Social media is a critical component of everyone’s lives and has become an inseparable part of society and social interactions. On November 28th, 2024, Australia approved a bill placing the responsibility on companies to limit access to social media for children under the age of 16. It was called the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024. This bill is the first of its kind and aims to protect the mental health and privacy of children by trying to mitigate the negative effects of social media.

Under this act, social media is defined as services with the significant purpose of enabling social interactions between users. This means apps like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X, and Snapchat are included, while messaging apps, gaming services, and health/educational platforms are exempted. It calls for systemic changes on platforms, like age verifications, with non-compliance fines going up to AU$49.5 million (~$32 million). And while this has been hailed as a necessary action, critics say that this would prove difficult to implement and could strip children of the benefits that social media does offer. So, what are the two sides of this story?

The reason cited for the necessity of this ban is the negative consequences that social media can have during key developmental years (10–15 years). Based on a study from 2018, a connection has been found between excessive use of social media and the shrinkage of the brain’s anterior cingulate gyrus (ACG), which is the home of empathetic connection. Shrinkage means less empathy, having fewer friends, making less eye contact, and generally feeling more alone. The other effects barely need to be mentioned: cyberbullying, perpetration of unrealistic body standards and extremist ideologies, misinformation, increased anxiety and stress, and addiction. The bill tries to limit designed-to-addict features like infinite scroll and engagement-driven algorithms by stopping data collection for purposes beyond verification unless consent is obtained.

While these are completely valid points, there are both sentimental and pragmatic reasons why this bill might not—or should not—work. First are the challenges when it comes to enforcement. Age verification could be easily circumvented with the use of fake birthdays, VPNs, or help from family members or older friends. This was the case in other countries where similar bills were implemented, like France, Germany, Belgium, and Norway. The second reason is that mandatory age verification threatens privacy, as it is more data that is collected. If enforcement were successful, it could drive minors to unregulated and unsupervised platforms, which could lead to further negative consequences. The third reason is that this reduced early experience could potentially create a digital literacy gap, stopping children from learning how to navigate online interactions, recognise misinformation, and practise responsible digital citizenship.

The fourth reason is that with such an expansive ban, children will no longer be able to gain the benefits that social media does offer. Social media gives vulnerable teens from marginalised communities access to resources and support groups that they simply might not find in person, like those that are part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Social media is also a form of escapism and understanding. It is an outlet for creativity, an opportunity for exposure to different ideas, people, and cultures, and a source of entertainment, information, and perspective. It is a way for them to build a sense of self and explore who they are and what they like beyond friends, family, and school.

It is for all of these reasons that critics are arguing for platform redesigns over user bans. A lowering of the age limit has also been suggested because, when it comes to a resource that gives such a large scale of opportunity for collaboration, activism, and creativity that cannot be found anywhere else, this feels like limiting rather than protecting—especially for older kids. The ban is to be implemented in late 2025. Until then, the world watches on to see if the latest effort in mitigating the dark side of social media might finally be the one that pays off—or the one that is criticised for years to come.