Australia has set a line that many societies are now trying to draw: children below sixteen should not be handed freely to the platforms that shape their attention. The law's passage was the easy part, and its early months have shown how much harder it is to make a boundary hold against companies whose business rests on keeping young people engaged. Some teenagers have drifted away, while many others still carry accounts their makers never checked. The question now belongs to enforcement, to courts, and to the parents who began this effort out of grief and conviction.
Australia's Under-16 Social Media Ban Struggles to Move From Law to Enforcement
Mac Holdsworth, a teen manipulated into sharing an intimate photo, died by suicide the year after the blackmail; the family's advocacy shapes the policy debate.
Writing a law is one thing; making sure it is obeyed is another.
Mark
The ban has been in force for months. Is it working?
Mimi
Partly. The eSafety watchdog found that the number of 10- to 15-year-olds with at least one account on a restricted platform fell by about 20% in the first three months.
Luke
That's the regulator's own research, though, and it measures accounts, not use. A teen can drop one account and still be online.
Mark
And the age checks?
Mimi
Half the under-16s who still had accounts said they were never asked to confirm their age. Noah Jones showed a face scan passing him, and other platforms just took his word.
Luke
Worth noting that 50% applies to children who kept accounts, not all teens. It's also a self-report.
Mark
Why does Inman Grant think companies aren't complying?
Mimi
She says they have the capability, since she met their engineers, and that they lobbied other governments instead. Meta says it complies and that bans push teens somewhere less regulated.
Luke
Her claim about motive is her belief, not something the companies have conceded. The investigations haven't produced findings yet, and the roughly $70 million penalties only apply if she can prove a case.
Mark
What about the opposition?
Mimi
Jones's High Court challenge argues the ban violates the right to political communication. It's pending.
Luke
And nobody knows yet how the court will rule, or whether the ban ends up making teens safer over the long run.
El Pulso
- Account holdings among 10- to 15-year-olds dropped about 20% in the ban's first three months, but the gains are uneven.
- Half of under-16s who still hold accounts say platforms never asked them to confirm their age.
- The eSafety commissioner is investigating several platforms, with civil penalties of roughly $70 million each on the table.
- Meta, Snap and TikTok insist they are complying or take safety seriously, while regulators doubt their sincerity.
- A High Court challenge argues the ban infringes on political communication, and a teen witness is testifying against it.
- Other nations, including the U.K., Norway, Spain and Canada, are watching closely as the outcome takes shape.
Australia has set a line that many societies are now trying to draw: children below sixteen should not be handed freely to the platforms that shape their attention. The law's passage was the easy part, and its early months have shown how much harder it is to make a boundary hold against companies whose business rests on keeping young people engaged. Some teenagers have drifted away, while many others still carry accounts their makers never checked. The question now belongs to enforcement, to courts, and to the parents who began this effort out of grief and conviction.
Noah Jones was fifteen when Australia's under-16 restrictions took effect, and he has since seen the ban from the inside. On one platform an artificial intelligence tool scanned his face and decided he was old enough to keep his account. On others, he needed only to lie about his age. Now he is a witness in a High Court challenge that argues the law violates the right to political communication.
The ban began in South Australia, where Premier Peter Malinauskas promised state legislation two years ago, urged on by his wife, Annabel West. He believed most parents shared his worry, and the national government soon followed with bipartisan support. Malinauskas says platforms decide what children see and when, without meaningful oversight and driven by profit. He admits the ban is imperfect and that teens will find workarounds, but he argues that a community standard will still reduce the harm, and that acting early matters.
For Wayne Holdsworth, the stakes are personal. He has visited more than a hundred schools to warn about social media since his son Mac was manipulated into sharing an intimate photo in 2022. Mac believed he was talking with another teenager; the person was an adult criminal who blackmailed him, then sent the image to his friends and family. Mac took his own life the following year. Holdsworth credits Australia with being the first to legislate against the tech giants and says governments exist to protect children.
The early data offers hope. The eSafety watchdog found the number of 10- to 15-year-olds holding at least one account on a restricted platform fell by about 20% in three months. Yet half of under-16s still holding accounts said platforms had never asked them to confirm their age. Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, a former Microsoft and Twitter employee, says she has not seen the compliance she expected, and that companies have the technology but appear reluctant to use it. Her office is investigating several platforms, and she suspects some want the law to fail. Reputation, she believes, may weigh on them more than fines.
The companies answer differently. Meta says it is complying but warns that blanket bans push teens into less regulated corners of the internet. Snap and TikTok reject claims that their products are designed to addict or put profit ahead of safety. Malinauskas puts the burden back on them, pointing out that firms able to predict a person's habits can surely tell a thirteen-year-old from a sixteen-year-old.
Jones calls the ban unfair and describes social media as today's town square. He urges other countries not to copy it, and to address harmful content without silencing speech. Others are watching regardless, as the U.K. prepares its own law and several nations draft theirs. The next tests will be the eSafety investigations and the High Court case.
Noah Jones was 15 when Australia's under-16 social media restrictions took effect. He has since shown what the ban looks like from the inside. On one platform, an artificial intelligence tool scanned his face and judged him old enough to keep his account. On others, all he had to do was lie about his age. Jones is now a witness in a High Court challenge arguing that the ban violates the right to political communication.
The ban's roots lie in South Australia, where Premier Peter Malinauskas announced plans for state legislation two years ago. His wife, Annabel West, urged him to act. He believed he had the backing of what he called the overwhelming majority of Australian parents, and polls suggest most Australians agree. When he said his state would legislate, the national government quickly followed, with bipartisan support. Malinauskas argues that platforms decide who sees what, and when, in a way that is unregulated and driven by profit. He admits the ban is imperfect and that kids will find ways around it, but says they will do so less than if no community standard existed. Part of the aim, he said, was to get in early, before the rot sets in.
For some parents, the stakes are not abstract. Wayne Holdsworth has visited more than 100 Australian schools to warn about social media. In 2022, his teenage son Mac was manipulated into sharing an intimate photo. Mac believed he was talking to another teen. The person was a criminal in his 40s, who threatened to publish the photo unless Mac paid. The criminal followed through, sending it to Mac's friends and family. Mac took his own life the following year. Holdsworth says governments are elected to keep children safe, and he credits Australia with being the first country to legislate against the tech giants.
There is some evidence the law is working. Research from the online safety watchdog found that in the first three months, the number of 10- to 15-year-olds holding at least one account on an age-restricted platform fell by around 20%. But the same period exposed gaps. According to Australia's independent eSafety commissioner, 50% of under-16s who still held accounts said the platforms had never asked them to confirm their age.
Julie Inman Grant, the eSafety commissioner who enforces the ban, says she has not seen the compliance she hoped for. She says the companies have the technology, because she met their engineers and product staff in September of last year to learn their capabilities. A former Microsoft and Twitter employee, she says she switched sides out of frustration that tech firms weren't doing more to protect users. Her office is investigating several platforms for possible noncompliance, and if she can prove a case, civil penalties could reach around $70 million each. She believes some platforms are holding back because they want the law to fail, and that they spent more time lobbying other governments not to follow Australia than implementing the technology properly. Reputation, she says, may motivate them more than fines.
The companies describe it differently. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, told 60 Minutes it is complying, but argued that blanket bans push teens to unregulated corners of the internet. Snap said it takes the law seriously and rejects claims that Snapchat is designed to addict children or puts profit over safety. TikTok said its platform is built with safety at its core. Separately, in the U.S., Meta and YouTube were found liable this year in a landmark social media addiction trial over products that led to harmful and addictive behavior among young users. Both have appealed.
Jones, for his part, calls the ban unfair and describes social media as the modern town square. His message to other countries is not to copy it, and to fix content problems without silencing free speech. Others are watching anyway: a U.K. law is due to start next year, and Norway, Spain and Canada are drafting their own. Malinauskas says the burden is on the companies, noting that firms that know his breakfast cereal and morning run can work out who is 13 and who is 16. The next tests are the eSafety investigations and the High Court case.
Citas Notables
They spent more time trying to convince other governments not to follow suit than they did to try and comply.— Julie Inman Grant, eSafety commissioner
The duty is on them. Let's be clear about this.— Peter Malinauskas, South Australia premier
Quieres la nota completa?
Lee el original en CBS News ↗
Politics & Governance