Login
Is the social media ban a double-edged sword?
As Australia approaches the implementation of its first social media ban, solicitor and law lecturer Yvette Holt explains whether the ban is excessive or inadequately addresses the underlying issues.
Grace Robbie
Australia’s recently passed Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, which is set to take effect at the end of 2025, will prohibit individuals under 16 years of age from utilising social media platforms, including TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram and Facebook.
The legislation seeks to safeguard this demographic from the potential risks and hazards associated with the use of various social media platforms. However, Yvette Holt, a solicitor and a law lecturer at Southern Cross University, raises specific concerns regarding potential unintended consequences that would arise from the law that may outweigh its intended benefits.
Holt noted that this ban is “the first of its kind globally”, transferring the “obligation” of compliance to social media companies rather than placing this responsibility on the children’s parents.
However, she revealed that not all widely used social media platforms by this age group will be affected by this legislation, with platforms like “YouTube and online games such as Fortnite and Minecraft” remaining outside the scope of this ban.
Holt acknowledged the positive aspects of the prohibition, as it serves to protect children from the “well-documented” dangers associated with social media, including “mental health problems associated with online bullying, propagation of unrealistic body images and predatory online grooming”. Nevertheless, she also identified that there exists a “downside” to this ban.
One major concern that Holt discussed is that the law may deprive 16-year-old individuals of “access to online communities”, which could impede their ability to engage socially and, in turn, exacerbate feelings of “loneliness and isolation”.
Moreover, Holt explained how social media has evolved into a powerful tool for youth activism over the years. She specifically referenced Greta Thunberg’s 2019 Students Strike Climate, a movement that gained momentum through the very platforms that the proposed legislation seeks to restrict.
Holt underscored that restricting children from accessing social media platforms would hinder their capacity to “mobilise politically” and advocate for issues that they are passionate about.
In November 2024, the Commonwealth Parliament joint selection committee on social media and Australian society published its report, Social Media: the good, the bad and the ugly. The report includes a series of recommendations aimed at ensuring that social media platforms are safe for all Australians.
Among the recommendations directed at the Australian government is the proposal to “introduce a single and overarching statutory duty of care onto digital platforms” and “require digital platforms to implement diligent risk assessments and risk mitigation plans to make their systems and processes safe for all Australians”.
However, Holt indicated that the government’s response has “side-stepped” the recommendations put forth by the joint selection committee by “simply imposing a ban” that will be “very difficult to enforce”.
She further contended that this strategy may unintentionally make “social media platforms less safe for the children who do manage to access them”.
Holt said: “Until a more comprehensive approach is taken by our government to the potential harms of social media to Australian society in general, we will have the paradoxical situation where children as young as 10 can be incarcerated, but they will not be able to use social media platforms to mobilise politically for a better future.”
