Now, before I begin, I do dearly apologize for making political content. I, just like pretty much everyone else,
hates politics. But, since the internet has been such an important place to me, and as an Australian, this feels
important to talk about.
Also, most of this is in my own opinion. Please don't toss this page around your
Facebook groups of how much of an idiot I am, thanks.
When I first heard about the Australian Labor Party's social media ban for kids under 16, passed in November 2024 and set to take effect in December 2025, I was floored. This isn't just a policy, it's a blunt, over-the-top attempt to tackle a problem that needs finesse. The government says it's about shielding young Australians from online harms, but I see it as a hastily made move that ignores how much good social media does for teens. From mental health support to staying connected across distances, social media isn't the bad guy it's painted as. Let me lay out why this ban is a huge mistake, based on what's been reported so far [The Guardian].
Let's get one thing straight: social media isn't all bad. For a lot of kids, it's a lifeline in ways the government seems to brush off. Take education; platforms like YouTube are treasure troves for learning. Teens teach themselves guitar chords, explore chemistry experiments, or dive into history documentaries, all through free videos. The eSafety Commissioner's data confirms this: 68% of 8-to-12-year-olds use YouTube, often for educational content [eSafety Commissioner]. Then there's connection. Teens in remote towns or those who've relocated interstate lean on apps like Snapchat or Instagram to keep friendships alive.
And let's talk mental health. For kids battling with anxiety, depression, or identity struggles, online communities can be a safe space. Social media offers spaces to open up without fear of judgment, especially for those who feel out of place at school or home. Banning these platforms doesn't just block bad actors, it could cut off critical support networks. Yes, there are risks, but why torch the whole system? The government's own exemptions for YouTube and Google Classroom show they know social media has value, so why not tackle the bad stuff with precision instead of a blanket ban?
Now, let's talk about enforcement, as it's a disaster waiting to happen. The government wants platforms to verify users' ages, likely through IDs or facial recognition. We're in an era where data breaches happen left, right, and center. Just last year, millions of Australians had their personal info exposed in major hacks. Now they want kids to hand over driver's licenses or get their faces scanned just to post a story? The eSafety Commissioner's February 2025 report already warned that facial recognition tech isn't reliable, with error rates that hit harder for certain groups [ABC News].
This isn't just a hassle, it's a privacy disaster. In a time when we should be teaching kids to protect their digital identities, this ban forces them to share more personal data. And what happens when that data gets leaked? The government talks about "robust" privacy protections, but I'm skeptical. They're still running trials for age verification tech, with results not due until June 2025 [The Guardian]. We should be pushing for more online anonymity, not less.
Last year, Australians lost over $2 billion to scams and cyberattacks. [ABC News]
Cyberbullying is the big excuse for this ban, and I get it, nobody wants kids to suffer. But let's be honest: if your kid's getting bullied online, parents need to take some responsibility. Handing a 12-year-old a smartphone with no supervision and expecting them to dodge trolls is like tossing a newborn into a pool and hoping they swim. Parents need to teach their kids how to spot trouble, block bad actors, or report abuse. Better yet, they should be checking in to catch any warning signs early.
The 2024 parliamentary inquiries heard some heartbreaking stories about cyberbullying, but they didn't prove social media itself is the root issue [The Guardian]. Instead of banning platforms, why not fund programs to teach digital literacy? Schools could run workshops on spotting scams or handling online drama. That's a solution that empowers kids, not one that assumes they can't handle the internet.
The speed of this law is a massive red flag. Passed in just a month, it feels like a political ploy to win over anxious parents. A YouGov poll from November 2024 showed 77% public support, but that hides pushback from groups like Amnesty International, who warn this could drive teens to shadier parts of the internet, like unregulated forums or the dark web [YouGov] [Amnesty International Australia]. The eSafety Commissioner hasn't even fully backed the ban, stressing that education works better than restrictions.
The logic is more messy than Elon Musk's X. A 15-year-old could work part-time, begin training to drive, watch an MA15+ movie, and even be held criminally responsible from the age of 10, but they're not allowed to tweet? That's not just inconsistent; it's impalpable. If teens are trusted with those responsibilities, why treat social media like it's more dangerous than these other things? The exemptions for YouTube only muddy the waters; why is one platform fine but not another? It smacks of arbitrary choices.
This ban, with its $50 million fines for platforms and hazy enforcement plans, is a clumsy fix for a problem it doesn't fully understand. The eSafety Commissioner's trials might shed light by June 2025, but I'm not holding my breath for a miracle. Instead of locking teens out, we should be helping them thrive online. That means digital literacy programs in schools, better tools for parents, and maybe even tougher moderation by platforms themselves.
I'd rather see funding go toward teaching kids how to handle trolls or spot fake news than tech that scans their faces. And parents need to step up: monitor screen time, have hard conversations, and stop expecting the government to play babysitter. The ban's global buzz, with the UK and US calling it "world-leading," doesn't impress me when it's this flawed [The Guardian].
Australia's social media ban for under 16s is well-meaning but a total misfire. It overlooks the ways platforms help teens, puts their privacy at risk, dodges parental responsibility, and was rushed through with shaky reasoning.
Better solutions are available, but the government would rather take the easy way out.
Australia's social media ban for under 16s is a poorly thought-out policy that ignores the benefits of social media, risks privacy violations, and shifts responsibility away from parents. Instead of banning platforms, we should focus on education and digital literacy.