Canberra: Australia has sparked an intense global debate by introducing one of the world’s strictest social media regulations for children and adolescents. Under the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act, 2024, passed by the Australian Parliament as an amendment to the Online Safety Act, 2021, children below the age of 16 are now prohibited from holding or creating accounts on major social media platforms. The law came into force on December 10, 2025, placing direct responsibility on technology companies rather than on children or their parents.
The legislation mandates that social media platforms take “responsible steps” to prevent under-16 users from accessing their services. Failure to comply can result in hefty civil penalties of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars (approximately ₹30–35 crore). Platforms covered under the law include Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Reddit, Threads, Twitch, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, and Kik. Some services primarily designed for messaging, gaming, or education—such as WhatsApp, Discord, and YouTube Kids—have been kept outside the ambit for now.
The Australian government argues that the law is aimed at protecting children from online harm, cyberbullying, exposure to harmful content, excessive screen time, and mounting mental health pressures. Authorities maintain that the focus is on safeguarding children’s psychological well-being and digital welfare rather than criminalising young users.
Supporters of the law point to alarming trends: studies suggest that nearly 40 percent of children aged 11–16 spend more than three hours daily on social media, increasing risks of anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, and suicidal thoughts. Reports of behavioural changes and tragic incidents linked to excessive online engagement have further strengthened calls for regulation. The shutdown of millions of suspicious accounts on the first day of enforcement underscored the scale of the issue.
However, critics argue that a complete ban may not be a practical or democratic solution. Experts warn that age-verification mechanisms—such as ID checks or facial recognition—raise serious concerns about privacy, data security, and potential misuse of personal information. There is also scepticism over enforcement, as tech-savvy children may bypass restrictions using VPNs or alternative platforms, possibly exposing them to even less secure digital spaces.
Mental health professionals and social researchers caution that for many adolescents—especially those from marginalised communities—social media serves as a vital outlet for expression, connection, and emotional support. A blanket ban, they argue, could deepen feelings of isolation rather than address underlying problems. Some critics also view the law as an indirect restriction on freedom of expression and access to information.
While Australia’s move is widely seen as bold and well-intentioned, its long-term success will depend on effective implementation and complementary measures. Analysts stress that legislation alone cannot solve complex digital challenges. Greater emphasis on digital literacy, cyber safety education, parental awareness, and platform-level reforms is essential.
In the age of artificial intelligence and rapid technological change, the debate remains finely balanced. Restricting harmful content is crucial, but keeping young people completely away from digital platforms may deprive them of essential skills for the future. As global attention turns to Australia’s experiment, one question remains central: can protection be achieved without prohibition, and safety without sacrificing digital empowerment?
