On 10 December, Australia made a landmark move, becoming the first nation in the world to enact a blanket social media ban for children under the age of 16. This bold regulatory step is being watched closely by governments worldwide, including the UK, as a potential circuit breaker in the long-running battle to protect young people online.
The Failure of Self-Regulation and the Force of Law
For years, politicians, academics, and child safety advocates argued that self-regulation by tech companies had failed to safeguard young users. With the business models of platforms owned by figures like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk fundamentally reliant on maximising screen time, calls for moderation were often met with resistance under the banner of free speech. The Australian government concluded that waiting for voluntary action was no longer viable.
The ban, and similar regulatory pushes across the globe, is now compelling tech firms to implement basic safety standards they long resisted. These include robust age verification systems, teen-friendly account settings, and appropriate account deactivation protocols. The fact that it required the force of law to achieve these measures underscores that moral arguments alone were insufficient against corporate interests.
Global Ripples and the UK's Cautious Approach
While nations like Malaysia, Denmark, and Brazil consider similar prohibitions, the United Kingdom has so far taken a different path. UK policymakers are attempting to determine if platforms can be made sufficiently safe before resorting to an outright ban. The core question remains: is this truly possible?
Features inherently designed to captivate users, such as the infinite scroll and variable reward systems that psychologists compare to gambling mechanics, are at the heart of the problem. These have been deemed so problematic that the US state of California plans to limit teenagers' access to "addictive feeds" to one hour per day without parental consent. No such legal limits currently exist in the UK.
Voices of the Young and the Risk of Isolation
As the Australian ban was implemented, powerful testimonies emerged from the very demographic it aims to protect. A poignant example came from 15-year-old Ezra Sholl, a quadriplegic, who explained how the loss of social media would deepen his isolation. This highlights a critical lesson for other nations: teenagers must be involved in these discussions, and the differential impact of regulation on vulnerable children must be carefully weighed.
Campaigners rightly argue that the risk of isolation should not be used to stifle necessary regulation. Young people's anger is understandable; the speed at which social media has woven itself into the fabric of their lives makes its removal feel like a profound violation. The central failure, however, was allowing the voracious growth of these platforms to outpace protective oversight entirely.
A Marathon, Not a Sprint: The Long Road to Behavioural Change
Australia's experiment will provide a vital case study, adding to the body of research investigating the causal link between social media use and mental health outcomes. Critics contend the ban will simply push young people into unregulated corners of the internet or teach them to circumvent the law—a point supported by the spike in VPN usage observed after Britain's Online Safety Act.
Yet, as with past public health policies on smoking or drink-driving, initial resistance often precedes long-term cultural shift. Behavioural change is a marathon, not a sprint. The ban serves as a stark warning to tech companies: a new regulatory ceiling is being established, and nations are growing impatient with inaction.
In Britain and elsewhere, online safety campaigners are monitoring how tech firms respond to regulations that stop short of an outright ban. However, with many children now spending as much time on their phones as they do in school, companies must understand that governments will treat a lack of meaningful progress with the utmost seriousness.
