Australia’s decision to restrict social media use for people under 16 has sparked considerable debate. Public opinion is mixed, but there are broadly three categories of people who have aired their views and have their own take on the subject.
People who support the ban include many parents, child safety experts and some educators. They have endorsed the legislation and believe it is a harbinger of hope. They adduce reasons such as mental health protection, the prevention or pre-emption of cyber bullying and online abuse, and they emphasise that it provides development time for children before they venture into the rough and tumble of cyberspace. Concerns about anxiety, depression, body image issues and addictive algorithms, which are designed to maximise engagement and may lead gullible children towards addictive behaviour and negative self-comparisons, affect young teens and may lead to a deterioration in mental health and the development of neurosis. They opine that social media can expose children to harassment and harmful content. Some parents say the policy has been a relief, especially if they have had to contend with parental challenges such as struggling to limit their children’s screen time and online presence. They take pride in the fact that Australia is at the vanguard of a movement to safeguard its children.
Those in favour of the legislation are also pleased that it could encourage healthier development and help young people focus on areas they should ideally concentrate on, such as schoolwork. It may also improve sleep quality. Children may avoid sleep fatigue and will not be dreary-eyed and irritable the next morning. Without constant social media engagement, face-to-face friendships may strengthen and help them build real-world social skills first. Proponents also argue that this legislation creates accountability for tech companies. It pressures companies to improve their age verification systems, strengthen child safety measures and moderate harmful content. They strongly believe that tech companies have not adequately protected minors and that government intervention is therefore necessary.
Critics of the ban, on the other hand, believe the policy is too heavy-handed or unrealistic. Their concern is that it may not actually work. Many teenagers may still find ways to access social media using VPNs (virtual private networks), fake ages and alternative platforms. Surveys suggest that most teenagers do not believe the ban will work. Experts argue that the legislation curbs young people’s digital rights and their ability to communicate online. There are also enforcement challenges. Platforms must verify age, which raises related concerns about privacy and technological feasibility. There is also an uneasy feeling that the ban could push children towards riskier platforms. If mainstream apps are blocked, teenagers may be tempted to move to less regulated sites or private messaging apps.
Some people occupy the middle ground. These experts say the policy is well-intentioned but not a comprehensive solution. It could reduce or mitigate harm, even if it does not eliminate social media entirely. They suggest the measure should be dovetailed with digital education, parental involvement and stronger platform safety rules.
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant PSM has said some children will “fall through the crack”, but the overarching goal is to reduce harm and gradually change norms over time.
In short, the overall sentiment can be summarised as follows. Parents and safety advocates are mostly supportive. Teenagers and digital rights groups are mostly opposed, but experts, though divided, are cautiously interested to see the results and how the legislation will eventually unfold.
Australia is seen as a trendsetter and a pioneer in this regard. Governments around the world are watching closely to see whether it works.
Some critics warn that banning children from social media could have wider consequences. These naysayers argue that governments elsewhere that wish to follow Australia’s example should not assume they know better than young people and should include them in policy development.
Questions are also being raised about how the ban will affect students during the school year. Some believe that less privileged students may be hit the hardest. Children living in wealthier areas often have access to more outdoor recreation facilities than those in poorer neighbourhoods. The argument is that it may be easier for privileged children to divert their energies than for underprivileged ones.
Children and young people with disabilities may find digital spaces more accessible for socialising. Young LGBTQIA+ individuals may turn to social media for informal mental health support from peers.
Social media also fosters informal learning. Young readers, for instance, can participate in online book clubs and find reading recommendations from like-minded readers. Social media can serve as a space where young people explore their identities, beliefs and the wider world around them. Research has also shown that many teenagers feel more comfortable seeking information about sexual and reproductive health online, as they find it more authentic and relevant.
There are, therefore, several benefits associated with social media as well.
Ultimately, every issue has two sides, like a coin. With time, the impact of the policy will become clearer. If any gaps or loopholes emerge, they can be addressed as the situation evolves.
The trial balloon is afloat.
Support independent community journalism. Support The Indian Sun.
Follow The Indian Sun on X | Instagram | Facebook
Support Independent Community Journalism
Dear Reader,The Indian Sun exists for one reason: to tell stories that might otherwise go unheard.
We report on local councils, state politics, small businesses and cultural festivals. We focus on the Indian diaspora and the wider multicultural community with care, balance and accountability. We publish in print and online, send regular newsletters and produce video content. We also run media training programs to help community organisations share their own stories.
We operate independently.
Community journalism does not have the backing of large media corporations. Advertising revenue fluctuates. Platform algorithms change. Costs continue to rise. Yet the need for credible, grounded reporting in a multicultural Australia has never been greater.
When you support The Indian Sun, you support:
• Independent reporting on issues affecting migrant communities
• Coverage of local and state decisions that shape daily life
• A platform for small businesses and community groups
• Media training that builds skills within the community
• Journalism accountable to readers
We cannot cover everything, but we work to cover what matters.
If you value thoughtful reporting that reflects Australia’s diversity, we invite you to contribute. Every donation helps us maintain the quality and consistency of our work.
Please consider making a contribution today.
Thank you for your support.
The Indian Sun Team
