Right: For those suffering from autism and similar conditions, social media can be the only way to enter and remain in society. Games, especially, are a means of communication and of enjoyment.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Should those under 16 be banned from social media?
Arguments against banning those under 16 from social media?
1. The ban will remove the social and mental health benefits that social media can provide for young people
Opponents of a ban on social media claim this is a crude measure which ignores the many social and mental health benefits that online interaction can provide. They also argue that it exaggerates the role social media may play in the development of mental disorders among the young.
Social media can provide many social benefits for young people. The Mayo Clinic has outlined some of the benefits that social media can provide. These include providing social support for those who lack connections offline and are lonely. Social media can also provide contact for people undergoing stress. This includes finding support from people undergoing similar difficulties. The Mayo Clinic also notes that social media can supply connections for people who belong to groups that are often socially marginalised or discriminated against, such as racial minorities, the LGBTQ community and those who are differently abled. Finally, the Mayo Clinic suggests that social media can help people with long-term medical conditions find support, again often from among those with the same condition.
On December 16, 2024, the parenting segment Kidspot published a comment by Pilar Mitchell. She explained her 13-year-old son's distress when she told him that by the end of 2025, he would no longer be able to use Snapchat. He replied, 'But how can I talk to Will and Hamish?' Mitchell then explained further, 'Henry is autistic, and making friends is a long, sometimes bumpy process. . . For my son and for countless other neurodiverse kids, the social media ban is going to isolate a group of kids already at high risk for loneliness.' The Mayo Clinic noted that social media can relieve some of the social issues that are a particular problem for many young people. Social media can offer an avenue for self-expression for young people for whom that is not available in their off-line world. It can allow them to make connections (sometimes across long distances) if they live in remote or socially isolated areas. The Mayo Clinic also noted that social media can help those suffering with mental disorders.
An article published in the Journal of Technology and Behavioural Science in April 2020 explained some of the ways in which social media can assist those with mental health issues. These included 'Online peer support helps [young people] seek information, discuss symptoms and medication, share experiences, learn to cope and for self-disclosure.' It suggested that social media also allows 'individuals with mental disorders [to] establish new relationships, feel less alone or reconnect with people.' Those supporting continued access to social media dispute that it is the primary cause of the mental challenges many young people face. Professor Bridianne O'Dea, who is involved in metal health and technology research at Flinders University, has stated, 'Decades of research has shown very clearly that mental illness and suicide are extremely complex. Attempting to identify a single cause oversimplifies the nature of mental illness and is a very dangerous path to take. . . From a research perspective, the internet and social media have been around long enough for us to examine some of the impacts they have had on the community. Let me say upfront that there is almost no quality scientific evidence showing a direct causal link between social media, suicide, and mental illness. The general consensus among both researchers and clinicians globally is that online interactions can actually have a positive impact on those experiencing a mental health problem.'
Professor O'Dea explained further, 'Social media enables broad dissemination of [quality] information. Reputable mental health organisations such as Black Dog Institute and Beyondblue have large Facebook and Twitter followings and they use these to regularly share helpful and relevant advice. Other organisations, including headspace and SANE, provide online forums where people can obtain more tailored support from clinically qualified moderators.' Mental health services have warned that sudden withdrawal of the online support and social contact currently available through social media could be very harmful for young people. Tracy Adams, the director of Kids Helpline has warned, 'Kids Helpline have a social channel and we are concerned that a blanket ban could shut down things that are safe and working. Young people are worried that they'll lose those connections.' A similar point was made by Professor Catriona Davis-McCabe, president of the Australian Psychological Society. Professor Davis-McCabe, has warned of the effect of a withdrawal of social support, stating, 'Everything is based around social media now, and I think that a lot of young people who use it on a daily basis have formed habits and dependencies around it. By removing the source of constant stimulation, it does have the potential to lead to withdrawal symptoms, and that can include things like anxiety, restlessness, and irritability. A complete ban could isolate some children, especially those who do use social media to stay connected with people and friends in the community.'
2. The ban will remove the creative, and entrepreneurial benefits that social media can provide for young people
Opponents of a ban preventing those under 16 accessing social media argue that such a ban ignores the some of the many benefits that social media offers young users. Among these opportunities are creative outlets and business experience. Many young people have claimed that without the opportunities provided to them through social media them would not have been able to achieve their creative and career goals.
Social media greatly expands the opportunities for young people to develop and exhibit their creativity. A study published in January 2024 from the University of Media and Arts Raipur on the role of social media in the creativity of youth concluded, 'Social media serves as a potent catalyst for creativity, offering young individuals unprecedented access to diverse content, instant feedback, and collaboration opportunities. Platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube empower youth to showcase their talents, build personal brands, and engage with a global audience, fostering an environment where creativity can thrive. The interactive nature of these platforms not only enhances creative skills but also promotes cultural enrichment and innovation.'
Pew Research Center study released in 2018 found that 71 percent of the young Americans surveyed stated that social media platforms gave them 'a place to show their creative side'. Another study released in 2019 considered the effect of social media on creativity for adults and children. It noted, 'If creativity can be influenced by those that we choose to interact with, then increasing the number of people who have access to social media would be beneficial and enhance creativity. Specially, exposure to different points-of-view in the form of opinions, audio-visual materials, news-stories, stories and other emotionally salient material may be useful as it allows individuals to engage with content they might not normally chose to be exposed to, and in so doing, broaden their horizons.' Many developing young artists consider that social media contact is an important part of their inspiration. British visual art student, Olivia Turner, has noted, 'The wide variety of art of different mediums found on social media is . . . a nice way to be reminded of loads of different ways of working other than the status quo.' Another British art student, Jade Emsley, has stated, 'I do think that social media had increased the number of aspiring artists who exchange ideas and techniques, providing encouraging comments and feedback under certain art posts. I also think it has made the online artworld a much more collaborative place with challenges such as inktober [a world-wide art challenge held each year in October] and collaborative videos with various art youtubers.'
Young musicians have also noted the benefits that social media offers them. A Forbes article published on September 22, 2023, noted, 'Social media has also increased ways to collaborate and exchange music. Artists from different parts of the world can seamlessly connect and create songs together without ever necessarily interacting in person. . . {Additionally] social media's visuals [have] intensified the impact of music videos, making them a crucial tool for musicians to tell stories. . .' Social media also offers young people opportunities to help them achieve hoped-for careers. As an example, young Australian digital journalist and news presenter Leo Puglisi was only 11 when he started an online news channel. Over four years Puglisi has recruited 10 teenagers from across Australia to run 6 News on YouTube, X, Instagram, TikTok and a website. Asked about the effect a social media ban for young people would have had on what he has been able to achieve, Puglisi stated, '6 News wouldn't have existed," Puglisi concludes, 'It would have really just taken away something I love doing. It is something I'm passionate about. It is something people turn to now as a source of news. But that would have all been stripped away.' Another young person helped in this way is Maggie Perry, 15, who has been reporting for 6 News since she was 13. She claims that social media offers 'so many infinite possibilities that just don't exist in the real world'.
Another example of a young person for whom social media was very important in establishing her career is 17-year-old Mel Torrefranca. She is a YouTuber, writer, and editor for the Lost Island Press. Self-publishing her first novel at 13, Mel recently released the book Leaving Wishville. Mel promotes her work through a range of mediums - releasing trailers for her novel via YouTube, hosting giveaway competitions on her Instagram page, and posting artwork of her characters. On January 22, 2024, girlsforbusiness.org explained some of the ways in which social media was helping young people establish businesses. The blog stated, 'Social media and rising platforms have. . . played a significant role in the rise of teenage entrepreneurship. These platforms have provided teenagers with a vast audience and the potential for their businesses to go viral. Teenagers can showcase their products or services to thousands of followers and gain recognition and support from their peers. . .' 3. The ban limits young people's access to several basic human rights
Many of those concerned about a social media ban being imposed on those under 16 argue that it is an unreasonable restriction of many basic human freedoms young people should be able to exercise.
The Australian government's social media ban for those under 16 has been condemned by several human rights organisations. Associate Professor Faith Gordon, director of the International Youth Justice Network at the Australian National University has stated, 'The social media ban is not compatible with international human rights instruments that Australia has signed up to. This blunt instrument has been rushed through without proper consideration.'
The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has detailed the human rights that the new law is limiting. The AHRC has drawn on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to explain what rights are being restricted. These rights include freedom of expression and access to information, freedom of association and peaceful assembly, the right to culture, leisure and play, the right to the highest attainable standard of health, including through access to relevant information, and the right to privacy. Critics claim that this ban on young people accessing social media undermines their right to information. Numerous studies have shown how important social media has become as a source of information for young people. In 2023, Western Sydney University published the results of a recent survey into how young people in Australia gain information about current events. Their research shows children and teenagers increasingly get news from social media. Almost four in ten children (37 percent) and more than six in ten teens (63 percent) say they often or sometimes get news from social media. When using social media to get news, half the children surveyed said they preferred YouTube, followed by TikTok (21 percent) and Facebook (13 percent). Teenagers preferred YouTube (31 percent), TikTok (24 percent) and Instagram (19 percent). For all groups surveyed, social media was a preferred information source over newspapers and more traditional news services.
Similar findings were made in a 2022 survey in the United Kingdom where six in ten teenagers said they used social media for news with YouTube most widely accessed for this purpose. A 2020 United States study found that 77 percent of teenagers got their news and headlines from social media, with YouTube, Instagram, and Snapchat as the most used sources. On November 21, 2024, the Youth Affairs Council of Victoria released the results of an Australian survey of 1,000 young people's experience of social media. The Council noted, 'Young people spoke extensively about the benefits of being served healthy content bearing joy, culture, new interests and different ways of thinking and gaining new perspectives on socio-political issues. They also reported being served negative content. . . and age-inappropriate material.' There is a general recognition that social media can be a faulted information source with sites reflecting the biases of their users and providing a breeding ground for false information and fake news. However, critics argue that a ban is not the solution. Young users need to be taught how to compare sources and recognise what is credible information. Critics also claim that this ban on young people accessing social media undermines their right to freedom of expression and gather to present their views. The international human rights organisation Amnesty International has stated, 'Governments must acknowledge that social media. . . allows young people to realise their human rights to freedom of expression, and to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.'
One area where social media has become very important is in allowing young people to express their opinions on social and environmental issues such as climate change. The Child Rights International Network has noted, 'The internet has enabled children to become active politically and to mobilise for social and ecological causes, projecting their voices into the world with unprecedented reach.' A recent survey of 500 young Australians conducted by researchers from Deakin University found that their adolescent subjects valued social media as an important source of information on climate change. They also saw it as valuable in organising protest action. The researchers concluded, 'There are a range of barriers that prevent young people from meaningfully engaging in climate discussions and decision making. While there are flaws associated with social media, it can provide a powerful tool for climate advocacy and action at a population-level.'
The issue of rights for young gay people is another where social media has been important in allowing young people to express their opinion and campaign for just treatment. Shaneel Lal, a gay activist from New Zealand, is critical of the Australian ban on social media because she believes it will silence the views of young gay people. She has stated, 'It [social media] certainly helped me form my view of politicians and politics, and I think that young people should have as many resources as possible available to them to not only be informed but also to hold the government accountable . . . I grew up in a very conservative community that did not encourage young people, particularly young brown queer immigrants to have a voice. Social media allowed me to find my voice.' The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has explained that a social media ban would undermine young people's right to information and to freedom of expression and protest. The Commission has stated, 'Social media is a vital platform for young people to share their ideas and opinions, engage in dialogue, and participate in social and cultural activities. . . A blanket ban risks unjustly curtailing these freedoms.'
4. Implementation problems make the ban unlikely to be effective and undermine privacy
Critics of the Australian government's age-based ban on social media argue that putting it into effect will be difficult. They claim young social media users are likely to try to get around the ban and that the social media companies may struggle to cooperate. They further argue that the age-verification processes that will need to be put in place will threaten the privacy of all users, not simply children and adolescents.
It is likely that many young people under 16 will attempt to avoid the ban. 6 News Australia's 17-year-old founder Leonardo Puglisi has warned the government that young users of social media will try to sidestep the ban. He stated that many children would lie about their age to evade bans. Currently that is as simple as lying about a birthdate. This is putting pressure on the government to come up with more strenuous and reliable age verification methods to recommend to the social media platforms. Age verification mechanisms that cannot be dodged by young users will be vital if the Australian age-based social media ban is going to work.
There are several other strategies that young people could use to avoid a ban. One of these is a VPN or Virtual Private Network, an online tool that allows the user to appear to be in a different digital jurisdiction. This would allow young Australia users to appear to be in a country where no social media ban applies. Many VPNs offer free trial periods or cost as little as $3 a month. Other methods that could be used include using the device of an older friend or family member or going onto a platform without logging on (which some platforms allow). The ban will be difficult to implement. It applies to all major social media platforms, such as TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter). Initially the ban was intended to be applied within a year; however, on December 19, 2024, it was announced that the implementation period would be extended by two months. The eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, explained that the industry needs time to determine how the ban will be worked in with its existing restrictions.
One of the largest technical problems centres around accurate age identification. Without this it will be difficult to hold the tech companies accountable for young people illegally accessing their platforms. The legislation does not specify the technical method for proving a person's age. Options include providing ID and biometrics such as face scanning. The government is running an age assurance trial to assess all the methods. The trial is continuing into 2025. Based on the results of that trial, the eSafety Commissioner will make recommendations to platforms.
The uncertainty of this process will make difficulties for the tech companies and give them opportunities to delay implementation. Professor Daniel Angus, of Queensland University of Technology, has stated, 'Platforms, large and small, now face a daunting task: de-platform millions of young users while somehow avoiding violations of privacy, security, and anti-discrimination principles. Meanwhile, exemptions to services like anonymous forums and messaging apps remain just as accessible, rendering the regulation ineffectual at tackling many of the online harms it claims to address.' Another major implementation issue is protecting the privacy of all social media users. According to the Australian Information Security Association (AISA), 'Implementation of a social media ban for teens will mandate the use of age verification or age assurance technological solutions which require the collection of identity information.' All the varying age-verification processes currently proposed require users to supply identity information they would rather have private. These include private documentation (for example driver's licence or passport data), biometric data (facial image or fingerprint) or pattern of Internet use data (sites typically visited used to estimate age).
Many digital experts have expressed concern about the privacy risks involved in age-verification. Dr Justine Humphry, a Senior lecturer in Digital Cultures at the University of Sydney, has stated, 'Age assurance systems are experimental and require the sharing of sensitive personal documents such as proof of ID or biometric data. This will apply to all Australians, not just young people, and will likely result in significantly reduced data privacy and security. We found in our eSafety funded research that parents, and young people do not trust social media companies to be responsible with their personal information.' Critics claim that the risks associated with privacy breaches are too great for the government to proceed with this ban. The Australian e-Safety Commissioner has already warned of some of the hazards that can occur when private information falls into the wrong hands. The Commissioner's warning re identity theft states, 'Scammers could set up fake accounts in your name or try to steal money from your bank account. Bullies and abusers could pose as you and share something embarrassing on your social media accounts. Doxxers [someone who uses private information online to cause harm] might share your street address and name with people who want to harm or scare you.'
Identity theft or the misuse of personal data has been identified as a growing problem in Australia. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for 2022-2023 stated indicated that 2.5 percent of people (514,300) experienced an identity-based scam in that year. 1.0 percent of people (199,100) experienced identity theft. 2.1 percent of people (434,300) experienced online impersonation. Critics note that the decision to impose an age-based social media ban requiring user age-verification contradicts a judgment the government made about a year ago. In August 2023, the federal government decided not to force adult websites to bring in age verification following concerns about privacy and the lack of maturity of the technology. The eSafety Commissioner state at the time 'It is clear from the roadmap at present, each type of age verification or age assurance technology comes with its own privacy, security, effectiveness or implementation issues.'
Many experts opposed age-verification a year ago. Samantha Floreani, program lead at Digital Rights Watch, stated, 'Age verification is a terrible combination of being invasive and risky, while also being ineffective for its purported purpose. Methods that are less privacy-invasive are easily bypassed by tech-savvy kids, and those that may be more likely to work at restricting access to pornography create massive and disproportionate privacy and digital security risks.' Another expert with concerns about age-verification is Justin Warren, the chair of Electronic Frontiers Australia. He stated, 'A government that claims to be interested in evidence-based policy would listen and act on our advice.' Critics of the current ban claim that the privacy risks have not changed.5. There are better means of protecting young people online than imposing an age-based ban on social media access
Critics of the Australian government's age-based ban on social media argue that this is a very crude management tool. Instead, they suggest there are ways that parents can be enabled to regulate their children's online experiences. They also argue that more should be demanded of social media platforms to ensure that young people encounter age-appropriate material.
Opponents of the ban argue that public education is a large part of the solution to the harms caused children by social media. Parents need to be educated in how to assist their children sidestep the pitfalls found online and children need to be educated within the home and at school on the dangers social media can pose and how to avoid them. Katie Maskiell, of the United Nations Children's Fund has stated, 'We want to see comprehensive digital literacy programs that empower children, parents, and educators to navigate the digital world safely. We believe that education and awareness are key to reducing risks and making a safer online environment for young people. It is essential to create an inclusive digital landscape where children can learn, connect, and thrive responsibly.'
Australia's eSafety Commissioner has outlined three basic steps in the education of parents around eSafety for their children. The first step is that parents be involved and supportive. The recommendations including family playing of online games and open lines of communication about what is seen and done online. Children should know they can always come to parents with concerns. The second step is around setting family rules for children's digital experience. These should involve discussion and parents should model appropriate digital behaviour. The third step is that parents familiarise themselves with the safety features of different platforms. The e-Safety Commissioner has also warned about the area of danger online that children should be alerted to. These are categorised as contact risks, conduct risks and content risks. Children ae advised what to avoid and how to respond. Teaching these risks and behaviours to children is the responsibility of schools and parents. Critics argue that without such education children may be placed in even greater danger. Many will find ways to sidestep the bans and may find themselves in even more problematic digital environments. Professor Amanda Third of Western Sydney University has argued, 'A social media ban will . . .force children into lower-quality online environments.' She believes the ban may also undermine young people's trust in their parents as adults with whom they can discuss anything that concerns them online. Professor Third has stated, 'A blanket ban affirms parents "don't get it". Kids will find ways to get around the ban. And if their interactions turn sour on social media, the fact they were not supposed to be there will make it more difficult to reach out to adults for help.'
Parental consent mechanisms and parental controls are seen as important measures that remove the need for blanket bans. Parental consent mechanisms and parental controls enable parents to manage and monitor their children's social media usage, including approving friend requests and setting time limits.
This empowers parents to oversee their children's online interactions. Family account structures can also be implemented. Account hierarchies are created that link a child's account to a parent's, allowing the parent to monitor the child's social media activities. Measures such as these can be legally enforced. France, for example, has made it mandatory since 2023 for children under 15 to obtain parental consent to register on social media platforms, which are required to implement a system to verify whether that consent has been obtained. This legal support makes it far more difficult for children to access social media without their parents' knowledge and permission. Supporters argue that these devices not only monitor or regulate the onscreen experience but also allow opportunities for parents to discuss appropriate online content with their children. United States research indicates that only 39 percent of parents use parental controls or other technological tools to block, filter or monitor their teenager's online activities. Their uptake appears to be greater in Australia. A 2018 survey conducted by the Australian e-Commissioner found that 76 percent of parents agreed that 'Parental controls are important to how I limit my child's exposure to inappropriate content such as pornography.' Critics of the ban also argue that it focuses unfairly on restricting the rights of children, rather than requiring the social media platforms to improve the quality of material accessible to all users, adults, and children. David Mejia-Canales, Senior Lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, has stated, 'The social media ban is a distraction, it's putting a band-aid on a growing wound. Instead of piecemeal age restrictions, we need an overarching duty of care that ensures digital platforms prioritise the safety, privacy, and wellbeing of all their users, not just the youngest.'
The Australian government is planning to proceed with an online duty of care Bill placing obligations on digital platforms to protect users; however, it claims that extra measures need to be taken to protect young people. Critics of the ban disagree, claiming that bullying, hate speech, and misinformation are issues for all Australians and if a duty of care were enforced, a blanket age ban would not be necessary. David Mejia-Canales argues, 'The Government has already announced its intention to introduce an overarching duty of care for digital platforms. Instead of fixating on social media bans that will not work, it should prioritise delivering the duty of care and holding big tech platforms accountable for the harm their products cause.'