Australia tried to ban kids from social media but failed, study finds
A majority of Australian children continue to use social media, even though its use by children under 16 is prohibited.
Matt Cardy/Getty Images
Follow us
A majority of Australian children continue to use social media, even though its use by children under 16 is prohibited.
- 61% of Australian children under 16 still have active social media accounts despite the December 2025 legislation.
- 70% of children who continue using banned platforms say circumventing the restrictions was simple.
- Half of surveyed children say the ban hasn't improved their online safety, and 14% actually feel less safe after its implementation.
Key Takeaways by nexos.ai, reviewed by Cybernews staff.
In December 2025, Australia implemented legislation that aimed to ban the use of social media for users under the age of 16. Its goal was to combat both the mental and physical effects of social media platforms, including social isolation, sleep interference, addictive behavior, and low self-esteem.
A total of nine social media platforms are required to comply with the social minimum age restriction rules, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, X, YouTube, Kick, and Reddit. Those who don’t are subjected to substantial fines of up to AUD$49.5 million (USD$35.6 million).
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has always maintained that the new legislation will change and save lives. But how effective are the new age restriction rules really?
Strong password generator
To find out, the Molly Rose Foundation, a UK-based charity organization set up to prevent suicide among children, commissioned YouthInsight to conduct a survey. Between March 12th and 31st, Australia’s largest online youth panel surveyed 1,050 Australians between the ages of 12 and 15.
According to the study, 6 out of 10 (61%) of underaged children who previously held accounts on restricted platforms continue to have access to one or more active accounts. It also found that over half of all 12 to 15-year-olds who previously used TikTok, YouTube, or Instagram remained able to use their accounts on these platforms.
Additionally, half of the children who used restricted platforms prior to the ban coming into force say it has made no change to their online safety. One in seven (14%) say the ban has made them feel less safe.
Seventy percent of children who still use restricted sites say that it was “easy” to circumvent the ban. They kept using a pre-existing account, used a workaround to set up a new account as a person over 16, got help from a friend or relative who was over 16 to set up a new account, or used a VPN to access an account.
The survey shows that Australia’s social media ban isn’t as effective as we are meant to believe. Implementing a social media ban in the United Kingdom would be a “high-stakes gamble,” the Molly Rose Foundation argues.
“Keir Starmer has the chance to make the UK a world leader in online safety by following the evidence with robust new laws that give parents what they are rightly demanding. The cost is too high to get this wrong by rushing into an Australia-style ban that offers the perception of security but is letting children down in practice,” Ian Russell, Chair of Molly Rose Foundation, said in a statement.
The United Kingdom has launched a consultation on a potential ban on social media for children under the age of 16. The Molly Rose Foundation is calling on the government to conclude this consultation and, rather than opting for a ban, to introduce a new Online Safety Act.
“We want a new Online Safety Act which implements a Duty of Care on tech companies, focuses on harm reduction and rebalances power dynamics to hold some of the largest and most wealthy global companies to account,” the foundation recommends.
Unlock more exclusive Cybernews content on YouTube.
