Australia’s new restriction on social media access for under 16s takes effect on 10 December, a move framed by government as a step to protect young people but one that academics say will reshape how children learn, socialise and seek help.
Specialists from Monash University have outlined risks and opportunities arising from the age ban, pointing to gaps in policy design, the varied experiences of young people and the need for stronger support systems offline.
Associate Professor Zareh Ghazarian from the School of Social Sciences said the ban may hinder the way students learn about politics. “While the nation’s social media ban is hoped to safeguard young people from the dangers of the online space, it has the potential to impact the development of their political knowledge.” He noted that many teachers relied on social platforms to expose students to current affairs. “Students who may have relied on social media for their political development will have to find new sources. Therefore the implementation of the ban presents the ideal opportunity to better support teachers.”
Sociologist Associate Professor Brady Robards has raised concerns that the ban may push young people toward less regulated environments and reduce their willingness to seek help from adults. His work highlights particular risks for young people living with disability, in regional and rural areas or identifying as LGBTQIA+, who often use social media for connection, belonging and support.
Professor Marie Yap, a psychologist and parenting expert, said families will feel the effects immediately and parents will need to prepare themselves. “Parents have a key role to play in helping children understand and adapt to these changes. Particularly for those who spend a lot of time on social media now, the changes are likely to come with a range of emotions, from anxiety or grief to anger.” She urged parents to begin by informing themselves. “The first thing you should do, before even raising the topic with your children, is to do your research. Equip yourself with accurate information and know how to answer their questions or correct any dis or misinformation they may bring up.”
Professor Yap added that tone and trust will matter. “If they sense you are judgemental or forceful, they may not be honest about how they really feel.” She said families that rarely discuss online activity may find the ban opens up new conversations. “Please try to pause and breathe before reacting. Again, you don’t want to shut that door and make your children think they have to hide things from you for fear of upsetting or angering you.”
Professor Paula Gerber from the Faculty of Law said the ban could sharply affect LGBTIQA+ young people who depend on social media for affirmation and community. “LGBTIQA+ youth in Australia rely heavily on social media for mental health support, connection, community building and identity development. It is vital that these resources will now be accessible offline, especially in rural and unsupportive environments.” She pointed to national survey data showing strong reliance on digital spaces. “Almost three-quarters of young trans Australians report that using social media makes them feel better about themselves and 91 per cent of LGBTIQA+ youth in a national survey said social media helped them connect with others like them. A ban is likely to sever these crucial lifelines.”
Professor Gerber warned that the policy could constrain rights protected under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. “Restricting access is likely to deepen isolation, hinder self-expression and limit participation in civic and cultural life, which are rights protected under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, an international treaty that Australia has ratified.” She said any reduction in online risks must be matched by reliable offline support systems.
Associate Professor Eric Windholz, also from the Faculty of Law, noted that the ban breaks new ground in how far the state is willing to intervene. “Regulation to protect minors (and consumers more generally) from making choices that may be harmful to themselves is commonplace in Australia. The social media ban, however, represents a significant extension of past regulation, and a new high water mark in the state’s paternalism.” He added that enforcement depends heavily on families. “Within it there also is an irony. The social media ban is a statement by government that parents are unable or unwilling to regulate their own children’s behaviour. At the same time, while primary responsibility for enforcing the ban lies with social media platforms, effective enforcement also will depend on those same parents educating children about the ban and encouraging (if not enforcing) compliance.”
He also cautioned about unintended consequences. “Regulatory prohibitions and restrictions entice the rebellious and curious to experiment with the prohibited activity – many children will seek to circumvent the ban. And the unscrupulous and criminal will exploit the opportunities this presents. Prohibition has a poor track record of success.”
Constitutional law expert Professor Luke Beck said the legal challenge mounted against the ban is unlikely to succeed. “Australia has lots of similar laws restricting young people’s access to spaces and things that sometimes have political content to protect their wellbeing. The challenge looks pretty weak.”
Dr Clare Southerton from the Faculty of Education said the policy runs counter to evidence about what helps children develop digital literacy. “We do not yet have any evidence that social media bans are effective at addressing social media harms, but we do have ample evidence that young people—especially vulnerable young people—find social connection and support on social media.” She said bans can drive use underground. “It is possible that the ban may encourage young people to access social media platforms through illicit means, thereby exposing them to more dangerous practices.” She encouraged parents to keep lines of communication open. “Try not to dismiss any feelings and consider ways for children to connect with peers, even if they aren’t physically nearby.”
Professor Jon Rouse from the AiLECS Lab said the ban should mark a shift in how the tech sector approaches child safety. “If implemented well, the legacy of 10 December should not simply be that children were kept off certain platforms, but that industry incentives were shifted, and that measurable improvements in children’s mental health, safety and participation become the standard against which digital services are judged.” He argued that the restrictions reflect years of warnings. “For years, technology companies have been presented with clear research, regulator guidance and survivor testimony about the harms experienced by children on their platforms. They have had ample warning and time to embed safety by design, yet responses have too often been piecemeal and reactive.”
He said the measure should be seen as a response to deep systemic failures. “In practice, we have seen a pattern where growth and revenue have been prioritised, and children’s safety has been treated as a secondary consideration, a classic case of profit over protection.” The next phase, he added, will require strong oversight and clear standards. “The challenge now is to ensure that this delay is accompanied by rigorous age-assurance, independent oversight of platform practices, and investment in education and support for families.”
As the ban comes into force, the debate has moved far beyond the question of screen time. The experts point to political learning, youth mental health, parental confidence, community support and tech regulation as interlinked pressures. Taken together, their comments point to a future in which the success of the policy will depend on what is built around it.
Support independent community journalism. Support The Indian Sun.
Follow The Indian Sun on X | Instagram | Facebook
Donate To The Indian Sun
Dear Reader,The Indian Sun is an independent organisation committed to community journalism. We have, through the years, been able to reach a wide audience especially with the growth of social media, where we also have a strong presence. With platforms such as YouTube videos, we have been able to engage in different forms of storytelling. However, the past few years, like many media organisations around the world, it has not been an easy path. We have a greater challenge. We believe community journalism is very important for a multicultural country like Australia. We’re not able to do everything, but we aim for some of the most interesting stories and journalism of quality. We call upon readers like you to support us and make any contribution. Do make a DONATION NOW so we can continue with the volume and quality journalism that we are able to practice.
Thank you for your support.
Best wishes,
Team The Indian Sun
