On 10 December, the world watched as Australia enacted the first social media ban for under-16s. Whether it will have the desired effect of improving young people’s lives we are yet to find out. But what the ban has achieved already is clear.
Many politicians, along with academics and philosophers, have noted that self-regulation has not been an effective safeguard against the harms of social media – especially when the bottom line for people like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk depends on keeping eyes on screens. For too long, these companies resisted, decrying censorship and prioritising “free speech” over moderation. The Australian government decided waiting was no longer an option. The social media ban and similar regulation across the world is now dragging tech companies kicking and screaming toward change. That it has taken the force of the law to ensure basic standards – such as robust age verification, teen-friendly user accounts and deactivation where appropriate – are met shows the moral argument alone was not enough.
While Malaysia, Denmark and Brazil are looking at similar bans, countries such as the UK have decided to see if platforms can be made safer before prohibiting young people from using them. To what extent this is possible remains a question. Features such as infinite scroll – which encourages users to spend whole hours, even days, on their phones – and variable reward systems that mimic gambling, making these platforms like neverending slot machines, have been deemed problematic enough for the state of California to plan to limit teenagers’ exposure to “addictive feeds” to one hour a day unless their parents allow otherwise. In the UK, there are currently no such limitations.
As Australia’s ban was rolled out, young people gave powerful testimonies, including a 15-year-old quadraplegic, Ezra Sholl, who explained how the ban would isolate him further. Countries considering similar bans must involve teenagers in these discussions and consider how regulation would impact children differently. The dangers of children feeling isolated should not be used as an excuse to dampen down regulation. Young people are right to be angry: the speed at which social media and smartphones have become part of their lives makes it seem like a violation to take them away, and the voracity of these platforms should never have been allowed to outpace regulation.
Australia will provide a useful case study, helping to strengthen a strong body of research that has struggled to prove causality between social media use and mental health outcomes. Critics of the ban argue that it will simply drive young people into unregulated spaces or teach them how to circumvent the law. The spike in VPN use after the introduction of Britain’s Online Safety Act suggests that these arguments hold water. But behavioural change is a marathon, not a sprint. Similar policy, whether in relation to speed limits, drink-driving or smoking, shows that resistance often comes before long-term change.
Australia’s social media ban has provided a circuit breaker for a system on course for an explosion. It also warns tech companies of a new ceiling, should nations grow inpatient of inaction. In Britain, and elsewhere, online-safety campaigners are watching closely how tech companies respond to regulation that stops short of a ban. But with many children spending as much time on their phones as they do at school, companies must know that governments will take a lack of progress seriously.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
