Keeping teenagers off social media: a rule for the playground?

Australia is running a large experiment. A law passed in 2024 requires the biggest social-media platforms to take reasonable steps to stop anyone under sixteen from creating or keeping an account. It took effect on 10 December 2025. The penalties fall on the companies, which can face heavy fines, not on the teenagers or their parents. Other governments are watching closely.

The case for the ban starts from a feeling of helplessness. Many parents feel outgunned (1). A child who is missing from the group chat is missing from the playground, so no family can say no alone. Platforms are designed to keep users scrolling through an endless feed (2), and campaigners argue that one rule for everybody is easier to follow than a thousand private rules in a thousand homes. A law, they add, also spares parents from having to act as the police of their own living rooms. Society already sets age limits for alcohol and tobacco; why not for products built to capture attention?

Critics begin with practicalities. A ban is only as strong as the method used to check ages. Teenagers are famously inventive: they can borrow an older sibling's account, give a false date of birth or use a VPN (3) to hide where they are. Strict checks, on the other hand, may require adults to hand over identity documents or face scans to private companies, which creates a privacy problem for everyone.

A second objection is that social media is not only harmful. An isolated teenager in a remote town, or one who feels different from classmates, may find friends, information and support online. Others use the same platforms to learn a skill, to follow the news or to take part in debates they would never meet at school. A ban cuts them off from these benefits and, critics warn, may push young people towards less visible corners of the internet where nobody is watching and no rules apply.

Both camps must admit an uncomfortable truth: the evidence is still being argued over. Researchers disagree about how much social media harms young people's mental health, and how much it merely reflects other problems, such as pressure at school or loneliness. A law can be built on a reasonable fear; it is wiser when it is also built on proof.

The wider question is who should carry the responsibility. A ban places the burden on teenagers, who are excluded, and may give the impression that the problem is solved at the age of sixteen. Yet a sixteenth birthday does not turn an unhealthy design into a healthy one. The real test of the Australian law will be whether it changes how platforms are built, and not only who may open an account.