On December 10, 2025, Australia officially implemented a ground-breaking legislation banning access to major social media platforms for all persons under 16 years old. This landmark law — one of its kind globally — bans users under 16 from creating or maintaining accounts on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube etc unless their parents consent and platforms that fail to comply face fines of up to A$49 Million for violations. Reuters + Wikipedia.
+2 This move has been widely welcomed by supporters — including many parents and mental-health advocates — as an overdue step to protect children from cyberbullying, harmful content on social media platforms, addiction to them and mounting pressures associated with online life. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called the ban an opportunity for children “just being kids”, encouraging outdoor playtime, face-to-face interactions and healthier childhood routines. TIME also applauded this initiative.
But as this law comes into effect, many are wondering if Australia has really solved its social-media anxiety problem or simply moved it elsewhere?
Moderation Could Be Key
Long before this ban was implemented, multiple studies had clearly documented the adverse consequences of heavy social media use among adolescents: increased risks of depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, envy and social isolation as well as disrupted sleep. For more information about ReachOut Australia please read below.
Yet a major 2025 survey of Australian teens suggested that moderate use — defined as one to three hours daily of media use — correlates with similar or even improved mental-health outcomes than minimal or no use. Teens in the moderate use group reported slightly greater feelings of control over their lives as well as similar rates of seeking help or socializing compared with light users.
These studies suggest that social media’s harmful effects may depend more on how teenagers utilize platforms – rather than its presence alone – rather than its presence itself. Social media provides teens with a space for belonging, identity exploration and accessing helpful mental-health resources such as ReachOut Australia +2 and Beyond Blue +2.
What the Law Does — And Doesn’t Do
The ban restricts under-16s access to mainstream social media, potentially decreasing exposure to harmful material; but experts caution of its flaws:
No matter the ban, underage users could still find ways of accessing unregulated or alternative platforms (some already becoming popular) where supervision is minimal.
LinkedIn +2 Al Jazeera.
+2
A blanket ban may deny teens access to supportive communities – spaces in which many turn for mental health advice, social connection and relief from isolation.
ReachOut Australia + Beyond Blue
+2 The law does not address the root causes of mental-health issues – including social pressure, expectations from society, offline relationships and wider use of social media by older peers. Brookings + PMC
Simply stated: the ban seeks to mitigate risk through removal, but does not ensure healthy digital habits or address underlying pressures.
Are These Protective Armors, Or Is This Just Symbolism?
If the goal of social media use for children is to protect them from its most negative aspects — cyberbullying, harmful content exposure and addictive algorithms — then banning may provide some relief. Parents supporting such changes hope their kids will spend more time outdoors, studying, socializing and sleeping — rather than scrolling feeds late into the night.
However, research demonstrates that moderate social media usage can be neutral or even beneficial, making a blanket ban unnecessary. Teens in particular often rely on online interactions as a form of companionship and support when real-life isolation, stigmas or mental-health challenges make receiving in-person care harder to access.
By restricting access, and failing to address media literacy programs, safe design standards or deeper regulation – without engaging media literacy programs or further regulation – a ban could push young people further underground, into less visible and overseen spaces than originally hoped for in law. That would undermine visibility and oversight — two goals which legislation is supposed to protect.
Australia’s experiment, known as The Road Ahead, is ambitious and unprecedented; but whether it will actually reduce anxiety, depression or social-media harm among teens remains uncertain. While relief may come through the policy’s implementation, its efficacy cannot be guaranteed as an instantaneous fix.
Experts recognize that for lasting change to occur, a more nuanced approach will likely be necessary: education on healthy digital habits; improved mental-health support services; safe-design requirements for platforms; and open dialogue among parents, schools, and youth. If Australia pursues only bans without creating an inclusive digital ecosystem – temporary relief may follow and fears may return again over time.