Experts say Australia’s new social media ban might not change children’s online lives as much as regulators hope.
As Australia’s world-first social media ban comes into effect on Wednesday, experts tell Euronews Next that it might not be very effective at improving children’s online lives.
As of December 10, Australian children under age 16 will be unable to create or keep accounts on platforms such as Facebook, X, Threads, Snapchat, Instagram, TikTok, Twitch, X, Reddit, and Google-owned YouTube.
Children will be unable to create an account, but they will still be able to access the platforms without logging in.
The country’s eSafety Commissioner says the new regulations aim to protect young Australians from “pressures and risks” they could face on social media, including “design features” that encourage higher screen times and content that can “harm their health and well-being.”
As the law enters into force, here’s what to expect from this major change in Australia.
‘There’s going to be a lot of mistakes’
Social media companies are expected to comply with Australia’s new regulations by filtering out users under 16 through “age assurances,” or age verification. These are services where young Australians will either upload a video selfie or a government ID to prove their age.
Ahead of the restrictions, Australia tested 60 age verification tools in 28,500 facial recognition tests.
The study found many methods – including ID checks, facial-age estimation, and parental consent – could work, but they are less effective for users who are 16 or 17. The tools were also less effective for girls and for non-Caucasian faces, where the age estimation was off by at least two years.
That means some teenagers could circumvent the verification tools, experts warned.
“How do they know who is 14 or 15 when the kids have all signed up as being 75?,” Sonia Livingstone, a social psychology professor at the London School of Economics, told Euronews Next. “So you know there's gonna be a lot of mistakes.”
The social media companies acknowledge this in their own implementation plans.
“Realistically, we can only do so much to determine age without requiring everyone to provide a government ID – which isn’t safe, poses significant privacy risks, and could lead to identity theft,” social media giant Meta wrote in a recent blog post, noting that age verification is an issue “for the entire industry.”
In these situations, children over 16 who believe their accounts have been closed down unnecessarily can appeal the process.
To account or not to account
Social media companies have pushed back against the restrictions. The crux of their argument is that they already have age-appropriate settings for teenage users.
For example, Meta said that because children will still be able to access Instagram without logging in, they won’t be subject to the stricter features of the app’s “Teen Accounts,” which limit who can contact children online and restrict content on sensitive topics.
Rachel Lord, a representative of Google and YouTube, told the Australian parliamentearlier this year that teenage accounts have built-in safeguards that filter out inappropriate or harmful content from their recommendations sections, such as videos that idealise “different weights or fitness levels.”
YouTube’s autoplay features and personal advertising are also turned off for child users who are logged into the platform, Lord said at the time.
Lorna Woods, a professor of internet law at the University of Essex, said that companies’ efforts to moderate what children see online often do not work as intended.
“If they were sufficiently effective, then you wouldn’t need the ban,” Woods told Euronews Next.
For example, one study from Dublin City University found that it took an average of 23 to 26 minutes for a new YouTube or TikTok account held by a young man to start receiving misogynistic content.
Another study by the UK-based Molly Rose Foundation showed that recommended videos on the TikTok “For You Page” of a hypothetical 15-year-old girl were frequently related to suicide, depression or self-harm, including tutorials.
Expect a rush to ‘alternative’ video game platforms
Livingstone said a key argument against social media bans is that teenagers will just find “alternative spaces” that are not as restricted.
Smaller platforms such as the lifestyle app Lemon8, “safe” video sharing app Coverstar, and livestreaming app Tango have all been in the top 10 most-downloaded apps in Australia on both Google Play and Apple’s app store since December 1, according to aggregator Sensor Tower.
Meanwhile, messaging apps like WhatsApp, Telegram and Signal, while still popular, are exempt from the restrictions and have been downloaded many times in the past few days, according to Sensor Tower data.
The short-lived TikTok ban in the United States earlier this year showed that RedNote, another Chinese videosharing app, could be another replacement for teenagers looking to get around the restrictions.
“Word will start going around that this is where people are meeting up … or they’ll ask ChatGPT what’s the latest fun app … and by the time we’ve noticed, they will have gone somewhere else,” Livingstone said.
Woods said the ban may be less effective than regulators hope because messaging apps were excluded.
“Will it have any effect if everybody’s just going on to WhatsApp and doing the same things? Will the screen or app use time remain the same?” she said.
Livingstone and Woods said they suspect many young people will move to gaming platforms such as Discord or Roblox, which aren’t included in the ban but could still include sensitive content or risky interactions.
Australian research groups have said they will investigate how the restrictions impact young people’s mental health and if the ban helps or hurts parents who are trying to curb their teens’ social media use.
Still, Woods said it will take at least a couple of years to see whether the restrictions help get children off social media and whether it improves children’s wellbeing.
