Listen to the article
Australian Teens Face Disconnect as World-First Social Media Ban Takes Effect
In the remote Outback town of Wudinna, 15-year-old Riley Allen worries about how he’ll maintain friendships once Australia’s unprecedented social media ban comes into force on Wednesday. Living on a sheep ranch 5 kilometers from the small South Australian community, Riley relies on social platforms to stay connected with school friends scattered across vast rural distances.
“I don’t think the impact will be very positive for us. We don’t have a lot out here to get in contact with each other,” Riley explained, expressing particular concern about maintaining connections during the upcoming Southern Hemisphere summer break that begins Thursday.
The groundbreaking legislation prohibits Australians under 16 from holding accounts on major platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X, YouTube, and Twitch. Tech companies face potential fines of up to AU$49.5 million ($32.9 million) if they fail to take reasonable steps to remove underage accounts.
Meta, parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, moved first to implement the ban, beginning to exclude suspected underage users last week. Despite having accounts across most of the restricted platforms, Riley had not been removed from any as of Monday, though some had requested age verification.
Riley’s mother, Sonia Allen, who works as a schoolteacher, stands firm on following the new rules despite understanding the temptation to circumvent them. “I wouldn’t [help bypass the ban]. I do know there are other people that would. If the rule is there, the rule is there,” she said, while acknowledging the resourcefulness of determined teenagers.
She believes parents should maintain an active role in regulating social media use, recalling a period last year when she temporarily banned Riley from platforms after finding him online at midnight when he should have been completing homework. “From that, he’s learned to use it more responsibly,” Allen noted.
Riley, who turns 16 in April—when he’ll legally regain access—understands the ban’s objectives but suggests more nuanced approaches would be more effective. He proposes alternatives like an enforced 10 p.m. social media curfew for young users to prevent sleep disruption.
The legislation faces a significant challenge in Australia’s highest court. Fifteen-year-olds Noah Jones and Macy Neyland have become plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge brought by the Sydney-based Digital Freedom Project. They argue the law inappropriately strips 2.6 million young Australians of freedom of political communication rights implied in Australia’s constitution.
Noah Jones, who won’t turn 16 until August, fears unintended consequences. “I’m against this social media ban because as young Australians, we’ll be completely silenced and cut off from our country and the rest of the world,” he said. “We’ve just grown up with this our entire lives, and now it’s just being taken away from us all of a sudden.”
His mother, Renee Jones, has joined the legal challenge as her son’s litigation guardian. While considering herself relatively strict about device usage—never allowing her children to take electronics into their bedrooms—she supports Noah’s position. “My parents would never have dreamed that my children could be so fortunate to have this library of knowledge,” she said, while acknowledging social media’s risks.
The Australian government remains committed to defending the law, citing widespread parental demand for action against social media harms. Many affected children have expressed support for the ban, welcoming protection from platforms designed to maximize screen time while potentially exposing them to harmful content.
Parent advocacy group Heaps Up Alliance, which lobbied for the age restriction, supports the “when everybody misses out, nobody misses out” approach. However, before Parliament passed the legislation, over 140 Australian and international technology and child welfare experts signed an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese opposing the age limit as “too blunt an instrument to address risks effectively.”
Digital Freedom Project president John Ruddick, also a state lawmaker for the Libertarian Party, expects the constitutional challenge to receive a full hearing before Australia’s High Court seven-judge bench, with a directions hearing scheduled for late February. While denying current tech industry funding for the case, Ruddick said financial contributions from these companies would be “extremely welcome.”
Ruddick predicts many children will circumvent the ban using methods like virtual private networks that mask their location. “They’re going to get around it so they’re then going to be on an underground social media and, to make it worse, without parental supervision,” he warned. “It’s much better for it to be out in the open and for parents to play a very, very active role in monitoring what they’re doing.”
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
It’s concerning that a 15-year-old is already worried about losing touch with friends due to this new law. Connectivity is so crucial for young people’s development and wellbeing, especially in remote areas. I hope they can find other ways to stay connected.
Agreed, this ban could have unintended consequences for young people’s mental health and social lives, especially in isolated areas. Lawmakers should consider the unique challenges faced by rural youth before implementing such sweeping restrictions.
Interesting to see how this social media ban will impact teens in remote areas like Wudinna. It highlights the importance of connectivity, especially for young people who may not have many other ways to stay in touch with friends.
You’re right, social media is a vital tool for rural youth to maintain social connections. This ban could really isolate them, especially during school breaks. Policymakers will need to consider alternative ways for these kids to socialize.
While the social media ban aims to protect minors, it may disproportionately impact rural teens like Riley who rely on these platforms to stay connected. Policymakers should think carefully about how to balance online safety with young people’s need for social interaction.
That’s a good point. The one-size-fits-all approach may not work well in diverse communities. Lawmakers should engage with rural youth and their families to understand the realities on the ground and find creative solutions that address their specific needs.
The concerns raised by Riley are understandable. Social media is a vital lifeline for many young people, especially those living in remote areas. While the social media ban aims to protect minors, its impact on rural youth’s social connections and wellbeing should not be overlooked.
This is a complex issue without easy answers. On one hand, the social media ban aims to protect minors, but on the other, it could severely impact the social lives of rural teens like Riley who rely on these platforms to stay connected. Careful consideration of regional differences is needed.
Absolutely. Implementing a national policy without accounting for the unique challenges faced by remote communities risks further isolating vulnerable youth. Policymakers should work closely with local stakeholders to develop tailored solutions that address their specific needs and concerns.