The Australian government has unveiled ambitious legislation to set a minimum age of 16 for children using social media, with platforms bearing the responsibility for compliance. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, emphasizing the urgency of the measure, stated, “Social media is doing harm to our kids and I’m calling time on it.”

This proposal comes amid global efforts to regulate young people’s interaction with social media and technology. Parliament is set to consider the bill during its final two weeks of the year, starting November 18, and if passed, the age limit would take effect 12 months later.

This would give major platforms, including X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook, a year to develop strategies to restrict access for children under 16.

Diverse Reactions from Stakeholders

The government’s move follows extensive feedback from the community. “I’ve spoken to thousands of parents, grandparents, aunties and uncles. They, like me, are worried sick about the safety of our kids online,” Albanese said.

While the proposed regulations would penalize platforms for non-compliance, underage users and their parents would face no repercussions. “The onus will be on social media platforms to demonstrate they are taking reasonable steps to prevent access. The onus won’t be on parents or young people,” he clarified.

Antigone Davis, Meta’s head of safety, expressed the company’s intent to respect the new regulations, saying, “However, what’s missing is a deeper discussion on how we implement protections, otherwise we risk making ourselves feel better like we have taken action, but teens and parents will not find themselves in a better place.”

She advocated for stronger parental controls via app stores and operating systems as a straightforward solution.

However, not everyone supports the plan. The Digital Industry Group Inc. (DIGI), which represents Australia’s digital industry, criticized the age restriction as outdated. “Rather than blocking access through bans, we need to take a balanced approach to create age-appropriate spaces, build digital literacy, and protect young people from online harm,” DIGI managing director Sunita Bose stated.

Concerns Over Unintended Consequences

The proposal has sparked concerns among experts and mental health advocates. An open letter signed by over 140 academics argued that a strict age limit would be “too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively.”

Jackie Hallan, director at ReachOut, a youth mental health service, noted that 73% of young Australians accessing mental health support do so through social media. “We’re uncomfortable with the ban. We think young people are likely to circumvent a ban, and our concern is that it really drives the behavior underground,” Hallan warned.

Child psychologist Philip Tam echoed these sentiments, saying a lower age limit of 12 or 13 might have been more realistic. “My real fear honestly is that the problem of social media will simply be driven underground,” he said. Faith Gordon, an associate professor at the Australian National University, worried that such measures could lead to familial tensions and pressure.

Albanese assured that certain exceptions would be included, such as cases requiring access for educational purposes. However, parental consent alone would not allow children under 16 to use social media.

Implementation and Enforcement

Australia has already been trialing age-restriction technologies, and its eSafety Commissioner will offer guidance to platforms on compliance based on those results.

Communications Minister Michelle Rowland highlighted that the 12-month lead-in period would ensure “very practical” implementation and warned of enhanced penalties for non-compliance. “Every company that operates in Australia, whether domiciled here or otherwise, is expected and must comply with Australian law or face the consequences,” Rowland asserted.

The main opposition party has shown initial support for the 16-year age limit. Opposition lawmaker Paul Fletcher pointed out that platforms already possess the technological means to enforce such bans. “It’s not really a technical viability question, it’s a question of their readiness to do it and [whether] they will incur the cost to do it,” Fletcher said. He dismissed the platforms’ resistance as exaggerated, insisting that “well-drafted legislation” could achieve the desired outcomes.