Ellen Phiddian
Cosmos science journalist
The proposed social media ban for under-16-year-old Australians has passed the Senate, and will come into force in 12 months’ time.
Experts in psychology, communications, and education have mixed opinions about the ban, with many – although not all – considering it a bad idea.
“It is clear that parents are calling for regulation that better protects their children online,” says Professor Amanda Third, from Western Sydney University.
“However, the legislation that passed through parliament yesterday is a blunt instrument that will not better protect our children online, and appears to undermine other regulatory mechanisms designed to hold technology platforms to account, such as the very important statutory duty of care.”
“I really do think that this is an important decision in the protection of our children’s mental health,” counters Professor Susan Rossell, from Swinburne University.
“While social media isn’t solely responsible for growing body image concerns, it certainly plays a part. The work that we did to provide evidence for the damaging effects for those with eating and body image disorders was quoted as pivotal in the decision behind this vote.”
The ban will penalise certain online platforms – such as TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, X, and Reddit – for allowing accounts belonging to users under 16 years of age.
Enforcing these age restrictions will be the responsibility of the platforms, and the ban does not have detail on how they’ll work.
Professor Daniel Angus, of Queensland University of Technology, calls the ban “ill-conceived”.
“Platforms, large and small, now face a daunting task: de-platform millions of young users while somehow avoiding violations of privacy, security, and anti-discrimination principles,” says Angus.
“Meanwhile, exemptions to services like anonymous forums and messaging apps remain just as accessible, rendering the regulation ineffectual at tackling many of the online harms it claims to address.”
Angus says that the ban distracts from reforms that might “genuinely reduce harm”.
“Evidence-based measures such as a children’s online privacy code, a duty of care for digital platforms, and increased user control over algorithms were all recommended during the government’s hasty formation of this bill, but ignored in favour of this blunt, headline-grabbing approach,” he says.
Associate Professor Jennifer Alford, from Griffith University, says there are also measures that parents and schools can take.
“Talk with young people about the time they spend on social media and what they get out of it,” says Alford, citing research she’s published that suggests Australian year 10 students look critically at what they see online.
“We should encourage this critical view. Work out with them how they want to balance it with other activities such as sport, music, reading books. Give them some control over how they use it.
“Banning and removing it will only make them angry and rebel and potentially push them to the dark web.”
Alford adds that her research shows the Australian English curriculum helps students to analyse and think critically about things they are reading outside of school.
Experts are still divided on the evidence linking social media with poor mental health among children.
“Social media is designed to capture attention, whether through polarising opinions and clickbait style headlines, or by providing dopamine hits to the brain through engagement in an online popularity contest,” says Associate Professor Jennifer Stokes, from the University of South Australia.
“There is growing evidence that image-based services have negative impacts on mental health.”
Stokes says that while social networks can provide supportive communities as well as risks, she thinks the ban is “a step forward in recognising the impacts of social media and supporting young people to develop digital literacy prior to engaging with these systems”.
Monash University’s Dr Stephanie Wescott, meanwhile, says the legislation “ignores evidence demonstrating that banning access does not lead to improved health and social outcomes, and ignores expert warnings that age verification technology is largely untested and unproven”.
“This ban will also isolate vulnerable young people for whom social media provides connection and affirmation,” says Wescott.
“While the prime minister’s acknowledgement of the harms of exposure to online misogyny is important, critical education and digital literacies continue to be overlooked as effective ways to equip young people with the skills they need for lifelong social media use.
“We expect that this legislation will be largely ineffective in achieving any of the aims the government hopes it will.”
