Australia to prohibit kids under 16 from using social media
Can kids survive without TikTok? Australia is about to find out.
Last November, the Australian parliament passed the Online Safety Amendment. The law will prohibit children under the age of 16 from accessing social media networks like TikTok and Instagram. It is the most sweeping age-related social media law in the world. And it won’t be easy to implement: there are a lot of questions that have to be answered before the law takes effect later in 2025.
Before we get into the specifics of Australia’s new law—and its challenges—let’s take a look at the existing age-related laws and regulations related to social media use.
In much of the world, social media apps set a minimum age of 13. That aligns with a law in the United States that prohibits companies from collecting personal data from children under the age of 13 without parents’ consent.
But some countries have stricter laws. Europe has a patchwork of different rules. Germany, Ireland, and the Netherlands also set the minimum age at 13. Austria, Italy, and Spain, set it at 16. In France, children under 15 must have parental consent to join a social media platform. Parents may upload their identification or respond to an e-mail to prove they have legal guardianship and to give their children permission to access the platforms.
Elsewhere in the world, country laws tend to mimic the U.S. baseline age of 13. And in most countries, including the U.S., enforcement is weak. Platforms ask new users for their birthdays, with the year. And if a user enters a birthday that is more than 13 years in the past…congratulations, you’re a member!
In other words, it’s not hard to get around the age verification system. Surveys bear this out. One survey from Australia said that 84 percent of children between the ages of 8 and 13 have used a social media app before.
Australia’s new law is a big step. The platforms’ minimum age of 13 is company policy, not a country law. And most laws in other countries are about getting parental consent about collecting private data. No country has banned users from the platforms based on their age…until now.
Why did Australia take this step? The primary rationale is to protect children from the perceived harms of social media. We’ve all heard the list: cyberbullying, exposure to inappropriate content, and mental health issues.
One advocate for the law said that social media platforms expose children to the challenges of the adult world, when they don’t yet have the tools or emotional maturity to deal with those issues.
But there’s also a general unease with the changing face of childhood: that there’s less time outside, less time connecting in person, and much, much more time in front of a screen. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese put it this way. He said, “I want children to have a childhood. I want them to engage with each other.”
Not everyone agrees. Opponents of the law point out that young people use social media to build friendships, learn new things, and communicate with people important to them. Some even build businesses on the platforms. One teenager started an online news platform on social media. His business wouldn’t be possible under the new law. “Like it or not,” he said, “social media is a part of people’s daily lives.”
There are also important questions about government overreach. Critics of the law say that this is an unfair restriction on teens’ freedom to communicate and live their lives the way they want. They also say that it’s not a government’s role to determine what “childhood” should be like. That should be up to parents and kids, they say.
As with every sweeping government action, there is also the possibility of unintended consequences. If kids are banned from social media platforms, will they turn off their devices and go outside to climb trees or play football in their free time? Or will they find a way around the new rules—a way that might be worse than staying on the big platforms?
We’ll find out. But one thing is for sure. A broad coalition supports the new measure. The law passed the lower house of parliament 102 to 13 and it passed the Senate by 34 to 19. All Australian states and territories also approved complementary legislation. A recent poll showed 77 percent of the Australian public supports the law.
Jeff’s take
Call me skeptical. I really don’t think this is going to work. Something tells me the kids will be smarter than the adults, when it comes to finding ways around the rules.
The prime minister’s comments—“I want kids to have a childhood.” In my opinion, this is a noble sentiment, but kids are having a childhood; it’s just different today. I’m not saying I like it better! I’m just saying it’s different. I don’t think I would want to be a kid today. But that’s what everyone says when the world changes, right?
Great stories make learning English fun