Four months have now passed since Australia’s much-praised law, the world’s first social media ban for under-16s, came into force. An initial assessment presents a contradictory picture. Politically, the measure is regarded as a flagship project. Australia was the first Western country to act decisively. In practice, however, it remains a large-scale experiment with an uncertain outcome.
The legal basis is the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024. The law bars minors under 16 from using major platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and YouTube. Enforcement rests entirely with the companies that operate the platforms. They face fines of up to A$50m ($36m) if they fail to meet their monitoring obligations. Teenagers themselves are not penalized.
Sobering Early Assessment
As international efforts to introduce age limits for social media use gather pace, the question of whether such measures work is naturally of interest. A new study by the Becker Friedman Institute at the University of Chicago has now provided the first solid empirical data. The findings, however, cast doubt on the effectiveness of the measure.
According to the study, only about 27% of the affected 14- and 15-year-olds currently comply with the ban. Around three quarters of teenagers in that age group continue to use social networks actively. The researchers’ figures are consistent with journalistic observations. After the law came into force, platforms did delete millions of accounts. Many teenagers, however, are now bypassing the rules without difficulty. They do so by giving false ages, using VPNs or accessing accounts belonging to older people.
The study’s central finding is not numerical but sociological. Social norms, far more than laws, dominate individual decisions. Teenagers said they would give up social media only if about two thirds of their peers did the same. The actual withdrawal rate remains far below that level.
Against Social Reality
The fundamental dilemma is clear. Social media are collective by definition. An individual ban has little effect as long as most people continue to take part. Experts at the Becker Friedman Institute speak of a tipping point that is reached only when collective compliance is high. The Australian system falls well short of that point.
Instead, there are early indications that use is persisting in a socially selective way. Well-connected and popular teenagers remain active on the networks, while those who are less socially integrated are more likely to leave and to do so sooner. That finding reverses a frequently cited comparison. In the decline of smoking, social elites led the way. In the case of social media, those same groups appear to be pushing in the opposite direction through their intensive use.
Technical and Political Limits
Enforcing the ban also reveals significant technical problems. Any form of age verification remains prone to error, contested on privacy grounds and easy to circumvent. The examples are numerous. A VPN alone, simulating access from a country without an age limit, is enough.
Experts had warned even before the law came into force that such measures could simply push online activity below the surface. Previous signs of success, such as the millions of deleted accounts, say nothing about the law’s effectiveness. Many users already have or had several profiles. Once an account is blocked or deleted, a new one can be created in seconds.
At the same time, the laws create a new form of power asymmetry. Platforms use opaque algorithms to decide who is deemed to be underage and therefore excluded. Wrong decisions affect individuals and leave those affected without clear routes of appeal. It will quickly become common knowledge how such algorithms can also be tricked.
The problem extends far beyond Australia and raises fundamental questions about digital regulation. However such laws are designed, experience shows that privacy will always stand in tension with reliable control. Any law that stops short of absolute control therefore remains highly vulnerable to error.
Between Protection and Symbolic Politics
Politically, the ban is justified as a way to protect the mental health of children and teenagers. Numerous studies do indeed show that excessive use of social networks can have negative effects. A more nuanced view of the phenomenon, however, also shows that moderate use is not necessarily harmful. Social media are often among the most important sources of information for teenagers.
Many experts therefore argue for alternative approaches, such as media literacy education, better platform design by providers or targeted protective measures instead of blanket bans. In the latter category, particular concern surrounds techniques such as interest-driven algorithms and infinite scrolling.
Australia’s experience so far at least partly confirms the skepticism of researchers. Early reports point to mixed effects. Some parents have observed positive changes in individual cases, while schools and counseling services have so far seen little systematic improvement.
International Signal, National Limits
The problems Australia is revealing as a global reference model may yet prove useful. More than a dozen countries, including European countries, as well as the EU, are currently examining the introduction of similar laws. One point is already very clear. Digital lives are extraordinarily difficult to govern through national regulation.
A law may formally apply while, at the same time, two thirds of Australian teenagers show that it can largely be ignored in everyday life. For now, Australia’s social media ban is less a completed project than an ongoing experiment.
One conclusion can be drawn. The data so far show that legal bans alone are unlikely to be enough to change deeply embedded social practices. As long as teenagers see every day that their friends are still online, the law remains abstract and reality is stronger than the rule.
If the real aim is to protect teenagers, then another conclusion can also be drawn from the wider body of research. Media literacy must play a much larger role, specifically knowledge of how social media work. The study’s most important finding remains that far greater attention must be paid to teenagers’ social environment than to the dry legal rule itself.