WHY AUSTRALIA’S SOCIAL MEDIA AGE-RESTRICTED ACCESS MISSES THE MARK

19th January 202619th January 2026 TaherAbedi

By-Madeeha Jamal, Umme Amaan and Biraj Swain

19,January,2026- The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, here in after referred to as ‘The Act’, was passed by the Australian Parliament, which essentially bans children under 16 from creating accounts on a list of social media platforms including, Tiktok, Facebook, Instagram, online streaming platforms like Twitch and Kick and even search engines like Google and Yahoo.

To implement this, the government has proposed age verification as a requirement to hold an account, even for existing account holders.

The Online Safety Act, 2025 of the United Kingdom, Kenya Information and Communications (Amendment) Bill, 2025 have also followed, further establishing the urgency of the matter.

While the average individual is busy creating and consuming user-generated media, Big Tech has been constantly collecting data such as our location, pictures, search history, chats, purchase history, and so on to use to their own benefit, like providing customized advertisements.

This harvesting of data has seen abrupt growth in recent years, with the Artificial Intelligence or AI revolution and the need felt by Big Tech to extensively train their AI models with our personal information.

Now, because of this very personalized utopian experience, children, not being in possession of a developed prefrontal cortex (the part of the brain responsible for self-control, decision making, and dopamine processing), fall victim to social media and the capacity of addiction it creates unethically.

Jonathan Haidt, in his book, ‘The Anxious Generation’, explains that children who grew up with social media simply did not acquire the set of social skills required to form or maintain meaningful personal relationships due to the loss of integral childhood experiences.

A study cited by the Australian Parliament, while passing the Act, even established a bidirectional (but not causal) relationship between social media and maladaptive behaviour.

Frequent social media use is also associated with lower self-esteem, depressive symptoms, and increased levels of anxiety, amongst other mental health issues in children.

WHY THE ACT IS PROBLEMATIC

The Act has been heavily criticised for being not only overreaching in its scope but also inefficient in its application due to the multitude of loopholes that may be exploited by both the providers of age-restricted social media platforms and under-16 users.

The banning of social media platforms has not yet been proven to be effective, as seen in the case of the social media ban in Nepal which proved to be a catalyst for the Nepali Gen Z protests, where the Nepali youth used platforms such as Tik tok and Discord (which were exceptions), as well as banned apps through Virtual Private Networks, to mobilize protests.

The under-16s of Australia have been able to circumvent the ban in a similar manner. Platforms have also been using the method of self-declaration for verification of age, which is in contravention of the Act.

In an interview with Neil Mitchell, the Australian Prime Minister was asked what he would do if he could be a dictator, to which he replied that he would ban social media because ‘anyone can anonymously say anything at all’.

The Albanese government’s recent move to weaken the Freedom of Information laws to make it harder for the public to gain access to documents related to government deliberations by providing government agencies the power to refuse access (on the pretext of frivolous requests), as well as the reintroduction of application fees, in addition to the processing charges, raises questions about the government’s intentions.

It also mandates applicants to disclose their full names with identity proof.

The Albanese government’s stance on the protection of children is thus a hard pill to swallow, as its methods, combined with the necessity of biometric, facial recognition, or behavioural inferencing for age verification, suggests radical intentions.

To make matters worse, this data is stored overseas with no scope of accountability of these platforms to any regional governments.

There has recently been a wave of authoritarian governments using security concerns to get a foot into the citizens’ personal data and regulate their social media engagement.

Talking about the circus in our own backyard, the Department of Telecommunications under the Modi Government recently released a directive mandating the preinstallation of the Sanchar Sathi app on all new mobile phones to strengthen cybersecurity and track lost/stolen phones through IMEI services. However, the DoTs move was heavily criticised for exceeding the boundaries set on the government by the three-fold test set in the Puttaswamy judgement.

While such backlash has led to the DoT withdrawing the directive, it is left to be seen whether the government is truly interested in safeguarding the citizens’ right to privacy.

Another example of the government pushing boundaries of control is a proposal by the U.S. Control and Protection, for all applicants under the visa waiver program, including the H1-B, who will be required to submit a long list of personal data, including social media and contact details of the entire immediate family.

Such an extensive demand for personal data leaves the applicants incredibly susceptible to governmental overreach and indirectly violates free speech by taking away the anonymity of the applicant.

VIOLATION OF RIGHTS

The implied freedom of political communication under the Australian Constitution restricts the executive and legislature from curtailing the freedom of communication of Australians. This freedom is subject to limitations as established by the Australian High Court in Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Communication.

Non-compliance with the age verification process would leave individuals logged out of their Google and social media accounts.

This mandatory association of an individual’s online persona with their real-life identity prevents citizens from free political communication for fear of legal repercussions.

Two Australian teenagers have even moved to the Australian High Court to challenge the constitutional validity of this Act to the extent that it infringes upon their freedom of political communication.

The Act is also in violation of the international rights of children. United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) clearly gives the right to freedom of expression and hence the right to seek, receive and impart information of all kinds through any choice of media, the right of protection from any unlawful interference with privacy and recognizes the importance of mass media, therefore the right to access information of diverse origins under Article 13, Article 16, Article 17, respectively under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

REPERCUSSIONS ON MENTAL HEALTH

Despite the research presented by the Albanese government trying to conclude that social media is an absolute villain in the lives of children, that is not entirely true.

Evidence, such as a study by UNICEF Australia, says that 81% of social media users say that it has a positive influence on their lives.

This result is also the norm in international research, where adolescents reported that social media helps them feel more accepted, that they have people who can support them through tough times, and they use it as a place to show their creative side.

The American Psychological Association also made it clear that social media is not inherently beneficial or harmful to anyone, but each experience is affected by how one shapes their feed, who they choose to follow, etc.

All this data clearly reveals the otherwise undermined positive side of social media and also compels us to question the decision of the government to entirely ban social media instead of making regulations to ensure that children use it safely and in moderation.

FUTURE FORWARD:

Social media, despite its harmful effects, serves the purpose of essential communication, education, and economic activities that cannot be overlooked.

Its impact on mental health is a result of its misuse rather than its existence itself. Hence, we need more, not less, digital literacy and regulations to avoid dystopian social withdrawal and make physical human interactions more common again.

Even more important still is the need to change the nature of social media, which is inherently addictive.

With such problems at hand, there is a dire urgency for the government to regulate not the access of citizens to social media, but rather the access of Big Tech to citizens. Banning social media is not the answer.

The most important question that needs to be asked is, does mandating the submission of identity proof by citizens to the very same social media platforms, which the government wishes to protect them from, showcase any real interest of the government in safeguarding the online space for its citizens? Or is it something else?

About the authors:
Madeeha Jamal is a student of Psychology. Umme Amaan is a law student at Hidayatullah National Law University. Biraj Swain is the Chief Minsiter’s Chair Professor cum Director of the Centre for Child Rights at National Law University Odisha.