On 10 December 2025, many younger Australian teenagers woke up to a tough new reality: attempts to access TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram or YouTube were met with screens showing locked accounts and instructions to verify age.
This is the result of legislation introduced by the Australian government to stop young people under the age of 16 from using major social media services, in an effort to protect them from harmful content and experiences.
It seems the UK may follow suit. Sixty Labour MPs have written to Prime Minister Keir Starmer in support of a ban, the House of Lords is voting on the issue, and the government has launched a consultation to seek views on the measure.
But is this the right course of action?
Popular policy, mixed experience
In Australia, the policy has certainly proved popular with parents, and it quickly won cross-party support in Parliament. However, early interviews with Australian under-16s suggest more mixed feelings – as might be expected in a context where 95% of 13-15 year-olds previously used social media.
From a platform perspective, it does seem as if social media companies have been successful in removing access to under-16s. Figures provided by the Australian eSafety Commissioner indicate that 4.7 million accounts have been closed, although there was also evidence of moves to download other more niche apps and VPNs.
Even if the latter steps remind us that a perfect technological solution is impossible, the measure’s success will depend on whether the worst harms are reduced without too great a negative impact on all.
Here in the UK, the picture of young people’s experiences on social media is complex.
Harms are real, but the evidence is not clear cut
At an individual level there are plenty of examples of teenagers and children who have experienced negative effects, ranging from online bullying and harassment, to exposure to violent, hateful and pornographic content. But contrary to the compelling message of harm that dominates public debate, large-scale studies suggest that fears about impacts on mental health and wellbeing are over-stated, and that non-use is associated with negative outcomes as well as excessive use.
Other studies reveal the positive aspects of social media use – communication and deep engagement with friends, access to news and information, identity formation and entertainment.
How are these conflicting understandings to be squared?
One thing is certain: this is a generation for whom the mobile phone is a gateway to self-expression and companionship, and simply removing the apps and tools used for these purposes will not immediately lead to a re-embracing of analogue childhood.
Risks and unintended consequences
There are perhaps two great risks here. First, that under-16s will simply switch to other platforms that are less studied and less well-regulated. Second, that by denying young people any agency in the decisions about what risks they take, we also deny them the opportunity to develop resilience.
The other notable cost is the immediate one – loss of access to content, information, friendship networks and even their own creations. Users were presented with warnings from platforms in the run-up to the implementation of the ban, but instructions to download or archive content may have come too late for many.
Alternative measures
The UK Online Safety Act imposes a duty of care on platforms to ensure that under-18s are not exposed to the most harmful sorts of content and that other content is only served to age-appropriate groups. In the USA, 25 states have introduced some form of age verification for internet users, while in the EU, the Digital Services Act imposes strict regulations on the biggest platforms.
All of these interventions recognise that children and young people deserve special consideration when it comes to an internet that serves every adult need and interest while monetising our attention.
Such an approach has its own downsides. Assessing compliance with these nuanced regulations is tough, while all such measures require some level of age checking.
Remarkably, we have arrived at a point where an age-gated internet is becoming the norm, not just for children but for all users – a point which, unlike social media bans, has gained little media attention.
The trust gap
The Australian example is thus a more extreme measure, but it is not completely out of line. What is most notable about it is the level of parental support it has achieved.
Legislation in other countries may have taken a more balanced approach, but it clearly has not provided enough reassurance to those on the front line that children really will be well looked after.
This suggests a major gap in current policy approaches – we need to ensure not only that companies are keeping children safe online, but that parents trust them to do so and understand how to support resilient behaviours themselves. Implementing a social media ban may give parents a greater sense of control, but it won’t solve these wider problems.
This story first appeared on the University of Oxford news website here.
