Picture this: You’re sitting down for a family dinner, and instead of chatting about school, your 14-year-old is glued to their phone, perfecting a TikTok dance they swear will “blow up.” As they film their 87th take, you wonder....shouldn’t they be outside learning the joy of frisbee or inside suffering through algebra homework? Well, what if they couldn’t scroll endlessly at all? Enter the hot topic of banning social media for under-16s.
Yeah, right. Times have changed and this is such a bad idea that even the most brain dead of brain dead could see that stifling something kids have accepted as part of modern living is the adult equivalent of forcing the grid to go green.
Australia has just passed legislation to do just that. Millions of Australian children under the age of 16 will be banned from using social media after historic laws were passed on the last day of parliament for 2024. The world-first legislation will mean kids under the age of 16 are set to be blocked from accessing popular platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, X, Facebook and Snapchat. The ban will not come into effect until the end of next year. Social media companies can be fined up to $50 million for failing to take "reasonable steps" to keep children under the age of 16 from accessing their platforms. " Reasonable. " One of my favourite terms in legalese. Lawyers will get rich off that one.
I honestly believe this is a can of worms the government will wish they had never opened. If it is a backdoor to digital ID, it will backfire spectacularly as people realise that this is the nail in the coffin for parental rights. And the Speakeasies are already ordering the drapes.
Yes, studies repeatedly show that excessive social media use among teens can lead to anxiety, depression, and a paralysing fear of missing out. A ban could be the ultimate “Ctrl+Z” on their endless doomscrolling. No more midnight binges of Instagram reels. Teenagers might rediscover the lost art of sleeping through the night without waking up to check if their BeReal got any likes. A ban could force kids to communicate with actual humans using words (gasp!), eye contact, and body language instead of emoji hieroglyphics. Banning teens could nip eyebrow-shaving TikTok trends in the bud. Let’s face it, humanity could do with fewer viral stunts involving glue and bathtubs.
But kids are crafty. If history has taught us anything, it’s that banning something often makes it more desirable. Just look at prohibition in the 1920's and 30's. Expect social media speakeasies where teens post covert Snapchat stories.
Good luck explaining to a 15-year-old why they can’t send memes to their friends. The outcry would be louder than a leftie luvvie screaming when Trump won the American election.
Do we really want to hand over more personal data to Big Tech so they can play bouncer? Parents might feel the brunt of the backlash. When teens can’t vent online, they’ll channel their angst directly into family group chats. Brace yourself.
To enforce the ban, social media companies would need a robust system for age verification. Imagine signing up for TikTok and having to upload a birth certificate. Effective? Sure. Invasion of privacy when you can't publish a child's face without it being pixelated? Oh, absolutely. Fancy tech could estimate a user’s age by analysing their face, but what happens when your baby-faced uncle gets flagged? Some platforms already have parent-child account setups. Scaling this could be a nightmare but might keep teens off the grid without alienating older users. The real teeth of the policy would come from hefty fines for non-compliance. Is this just about making money for a broke government in need of cash?
Human nature is such that kids will be bad if they get pushed too hard too fast. And I can guarantee they are already planning the opening of the digital speakeasies.
If social media companies fail to boot the underaged, they could face millions in penalties. Nothing motivates corporate change quite like the threat of losing yacht money. But what if they have taken " reasonable steps" - what is reasonable? And who gets to determine that?
Let's be realistic. A social media ban for under-16s is a noble idea...teens might read books again! They could even rediscover hobbies beyond scrolling. But enforcing it? That’s where the plot thickens. From tech loopholes to enraged youths storming the metaphorical gates of X, implementing this ban could be as tricky as catching a greased-up drop bear. And kids these days are way ahead of the average politician when it comes to the internet.
In the meantime, perhaps we should just tell kids what our parents told us about not staring at screens all day: "You’ll ruin your eyes." At least now we’ve got some actual science to back it up. Mind you, it didn't work with us with TV when we were kids, did it? Imagine banning TV back then?!
But, for many kids, especially those who are hearing impaired or living in isolated areas, social media isn’t just a time-wasting black hole of memes and trends...it’s a genuine lifeline. It connects them to friends, family, and communities they might not otherwise have access to. A blanket ban could risk cutting off that vital connection for those who arguably need it the most.
Social media platforms, with their text-based chats, video captions, and accessibility features, have transformed how hearing-impaired kids communicate. Gone are the days of isolation due to auditory barriers. Instead, they can text, video call with captions, or join online groups tailored to their experiences. A ban could pull the plug on these essential connections.
For kids in rural or remote areas, where the nearest neighbour might be a kangaroo or a moose (depending on the hemisphere), social media is a bridge to the outside world. It lets them stay connected with friends, chat with grandparents who live across the country, or even join global hobby communities. Loneliness is a significant factor in mental health, and for kids in unique circumstances....whether due to location, health, or disability.....social media can be the thread that ties them to a wider, supportive community. For some, it’s the only way to find peers who "get" them.
Yes, social media can be a cesspool of bad takes and silly dances, but for some kids, it’s a lifeline. Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater...or, in this case, the hashtags out with the hoaxes. I would like to put forward something really crazy. The radical notion of parents taking charge...truly, a revolutionary idea! (Said no parent trying to wrangle a stubborn 14-year-old ever.) But hey, maybe it’s not so far-fetched. After all, who knows kids better than their own parents? How about putting the responsibility squarely in the hands of the people raising the perceived " little digital gremlins. "Parents know their children’s maturity levels, emotional needs, and whether little Timmy is ready for the chaos of TikTok or better off with LEGO. They can customise access instead of relying on a blanket law. Teaching kids how to navigate social media responsibly is arguably more valuable than banning it altogether. Parents can instill lessons about online etiquette, privacy, and recognising scams, creating savvy digital citizens. After all, that these days is a pretty important lifeskill for adulthood. Letting parents decide means no need for Big Tech to scan birth certificates or facial features. It’s simpler, cheaper, and less intrusive than any top-down government mandate.
Modern platforms already offer robust parental controls, from screen time limits to content filters. Parents can wield these tools to mould their kids’ digital diets without requiring Elon Musk to step in.
Legislating all the kids because of the minority of parents is what is wrong with this world right now.
Handing the reins to parents could be the best middle ground between blanket bans and free-for-all chaos. It empowers families to make decisions based on individual needs and circumstances. Sure, it might involve some trial and error (and plenty of exasperated sighs), but who better to guide kids through the digital jungle than the people who have been nagging them to clean their rooms for years?
This legislation will not end bullying. What it will do is end the ability of bullied kids to find a support group of others who have suffered the same fate.
And hey, if it doesn’t work, there’s always Plan B: reintroducing dial-up internet speeds. That’ll make anyone think twice about scrolling.
