The ban’s objective is to block all under 16s from creating or maintaining social media accounts, even with parental consent. That is why this particular restriction is labelled as a blanket ban. The bill responsible for proposing this ban passed in late 2024, and had substantial support from a broad myriad of individuals. Both major parties in Australia championed this ban. 

This restriction is framed as a world-first blanket ban on social media, specifically accounts, for youths.

However, ever since this controversial ban was announced by the Australian government, it has sparked major backlash, especially from tech companies, youth advocates, human rights organisations and certain mental health groups.

Once this ban commences, young teenagers, aged 13-15, who were formerly allowed to own social media accounts, will be cut off from social media services.

How sad is this?

Currently, seven social media platforms are confirmed to be banned for under 16s. They include Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Reddit, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and even YouTube, an initially 'exempt' platform which was recently added onto the inclusion list, due to concerns about the exposure to harmful content and toxic algorithms.

Here are seven key reasons why the social media ban for under 16s be scrapped:

• Firstly, it is certain that this complete blanket ban will erode and stifle individual liberty and digital rights. It specifically infringes on youths' autonomy, and violates their rights to participate in online discussions. This restriction prohibits young teenagers from entering a prominent sector of the internet. This approach, led by Australia, is notable for being described as rigid and overly restrictive. The ban blocks all under 16s, even with parental consent, from social media, specifically accounts, which reflects the uncompromising and inflexible style of this ban. Although there is a considerably high level of support for this absolute restriction, a number of individuals and organisations have strongly opposed this ban. Many people have labelled this ban as authoritarian, illiberal, harsh, overprotective and blunt. Several human rights organisations, such as Australian Human Rights Commission, UNICEF Australia and Amnesty International, have raised serious concerns about this ban, saying that it can restrict youths from freely expressing their ideas, views, thoughts and opinions. The intense level of backlash and criticism for this ban demonstrates its absurdity, ridiculousness, unreasonableness, and how it can severely diminish youths’ freedom of expression.
• In addition, the ban and the campaigns advocating for it oversimplify the negative effects of social media. It ignores the myriad of positive effects that exist on social media. Generally, teenagers use social media for simple, light-hearted entertainment. Some might use it to find useful and valuable information. However, an increasing number of teenagers are utilising it for more active, practical purposes, such as campaigning for a social cause, or joining online communities for support, stimuli, insight, tips and ideas. Social media, as a whole, amplified youths’ voices, and distributed one of the most fundamental human rights, which is freedom of speech, more evenly among different groups of people. The campaigns that have promoted the ban often used social media to spread that message. If social media was banned for youths, then they might not have been exposed to that idea. This strongly emphasises that social media is not always dangerous or harmful, and challenges the perceived generalisations or opinions about social media.
• Moreover, this blanket restriction risks isolating marginalised youths. Marginalised young people often use social media as a fundamental lifeline. Most of them use it to get in contact with other people, share and emphasise their views and opinions, meet other like-minded individuals and to build and enhance their existing relationships and connections. Many people and organisations, such as Headspace, ABC News (via Amy Sargeant), WhyNot.org.au and Australian Institute of International Affairs, have spoken about this concern, and slammed the ban for unintentionally dismissing the voices of marginalised or more isolated youths. This expresses how blocking access to social media for youths can further isolate them, especially for those who are already marginalised, such as Indigenous, neurodivergent and LGBTQIA+ individuals, as well as people who reside in rural areas.
• Additionally, this ban focuses more on exclusion and control, rather than meaningful reform and adjustments. It feels more like a punishment or burden in a young person’s eyes, rather than reasonable action to shield youths from the online harm, danger and threats that linger on social media. It also provides a false sense of safety and security. The Australian Greens, a left-wing political party, have critiqued this ban, stating that it is ‘rushed, reckless and unsupported by evidence.’ They also called it a ‘knee-jerk reaction.’ They stated that it does not directly make platforms safer in any way, and believe that a blunt, blanket ban is not the right answer. This highlights the impulsiveness of this ban, and the lack of extensive scrutiny involved.
• Furthermore, multiple people have raised serious privacy and security concerns about this ban. The upcoming ban will make it compulsory for any person that desires to sign up for social media to verify their age. The verification techniques will possibly include AI facial age estimation, ID checks and behavioural inference. A small number of individuals, including those from political parties, such as One Nation and even the Liberal Party of Australia, which championed this ban, have described this as real government overreach, intrusion and excessive digital surveillance. This unveils the invasive and illiberal style of this blanket ban. A broad range of privacy and security risks can potentially occur if it was under effect.
• Plus, even though the ban looks strong, robust and bold in its name, some individuals are still sceptical about its effectiveness. They believe that in the long term, the blanket ban will act more like a symbolic gesture rather than real action. Teenagers, nowadays, are usually smart enough to find workarounds so they could bypass this ban. For example, an underage person can request their older sibling or adult to sign up for a social media account using their identity, then give it to the underage individual for use. This, therefore, renders the ban ineffective. Although behavioural inference may play a role in deterring this from happening, it is often highly inaccurate, and may even reinforce certain biases and generalisations between different groups of people. This reveals the potential loopholes that are present in the ban, and how under 16s can still access social media accounts, despite the so-called strong and precise age verification technology that would be utilised for this ban.
• Finally, the proposed blanket restriction can initiate a perilous shift to other, even more dangerous, activities. Mainstream social media platforms, the platforms the governments are specifically targeting, are relatively safer than minor forum or blog websites, which usually pose a higher risk of harm and danger, due to the lack of safety features. Banning access completely to those safer and more popular platforms can lead to a spike in youths attempting to migrate to other less regulated areas of the internet, such as the dark web, which is notoriously flooded with high levels of danger. The majority of people who are against this ban have pointed out this massive problem, and how the ban can unintentionally cause it. This indicates that the ban can result in even more chaos and trouble, as it steers youths away from the mainstream areas, and drives them underground.

It is vital to care about the safety of children and teenagers when they surf the internet, and to shield them from the harm and danger that lingers online. However, this blanket ban is not the right answer for protecting youths online, and there are many more less restrictive alternatives.

It's now time to take action! It's time to challenge this unreasonable policy!

Please sign this petition! Every signature will make a difference. We need to tell the Australian government that this approach is erroneous, undesirable and unacceptable.