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society”, tasked with investigating the role of social media in young people’s lives, submitted its researched and well thought out findings in early November 2024, just after the above noted summit. (10) The committee DID NOT recommend banning youth under 16 from social media. Despite this, the government bypassed these recommendations and passed the new Bill swiftly, allowing only 24 hours for public submissions on the online safety bill before the final reading.
For comparison, imagine a school board introducing a policy that affects your child but giving parents only one day to voice their opinions. Such limited consultation raises serious concerns about whether the law reflects what’s best for youth – or if it’s a political move aimed at gaining favor with a vocal group of voters.
With Australia’s national elections looming in May 2025, some Australian experts speculate this Bill is an attempt to appease parents, caregivers, and special interest groups, a significant voting bloc in Australia, who support strict regulation, often based on fear and emotion rather than comprehensive evidence-based research.
Dr. Andrew Przybylski, a leading expert on social media and youth that we highly respect, has raised significant concerns about the new Bill. (11) Here are some of his key points, with added context:
1/ The definition of what counts as a social media platform is overly broad and unclear. Do messaging apps count as a social media platform? We know, at least here in British Columbia, that teens are moving to messaging platforms as their main way to connect with one another (12)
2/ Banning young people from mainstream social media platforms could drive them to less-regulated corners of the internet, where harmful content and predatory behavior are harder to monitor. For example, if platforms like Instagram and TikTok are inaccessible, children might turn to encrypted messaging apps or anonymous forums where safety measures are minimal. As our friend and Australian psychologist Jocelyn Brewer has stated “Bans don’t teach young people skills to navigate digital spaces.” (13)
3/ The Bill’s enforcement depends on age-verification technology, which hasn’t been clearly defined. Many such systems rely on biometric data or government-issued IDs, raising serious privacy concerns – this legislation by design, or not, appears to be pushing people further toward a digital ID for everyone. Imagine having to upload your child’s ID to a third-party platform—does this truly protect their safety, or does it introduce new risks? Big Tech has repeatedly demonstrated that it cannot be trusted with our personal data. How do we police the collection and storage of such private information by these social media vendors so that they are not further monetizing it to their financial benefit.
4/ Youth can easily bypass these restrictions by using a Virtual Private Network (VPN) to mask their location. This has already been observed in France, where similar bans were implemented. Almost half of young users avoided restrictions using VPNs, rendering the legislation ineffective. NOTE – Susan McLean, one of Australia’s most renowned cybersafety experts, has publicly shared on her social media feeds that teens under 16 at the schools she visits have been telling her they are altering their birthdates to appear over 16, thereby circumventing the new legislation.
5/ Young people, the primary stakeholders, were largely excluded from the debate. This mirrors a recurring issue where adults craft policies “for” youth without engaging them in meaningful consultation.
6/ Evidence from France shows similar bans are easily circumvented, with almost half of users avoiding restrictions through VPNs. Similar law in Utah in the US was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge.
Here’s a very recent interview Dr. Przybylski did on this new legislation:
We also believe that one of the most controversial aspects of this law is that it overrides parental discretion. Even if a parent or caregiver feels their 15-year-old is ready to use social media responsibly, the government now forbids it. This strips parents of their right to make decisions tailored to their child’s maturity and digital literacy – do we really want government to override what we believe is right for our own kids when it comes to their use of technology? It is important to note that this new legislation does not place any kind of criminal accountably on those under the age of 16, or their parent or caregiver for non-complince
While the intention to protect youth from potential harms of social media is commendable, this legislation fails to address the complexities of the issue. Parents and caregivers are left in a difficult position:
- Do we want a system that could require intrusive age-verification methods, risking sensitive family data that this new legislation appears to require?
- Research consistently shows that digital literacy and open conversations between parents and children are far more effective than outright bans. For instance, instead of forbidding social media, parents can teach children how to critically evaluate content, set boundaries, and report harmful behavior via digital literacy education.
- Laws like these could push tech-savvy youth toward alternative platforms, where there’s less oversight and greater exposure to risks.
The debate around Australia’s social media ban is a reminder of the importance of balanced, evidence based, research-driven policymaking. Parents must advocate for solutions that:
- Involve young people in the conversation.
- Respect parental rights and discretion.
- Focus on education and empowerment rather than fear and restriction.
While the intent to safeguard youth from the potential harms of social media is admirable, Australia’s new Bill banning individuals under 16 from accessing these platforms raises significant concerns. The rushed nature of the legislation, selective use of research, lack of “real” consultation with youth and broader experts, and the potential for unintended consequences all highlight the complexities of this issue.
Yes, well thought out legislation is needed that targets not only these social media platforms, but also companies like Apple, Google and even Internet Service Providers. (14) Rather than imposing blanket bans that may drive youth to less-regulated corners of the internet or infringe on parental discretion, a more effective approach would prioritize education, empowerment, and open dialogue. Digital literacy programs and collaborative policymaking that respect the voices of young people and their families can provide a balanced solution that addresses risks while recognizing the benefits of social media. Parents and caregivers must remain advocates for evidence-based strategies that guide youth toward safe and responsible digital engagement, ensuring their online experiences are both positive and protected.
This Bill serves as a stark reminder of the dangers of policymaking driven by fear rather than a nuanced understanding of the digital landscape. By sidelining comprehensive research and bypassing meaningful public consultation, Australia risks implementing measures that are not only ineffective, but likely non-enforceable and potentially harmful to some youth. We believe that, rather than proactively working to protect youth online, this Bill risks prompting social media platforms to only simply ban anyone under the age of 16 from their platforms – if the goal is to get these platforms to work with us in a wraparound approach proactively, this Bill will likely make it harder for this to happen.
For Canadian parents and caregivers, the key takeaway is the importance of proactive involvement in their children’s digital lives. Rather than relying on restrictive legislation, fostering critical thinking skills and maintaining open lines of communication about online behavior are crucial steps. When children are educated about the risks and benefits of social media, they are better equipped to navigate these platforms safely and responsibly.
As the global conversation about youth and social media continues, it’s clear that collaboration between governments, researchers, educators, parents, caregivers and, most importantly, youth themselves is essential. Only through inclusive and informed discussions can we develop policies that truly support the well-being of young people in our increasingly connected onlife world. This is not just about social media – it’s about preparing our youth to thrive in today’s onlife world while safeguarding their rights, privacy, and opportunities for growth to build resiliency.
While governments worldwide grapple with the challenges of regulating social media, families can take proactive steps to foster digital literacy at home. Equip your children with the age-appropriate tools they need to navigate the onlife world responsibly, regardless of what legislation may come. After all, no law can replace the power of informed and engaged onlife parenting.
It’s going to be very interesting to see how legislation, specific to this Bill, rolls out over the next 12 months in Australia. I suspect that there are going to be some significant alterations and rewrites – just saying!
Related Article:
Digital Food For Thought
The White Hatter
Facts Not Fear, Facts Not Emotions, Enlighten Not Frighten, Know Tech Not No Tech
References:
2/https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/11/19/teen-social-media-ban-esafety-commissioner-julie-inman-grant/
3/ https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/nsw-and-sa-governments-to-jointly-host-social-media-summit
5/ https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/11/21/teen-social-media-ban-jonathan-haidt-peter-malinauskas/
10/https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Social_Media/SocialMedia/Final_report
11/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/akprzybylski/
13/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14107523/social-media-teenagers-australia-ban.html
