Australia has approved groundbreaking legislation to ban children under the age of 16 from using social media, marking the world's most stringent law of its kind. The law, which passed the Senate late Thursday and the House of Representatives early Friday, imposes steep penalties on tech companies that fail to comply, with fines reaching up to A$50 million (US$32.5 million).

The ban is set to take effect in at least 12 months and will apply to popular platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and X (formerly Twitter). However, gaming and messaging platforms, as well as sites accessible without an account, such as YouTube, will be exempt.

Government’s Justification: Protecting Childhood

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has championed the legislation, emphasizing the need to shield young people from the "harms" of social media. “We want our kids to have a childhood and parents to know we have their backs,” he said following the bill’s passage.

The government’s plan aims to address growing concerns over social media’s impact on children’s mental health, with many parents voicing support. Polls indicate a majority of Australian parents and caregivers favor the reforms, with advocates calling it a long-overdue measure.

“For too long parents have had this impossible choice between giving in and getting their child an addictive device or seeing their child isolated,” said Amy Friedlander, a leading voice in lobbying for the ban.

How the Ban Will Work

The law will rely on age-verification technology to enforce the ban, placing the responsibility on social media platforms to implement these systems. The government plans to test various technologies, potentially including biometrics or identity verification, in the coming months.

READ MORE: LinkedIn 'too boring for kids' amid Australia social media ban threat

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner will oversee enforcement, while decisions on which platforms fall under the ban will be made by Communications Minister Michelle Rowland. However, critics have raised doubts about the effectiveness and privacy implications of these measures, warning they could be easily circumvented with tools like VPNs.

Broad Criticism from Tech Companies

Tech giants have voiced strong opposition to the legislation, citing concerns over its feasibility and lack of clarity.

Meta (Facebook and Instagram) criticized the bill as “ineffective” and unlikely to achieve its goal of keeping kids safe online.

Snap Inc. (Snapchat) and Google questioned the rushed timeline and limited detail, while TikTok argued the law’s vague definition of a social media platform could lead to confusion.

X (formerly Twitter) warned the legislation might conflict with international human rights treaties to which Australia is a signatory.

Youth advocates have also accused the government of excluding young people from discussions on how to address social media risks. The eSafety Youth Council, which advises the regulator, stated: “We need to be involved in developing solutions.”

International Reactions

Australia’s legislation has drawn global attention, with leaders in Norway and the UK expressing interest in following suit. Norway has pledged to explore similar measures, while the UK’s technology secretary has indicated a potential ban is “on the table,” though not imminent.

France introduced a law last year requiring parental consent for children under 15 to access social media, but studies suggest nearly half of users bypassed the restrictions using VPNs. Meanwhile, a similar ban in Utah, USA, was struck down by a federal judge who ruled it unconstitutional.

Despite criticisms, Albanese remains steadfast in defending the legislation. He acknowledged its imperfections, comparing it to age restrictions on alcohol: “It doesn’t mean someone under 18 never has access, but we know it’s the right thing to do.”

The government hopes the legislation will set a new global standard for addressing the risks posed by social media to young people. However, as the debate continues, questions about its implementation, privacy implications, and long-term effectiveness remain unanswered.

‍