529
submitted 2 days ago by SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Australia has enacted a world-first ban on social media for users aged under 16, causing millions of children and teenagers to lose access to their accounts.

Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, YouTube, Snapchat, Reddit, Kick, Twitch and TikTok are expected to have taken steps from Wednesday to remove accounts held by users under 16 years of age in Australia, and prevent those teens from registering new accounts.

Platforms that do not comply risk fines of up to $49.5m.

There have been some teething problems with the ban’s implementation. Guardian Australia has received several reports of those under 16 passing the facial age assurance tests, but the government has flagged it is not expecting the ban will be perfect from day one.

All listed platforms apart from X had confirmed by Tuesday they would comply with the ban. The eSafety commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, said it had recently had a conversation with X about how it would comply, but the company had not communicated its policy to users.

Bluesky, an X alternative, announced on Tuesday it would also ban under-16s, despite eSafety assessing the platform as “low risk” due to its small user base of 50,000 in Australia.

Parents of children affected by the ban shared a spectrum of views on the policy. One parent told the Guardian their 15-year-old daughter was “very distressed” because “all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat”. Since she had been identified as under 16, they feared “her friends will keep using Snapchat to talk and organise social events and she will be left out”.

Others said the ban “can’t come quickly enough”. One parent said their daughter was “completely addicted” to social media and the ban “provides us with a support framework to keep her off these platforms”.

“The fact that teenagers occasionally find a way to have a drink doesn’t diminish the value of having a clear, ­national standard.”

Polling has consistently shown that two-thirds of voters support raising the minimum age for social media to 16. The opposition, including leader Sussan Ley, have recently voiced alarm about the ban, despite waving the legislation through parliament and the former Liberal leader Peter Dutton championing it.

The ban has garnered worldwide attention, with several nations indicating they will adopt a ban of their own, including Malaysia, Denmark and Norway. The European Union passed a resolution to adopt similar restrictions, while a spokesperson for the British government told Reuters it was “closely monitoring Australia’s approach to age restrictions”.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] floquant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 1 day ago

all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat

I love how this sentence is just casually sprinkled there. So platforms are getting $50m fines if they do not implement "age verification", but no problem if they fail to identify minors as such? Tells you everything about how they really care about protecting children.

[-] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 1 day ago

That's not how the law is structured.

Sites are required to implement reasonable measures.

If kids are being evaluated as 18, with no additional checks, that's not reasonable and they're risking the penalties.

We're going to find out whether the regulator has much appetite to issue those penalties, but we will see I guess.

load more comments (3 replies)

One parent told the Guardian their 15-year-old daughter was “very distressed” because “all her 14 to 15-year-old friends have been age verified as 18 by Snapchat”. Since she had been identified as under 16, they feared “her friends will keep using Snapchat to talk and organise social events and she will be left out”.

I think the ban should only apply to public-facing platforms, where everybody can see your content.

Platforms where you only talk to your friends should maybe be left out of it.

[-] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago

Since she had been identified as under 16, they feared “her friends will keep using Snapchat to talk and organise social events and she will be left out”.

FFS, we all got along just fine and dandy with group-chats via text message. We weren't fucking cavemen.

The fact that this is her fear (and the fact that it's a legitimate fear) proves just how much controls like this are needed. It's literally digital crack that they think there's simply no other way to communicate anymore (both her and her friends)

[-] faythofdragons@slrpnk.net 4 points 22 hours ago

FFS, we all got along just fine and dandy with group-chats via text message.

No we didn't. You run into nothing but trouble if you've got a mix of iPhones and Android in the group. It's a nightmare and I wish the family chat would pick a different platform.

[-] Adderbox76@lemmy.ca 2 points 19 hours ago

I'm talking about when I was a teenager. Neither iPhone nor android was a thing. I'm talking dumb phones

[-] Treczoks@lemmy.world 31 points 1 day ago

As long as social media's goals are commercial and have the effect of "digital cocaine", keeping kids and adolescents out of it should be the default, worldwide.

[-] k0e3@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 day ago

My heart aches for them. Truly.

I would like to say that this is good for the quality of content on social media as well..

There's less bullshit content on social media if there's fewer kids, and also there's less incentive for other people to create bullshit content for teenagers to consume, if there's fewer teenagers on the platforms in the first place.

[-] rumba@lemmy.zip 2 points 23 hours ago

If all the kids crap was removed from youtube, they wouldn't have to worry about adding for storage for a decade.

[-] RonniePickering@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

Ban it all, its a plague on civilization!

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] cv_octavio@piefed.ca 32 points 1 day ago

I mean, I am 100% pro-freedom of access and speech and all, but tbf anything that super murders social media is a net positive to the world at this point, until it's less harmful and addictive.

[-] _stranger_@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

no social media.

less harmful.

addictive.

Australia.

I've seen this before

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2025
529 points (100.0% liked)

World News

51229 readers
2655 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS