Moment that mattered: Australia’s under-16 social media ban comes into effect

On 10th December, Australia became the first country in the world to ban children from social media. In theory, at least, anyone aged under 16 could no longer use platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and X.

When the Australian parliament first approved the ban in November 2024, prime minister Anthony Albanese said the legislation was in response to a “clear, causal link between the rise of social media and the harm to the mental health of young Australians.” There was cross-party support for the measure, and according to YouGov nearly 80 percent of the public backed it too. The policy had also received the vociferous backing of News Corp, owners of numerous newspapers and Sky News Australia.

Professor Kathryn Modecki of the University of Western Australia and the Kids Research Institute Australia is leading a national study to examine the impact of the ban on families. When the institute publishes its data later in 2026, it is likely to be read by policymakers from around the world, many of whom are watching Australia’s experiment with interest. She understands why a ban appealed to many. “One could argue that Albanese was responding to a loud roar from parents who understandably feel overwhelmed, who feel like their kids are online so much – and it’s a black box, they have no idea what their kids are doing… They can now say, ‘Great, now I can tell my kid they can’t go on social media’.” But she says that not all parents feel the same way. “Some will see their kids being online as a positive because they want them to get a job or vocation in the digital space; others will say ‘It’s safer for my kid to be online than out on the street.’”

Unsurprisingly, the social media firms, which will face fines of up to A$49.5m (£24.5m) if they do not take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from holding accounts on their platforms, criticised the measures. Meta, the owner of Facebook and Instagram, argued that the ban was rushed through Australia’s parliament without sufficient consultation and debate, and didn’t properly take into account the views of children. X owner Elon Musk, meanwhile, suggested the ban was part of an effort to establish state control of the internet.

Pushback didn’t just come from the tech giants. Unicef Australia expressed concern that the ban risked “pushing children into increasingly covert and unregulated online spaces”, while Amnesty called the ban “an ineffective quick fix that’s out of step with the realities of a generation that lives both on and offline”, and called instead for better regulation and data protection laws.

Modecki says that there was concern among colleagues in her field of child development and adolescent mental health that the impetus behind the ban was not following “the best science, or the best ideas”. One key driver was The Anxious Generation, a book by US social psychologist Jonathan Haidt in which he argued that social media has “rewired” childhood, causing an epidemic of mental illness. The so-called ‘architect’ of the ban, South Australia’s premier Peter Malinauskas, has told a story of his wife finishing reading Haidt’s book in bed and saying “Peter, you better bloody do something about this!” South Australia planned its own ban before Albanese decided it should happen nationally.

“Haidt tells a beautiful story, but it does not reflect the science,” says Modecki. “He’s a social psychologist with a fundamental goal of studying how people behave differently in groups. He’s not a developmental psychologist, or a clinical psychologist… The more time you spend [on the topic of social media and its impact on children] the more you appreciate the complexity and the nuance.” While she suggests that a bestseller may have had too much influence on policymakers, Modecki credits the eSafety Commissioner, the government agency responsible for the ban’s implementation, for “listening to a lot of the pushback from experts nationally and internationally”, and engaging with and seeking to include a wide range of expert views in their evaluation.

Modecki and her colleagues at the Kids institute, who have partnered with a research organisation at the University of Chicago, will speak to around 2,800 Australian families, both parents and children. Modecki insists that their team’s methodology will ensure they are positioned to reach a truly representative pool of the public – urban and rural, and from a diverse range of backgrounds. “Whether the ban works or doesn’t work, or whether it helps or harms or has no impact, is very likely going to be different for different families,” she says. Advocacy groups for LGBTQ+, neurodiverse and ethnic minority teenagers have expressed concerns that the ban will cut off critical connections to community and support. “That’s also something we’re studying,” says Modecki. “Part of adolescence is finding your identity, and we know that the online space is a critical space for finding it.”

Anthony Albanese was responding to a loud roar from parents who feel overwhelmed” — Professor Kathryn Modecki

In January 2026, Albanese announced that more than 4.7 million social media accounts held by under-16s had been deactivated or removed in the first few days of the ban, a seemingly impressive number given that there are only around 2.5 million children aged 8-15 in the country. The prime minister insisted that the ban was working. But some kids are finding workarounds, “and they’re not finding it particularly hard,” says Modecki, who spoke to one woman whose niece apparently used a fake moustache to successfully deceive a social media platform’s age verification system. “I’m hearing from kids making wrinkles on their faces and getting in,” she says, adding that for some older children, those aged 14 or 15, the ban “was no longer a thing” by its second week. The eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, said that she had fully expected teething problems, and that under-16s skirting the ban would “find themselves booted off at a later time.”

In a video message released hours before the ban came into effect, Albanese urged under-16s to “start a new sport, learn a new instrument, or read that book sitting there on your shelf” in the free time they would hopefully gain from not staring at their phones. “Anecdotally I have not heard anyone say, ‘Oh my kid’s not on social media any more, now they’re outside playing in the grass,” says Modecki.

Several countries plan to follow Australia’s lead. Denmark, Norway, Spain, Malaysia and Indonesia are among those preparing to ban children from social media, while France is set to become the second country to enforce a ban after its national assembly passed legislation backed by President Emmanuel Macron in January 2026. That month Sir Keir Starmer launched a consultation on a British under-16 social media ban, and the House of Lords voted to back a Tory-led amendment to a bill on children’s wellbeing to add a ban. Opposition leader Kemi Badenoch is urging the prime minister to “just get on” with a ban, but Starmer seems to want to see the data from down under before making a decision.

Anecdotally I have not heard anyone say ‘Oh my kid’s not on social media any more, now they’re outside playing in the grass’” — Professor Kathryn Modecki

Modecki believes that waiting is wise. “I understand that parents are nervous and want answers, and I’m not saying [politicians] should sit on their hands – they can use this period [before Australian data on the impacts of the ban is published] to get a broad sense of the different needs of different parents and different kids… But this is an experiment and lots of studies will come out of Australia… Why wouldn’t you wait a few more months?”

With calls for a UK ban growing louder, the father of a British teenager who took her own life after viewing images of self-harm and suicide online said he opposed a blanket ban. Ian Russell, the father of Molly Russell, added his name to a joint statement also signed by the country’s biggest children’s charity the NSPCC, which called a ban a “blunt response” that could have “unintended consequences”.

Some fear that Australia used a sledgehammer when a scalpel was needed, that the complexity of the issue demanded a more nuanced response – stricter regulation and enforcement rather than prohibition. Modecki shared such fears, but says she does not want to be proven right. “I want the best for kids and I understand parents’ concerns,” she says. “So I hope the ban works. How fabulous would that be?”

Thursday, June 18th, 2026 - Interviews Long reads Moments that mattered Slow Journalism