Australia’s Social Media Ban Addresses Only Part of Online Radicalisation Problem

The surge in youth terrorism has security agencies worldwide on high alert as a disturbing trend emerges across Western nations. In 2024, terrorist incidents in the West climbed to 52, up from 32 the previous year, with the most concerning aspect being the increasingly young age of those involved.

The United Kingdom has witnessed an alarming shift in demographics, with under-18s now accounting for 42% of terror-related arrests this year. The pattern extends across Europe, where nearly two-thirds of Islamic State-linked arrests in 2024 involved minors. Australia faces similar challenges, with authorities having investigated 37 individuals aged 17 or younger for violent extremism since 2020.

The severity of this trend prompted an unprecedented joint report from the Five Eyes intelligence alliance—comprising the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—highlighting youth radicalization as a critical security concern.

Digital platforms have emerged as significant vectors for extremist recruitment. In response, Australia has implemented a pioneering nationwide restriction on social media access for children under 16, placing responsibility on platforms rather than users to verify age and enforce limitations. The Australian model has caught the attention of policymakers globally, with Denmark, France, and Spain announcing intentions to introduce similar measures.

While the Australian ban addresses multiple online harms—including mental health issues, cyberbullying, and body image concerns—the rapidly accelerating threat of radicalization stands out as particularly urgent. This raises a fundamental question: can platform restrictions effectively reduce youth radicalization?

Europol has identified social media and messaging applications as primary channels for disseminating terrorist content. Platform algorithms, designed to maximize engagement, create echo chambers that reinforce extreme viewpoints by filtering out opposing perspectives. These digital environments can create feedback loops that intensify polarization and extremist thinking.

However, viewing young people as merely passive victims of algorithmic manipulation oversimplifies a complex problem. Radicalization involves both supply and demand dynamics. The supply side consists of extremist content, narratives, and networks, while the demand side encompasses psychological and social conditions that make violent ideologies appealing.

Research shows today’s youth are experiencing unprecedented levels of psychological distress. Unlike previous generations where life satisfaction typically dipped in middle age before recovering, young people now report lower wellbeing, increased pessimism, higher loneliness, diminished social connections, and greater distrust of institutions than their predecessors at comparable ages.

These conditions create fertile ground for extremist recruitment. Radical groups don’t need to manufacture grievances; they simply offer simplified explanations for societal failures and promise belonging to those feeling marginalized. While vulnerability doesn’t guarantee radicalization, initial grievances often serve as the catalyst for individuals gravitating toward extremist narratives.

This suggests that supply-side restrictions alone will prove inadequate. Even if social media age restrictions successfully limit access to radicalizing content on major platforms, they cannot address the underlying appeal of extremist messaging. Prohibition without addressing fundamental demand merely displaces the problem rather than preventing it.

Nevertheless, social media restrictions can provide valuable time for developing more comprehensive solutions. The window created by delaying social media access until age 16 should be used to address the underlying conditions that make extremist narratives attractive and build cognitive resilience.

Enhanced media literacy education represents one crucial component. Rather than simply teaching young people to check sources, education should help them understand algorithmic manipulation, recognize recruitment tactics, and develop strategies for managing online conflict. Simple interventions like “prebunking”—short videos exposing common manipulation tactics—and classroom exercises analyzing actual recruitment materials can significantly improve young people’s ability to identify and resist harmful content.

However, recognizing harmful content doesn’t address the vulnerabilities that make it resonate. Social media restrictions must work alongside investments in fostering belonging. Since radicalization often exploits unmet needs for significance, identity, and community, successful prevention requires creating legitimate pathways to meet these needs through community programs, mentorship, mental health support in schools, and meaningful civic engagement opportunities.

Australia has allocated $106.2 million over four years for counter-violent extremism initiatives as part of its Counter-Terrorism and Violent Extremism Strategy. Similar frameworks exist internationally, reflecting growing recognition that effective strategies must address demand-side drivers of radicalization.

Despite these efforts, implementation often lags behind policy intent. In Australia, only a minority of students receive comprehensive media literacy education, with teachers struggling to translate curriculum documents into effective learning experiences.

As other nations consider following Australia’s lead on social media restrictions, the critical question remains whether they will complement these popular, immediate measures with the harder, slower work of addressing the underlying vulnerabilities that make extremist narratives attractive in the first place.