Social Media Bans for Under-16s: Noble Idea, Fool’s Errand
You probably missed it (buried somewhere between the election postmortems and the slick handling of Daly Cherry-Evans by the Sea Eagles) the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre dropped a bombshell in March: marinating in social media, with its endless pings and dopamine hits, doesn’t just fray young nerves—it might actually rewire the emotional circuitry of the brain.
These platforms aren’t just digital playgrounds; they’re meticulously engineered attention traps, designed to keep young minds scrolling, swiping, and—let’s be honest—spiralling.
Let’s not sugar-coat it: social media is less a sparkling stream and more a psychological sewer, and our kids are wading in deeper every year. Zoom in to 2025, and Australian 13–15-year-olds are clocking up a jaw-dropping 371 minutes a day on these platforms. TikTok, Snapchat, Roblox—take your pick. The numbers are climbing faster than a viral dance challenge: 29% of 9–10-year-olds, 59% of 11–12-year-olds, and a whopping 92% of 15–16-year-olds are logging in daily.
Every week, I see the casualties: anxiety, sextortion, cyberbullying, sleep deprivation, and the never-ending quest to polish the “perfect” online persona. Wanting to protect our kids isn’t just reasonable—it’s non-negotiable. But the PM’s plan to slap a blanket ban on under-16s using social media? Well-meaning, sure. But as practical solutions go, it’s right up there with banning teenagers from ever eating fries. Good luck with that.
Let’s get real. The notion that we can legislate every under-16 off TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat is pure fantasy. Today’s teens are digital ninjas—they’ll sidestep age gates, borrow a parent’s details, or conjure up a workaround faster than you can say “Terms and Conditions.” Unless we’re keen on launching a national biometric dragnet (paging George Orwell), there’s simply no foolproof way to verify age online.
Even the tech giants admit it: enforcing a 16+ ban is a logistical migraine. The more you tighten the net, the more loopholes appear—and the more likely you are to spark privacy nightmares and a booming black market for fake accounts.
If we’re serious about change, let’s aim for what’s actually doable. There’s already an international baseline: 13 is the minimum age for social media, thanks to the US’s COPPA law. That’s not just a number plucked from a hat—under-13s simply aren’t wired for the emotional rollercoaster of likes, comments, and DMs. They’re sitting ducks for predators, scams, and the addictive feedback loops these platforms are built on.
A ban for under-13s? Achievable, defensible, and—crucially—something parents, schools, and platforms can actually enforce. The tech is already in place (imperfect, but leagues ahead of anything for older teens). And let’s face it: telling a 10-year-old “no Instagram” is a lot easier than prying a phone from a 15-year-old whose social life lives online.
Of course, even a 13+ rule won’t fix everything. But it’s a start. The real fix? Education. We need to raise a generation of digital navigators, not digital castaways. That means digital literacy in every classroom, parental controls that actually work, and honest conversations at home.
We won’t keep kids safe by pretending we can lock them out of the digital world. We keep them safe by teaching them how to survive—and thrive—within it.
To the politicians championing a 16+ ban: I get it. You want to protect kids. So do I. But let’s not pass laws that sound tough but fold like a cheap deck chair in reality. Focus on under-13s—where science, law, and logic actually meet. Anything more is smoke and mirrors, and risks leaving teens more exposed, not less.