Australia’s new under-16 social media ban came into effect yesterday, and the public reaction has been fascinating to watch, especially in the comment sections of posts I, ironically, viewed on Facebook. It is a complex issue, and many people are genuinely and deeply opposed to the ban, often due to concerns about cybersecurity, government overreach or personal freedoms.
Those concerns are real and worth discussing. But they also raise a broader question we have wrestled with for generations: when do safety concerns justify placing limits on individual freedom?
I’m not a cyber-security expert. But I am the parent of primary-aged children, and I have spent close to two decades working as a K-12 educator and school leader. I’m also someone who openly admits to having my own unhealthy relationship with social media. From this perspective, I strongly support the intent behind the ban.
Young people need help managing their exposure to platforms intentionally engineered to exploit dopamine and drive compulsive use. In my view, too many adults underestimate just how addictive and developmentally harmful the digital world has become. Many parents simply do not realise how much content their children are accessing, or how heavily algorithms are shaping their emotional and social worlds.
And the data tells a very clear story. Recent eSafety research found that 96 percent of Australian children aged 10 to 15 use at least one social media platform, and 7 in 10 have encountered harmful or disturbing content, including violent, sexual or suicidal material. A significant number also reported contact from strangers, exposure to inappropriate content and experiences consistent with cyberbullying. This is not a small problem or a fringe risk, it is the digital landscape our children now move through daily.
Of course, the critiques are valid:
Will the ban be enforceable? Will kids find workarounds? Will it limit connection?
History tells us that prohibition is imperfect. Age restrictions on alcohol and cigarettes are far from fool proof. People will always find ways around limits.
But this does not mean limits should not exist.
The evidence is overwhelming. Excessive social-media use is linked to rising anxiety, poor sleep, exposure to adult content, addictive patterns, declining mental health and, in severe cases, suicidal behaviour. Parenting experts like Maggie Dent and Dr Justin Coulson have been warning about this trajectory for years. The legislation has not appeared overnight, it has been developed through consultation, research and a growing understanding of the scale of harm.
At the same time, it is important to acknowledge the counterarguments in good faith. The Australian Human Rights Commission has raised concerns that age-verification requirements may create new privacy risks, noting that they could require children and young people to hand over highly sensitive identity data. They also caution that restrictions, if not implemented thoughtfully, may curtail freedoms or limit access to important forms of social connection, especially for young people who rely on online spaces for support. These concerns must not be dismissed, and they form an important part of the national conversation.
Still, for me, the principle remains: this ban is not about control. It is about protection, the same principle that justifies seatbelts, bike helmets, child-safety restraints and age limits on harmful products. These measures do restrict freedom in small ways, but they enhance safety and wellbeing in far greater ones. The goal is not to prevent young people from ever going online, but to delay their exposure until they have the emotional, social and cognitive maturity to navigate it safely.
For the ban to be effective, parents and carers will be critical. We need to model healthy digital citizenship. We need less scrolling and more connection. Less algorithm-driven noise and more real-life presence. Devices and social platforms cannot become the default babysitter.
At the end of the day, children’s wellbeing must come before convenience, personal preference or ideological purity. They deserve boundaries shaped by evidence, care and courage, even when those boundaries place limits on freedom.
These are my reflections as an educator, leader and parent. But this is a national conversation, and I am genuinely curious to hear how others are thinking about it – especially those who see it differently.
If you have strong feelings about the topic, I’d love to hear from you so I can better understand the issue.
References
eSafety Commissioner. (2025). Latest eSafety research reveals social media use is widespread among kids — and so are the harms. eSafety.gov.au.
(Used for statistics on: percentage of under-13s using social media, prevalence of negative experiences, frequency of unwanted contact, and confidence in parental support.)
Australian Human Rights Commission. (2025). Proposed social media ban for under-16s — human rights considerations. HumanRights.gov.au.
(Used for: rights-based concerns about blanket bans, privacy implications of age-verification technologies, and commentary on potential unintended consequences.)
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2020). Negative online experiences among young people aged 12–17. AIHW.gov.au.
(Used for supporting data on cyberbullying and negative online interactions.)
Chris English 