How Australia’s social media ban has affected families six months on
The British prime minister, Keir Starmer, has confirmed a social media ban for under-16s in the UK. It is now six months since Australia introduced its ban. While supporters say it is helping to protect young people online, critics argue many teenagers are still using social media and that the restrictions are difficult to enforce. We asked parents and carers in Australia about how the ban has affected their families. Here are some of their responses. ‘I think it is worthwhile’ Freya, 44, from Melbourne, says the ban had given her “an extra tool in the battle against devices” with her children, aged 12 and 14. “The ban has highlighted to my kids that there are genuine reasons why young people should be wary of social media,” she says. “It’s not just that their mum is old and doesn’t get it. It’s reduced arguments.” Freya says the impact of the ban depends on the child’s age. “With my 12-year-old, it’s more iPad-based, so it’s not a constant scroll. Phones are a bit more insidious.” Freya says that TikTok and Snapchat are the most popular among her children and their friends, but their social media use – and peer pressure to use it – has reduced since the ban: “I don’t get the argument of ‘so-and-so has TikTok’ as much.” Freya acknowledges she cannot always control what her children see online. “I have a sneaking suspicion that my daughter is still on Snapchat,” she says. “There’s one girl that my daughter knows who’s on TikTok. I think they gather around her on the bus to look at her phone.” The ban is “still worth having”, she says. “No legislation can eliminate any behaviour – look at vaping or underage drinking. But it does make things more difficult. Does it work 100%? No. Is it worthwhile? Yes, I think it is.”
‘The ban has failed’ Boris*, who is the father of two children aged 11 and 13, feels the social media ban has failed, and the legislation is toothless. He says the more tech-savvy kids can get around the ban, adding that many of his son’s friends are still on social media. He cites his 13-year-old son, who says he feels left out as the teenager is “the only one not on” Snapchat, adding that “all his friends are using it”. “I think it’s ridiculous that you can bring in this legislation that you can so easily get around,” he says. “Apparently, the whole thing is seen as a joke by teenagers and has stopped nothing. Why bother introducing legislation if you’re not going to be strict about enforcing it?” Boris, who is in his forties, lives in Brisbane and works in the design industry, thought his family were “lucky” that the legislation came into force just as his children were at the age when social media became appealing. And while he says the ban has been useful to refer to when framing discussions on the subject with them, he is “mostly disappointed” with how it has panned out. “I feel strongly about protecting our children and young teenagers from phone and online addiction, and we as parents are very protective about how we control our children’s access to digital technologies,” he says. “But I can only see this ban now as a failure of implementation of what should have been a paradigm shift in how we protect our younger generations from digital addiction.” ‘I think that, given time, it will have a positive effect’ Simon* has two children aged 12 and 16. He says he is in favour of the ban and reflects on how one of his children has had social media since starting high school, while the other has not. “When the ban was introduced, one child was 15, and the other was 11,” says Simon, who lives in Perth. “Our older son had an iPad in primary school, but never had a mobile phone. Once he got to high school, we let him have a phone, and pretty much all the kids at that age were on Snapchat and TikTok.” Simon set up parental controls and “kept an eye on who he [his oldest son] was connecting with”. In contrast, his youngest son got to high school age just as the ban was coming into force. “He got a mobile phone, and he just understood that he won’t have that [access to social media],” says Simon. “He’s not even asked. He talks to his friends on WhatsApp and watches a bit of YouTube, but doesn’t have an account. It has been a completely different experience for him. I don’t think social media has been hugely negative for my older son, but I would rather he didn’t default to doomscrolling when he doesn’t have other things to do. I am a lot more positive about my younger son’s internet use.” Simon thinks a lot of the commentary on the social media ban has been negative. “I feel that people need to be patient,” he says. “The kids who are already on social media are not really the target; it’s the younger generation. It would also be naive to think it is going to be 100% effective from the get-go. I think that, given time, it will have a positive effect. It is going to be a cultural change over time as opposed to the immediate flicking of a switch.”
‘They interact less with friends after school and on weekends’ Elizabeth*, from Melbourne, says the social media ban has not reduced usage for her two 15-year-olds, who were on Instagram, Snapchat, and TikTok at the time the ban came in. She says her children have since managed to circumvent TikTok and Instagram’s age verification technology, although “both lost access to Snapchat”. Her 13-year-old was “less affected” by the ban, she says, as he was not using social media at the time. “It is likely that the ban will delay his first use,” she adds. Elizabeth points out that the ban could lead to social isolation for some children. “Snapchat was the main way my 15-year-olds interacted with friends in group chats, so they now interact less with friends after school and on weekends,” she says. Her children also have friends living abroad who are members of a Snapchat group chat that they are now excluded from. “We recently lived overseas, and my son and daughter are upset to be excluded from Snapchat and the ability to do ‘snap streaks’. That group of friends [outside Australia] have low motivation to move to another platform, such as WhatsApp, because the group isn’t impacted by the ban.” ‘It has made monitoring more difficult’ The ban has done “more harm than good”, says Edward*, a single father of a 14-year-old in Canberra. “It has made monitoring and managing device use even more difficult,” he says. Edward, 45, says his son still uses favourite platform YouTube, just without signing in. “My son’s YouTube account used to be governed by parental controls. An algorithm that I could see was serving him content he was interested in and was reasonable. Now I can’t restrict channels and he only gets served the most popular slop on the platform.” However, Edward says his son does not mind the ban much. “He’s actually thanked me for keeping him off TikTok, for example, because his friends still have their accounts and tell him about the stuff they see on there. We’re talking pretty abysmal things.” Edward says he would have preferred other measures than an all-out ban. “All that needed to be done was to mandate minimum standards for free parental controls for services and platforms, and provide training on their use.” *Names have been changed
