What the experts say on…social media restrictions

The Australian government has committed to imposing an age limit on social media before the next election. The government has not yet decided the age for a social media ban although the Prime Minister confirmed that they are looking at an age range between 14 and 16. What do the experts say?

Professor Sue Nichols, a professor in Education Futures at The University of South Australia, argues that “While no one would oppose attempts to protect children from online harm, the current debate largely ignores the experiences of children, as revealed in recent research.

“Two studies, undertaken in Australia and the UK, involving children in Grade 5 found that the main reasons children engaged with digital apps were to stay in contact with family and friends and to co-participate in play and recreation. Without being prompted, children volunteered their awareness of risks and their strategies to ameliorate risks.

“These included: avoiding the use of social media apps (often following parental advice); using these apps but restricting their creation activities to the draft functions; setting access to ‘friends’; quickly exiting online games if approached by a ‘random’; balancing online activities with other experiences such as outdoor play; ensuring that an older family member was participating online with them.

“A far more diverse and numerous array of apps was used across the cohort than the social media apps getting the most attention. Children were acquiring skills and knowledge through their use of digital tools outside of school that they were not experiencing in the classroom (a gap likely to grow with the restriction of online digital devices in schools). And children in some cultural communities were making a significant contribution to their parents’ understanding of the digital world, which was appreciated by parents.”

Associate Professor Tauel Harper, from the School of Media and Communication at Murdoch University, agrees that “The government’s decision to raise the age of social media access to 16 makes some sense considering the wealth of evidence that social media use is harmful to people, particularly adolescents. The major social media platforms have been engineered to be compelling, addictive and banal.

“There is plenty of evidence that excessive social media use has negative effects on mental health, body image, socialisation and sleep patterns. There are safe ways to use social media but at the same time, the large platforms such as Instagram, TikTok and Facebook are not designed to be safe.

“While of course there will be issues with the efficacy of this move, and it may not be the job of the government to police media use, there is a clear justification for the ban from a pure health perspective and hopefully such a move will place pressure on social media companies to design their platforms to be a healthier experience for all of us.”

Dr Danielle Einstein, a Clinical Psychologist and Adjunct Fellow in the School of Psychological Sciences at Macquarie University, notes that “The SA government report from former Chief Justice of the High Court Robert French itself exposes disagreements between experts on the benefits that social media can bring and these will be hotly debated in coming months.

“The disagreement around the ‘benefits of social media for mental health’ are crucial because the regulator proposed will designate a class of social media services as ‘exempt’. The process itself highlighted the damage caused by ‘algorithms’ however, when focusing specifically on age the government will not pressure social media companies to make algorithms transparent nor force big tech companies such as Apple to share screen use data with researchers or play a part in age assurance efforts. Much more needs to be done to affect mental health outcomes across Australia.”

Dr Jasmine Fardouly, a Sydney Horizon Fellow (Senior Lecturer) at the University of Sydney, believes “It is encouraging to see the federal government prioritise the impact of social media on young people. However, a ban for young people is unlikely to be effective without accurate age verification, and this ban being enacted globally.

“The impact of social media on teen’s mental health is complex. There are aspects of social media that can cause harm, for example, algorithms that continually promote content featuring people who match unattainable beauty ideals or pro-eating disorder content.

“However, there are also benefits to social media, such as accessing social support and content challenging ideals. Regulations are desperately needed in this space but are more likely effective if they focus on making social media safe for all users.”

Professor Lelia Green, a Professor of Communications at Edith Cowan University, warns that “Teens interviewed in our research find ways to bypass digital restrictions at home and at school using VPNs or their parents’ IDs. Banning social media will push them to smaller, less regulated platforms, potentially making them targets for predators. Restricting access won’t stop teens from engaging; it will make social media more enticing and high status.

“The absence of policy engagement with teens, and the removal of an important avenue for the exercise of their digital citizenship, counters our commitments around the Convention on the Rights of the Child and will alienate the next generation of voters.

“The proposed legislation raises civil liberties concerns for all Australians and may undermine government funding for programs that support mental health and general wellbeing of teens. Banning access for teens directly contradicts a range of government commitments around supplying just-in-time support for young people in crisis.

“Teens are born into a digital world, so age verification bans delay the inevitable. Media literacy and pornography literacy can help develop the skills young people need to discern what they view. In conjunction with support and comprehensive sexuality education that ideally builds skills of self-worth and confidence, teens can learn to navigate their online worlds themselves.”

Dr Marc Cheong, a Senior Lecturer in Information Systems (Digital Ethics) at the Faculty of Engineering and IT at The University of Melbourne; and a Honorary Senior Fellow at the Burnet Institute, says that “With the Federal Government committing to imposing an age limit on social media, it is imperative that any technology introduced to enforce this be audited thoroughly not from the technical perspective, but in terms of its impact on those most-affected by this measure.

“As many fellow academics in technology and security have discussed its implications — from its feasibility, to its implications on privacy and data security — stakeholders should also take into consideration issues of accessibility and equity.

“Any process for verification must strike a balance between how effective it is, and the extra (often technical) requirements needed for social media users to undergo this process. To draw a parallel, let’s take the example of smartphone-based identity verification or ‘Know Your Customer’ (KYC) technologies: they presuppose that end users do already own smartphones which are compatible and have the technical know-how to use them.

“Anyone who doesn’t have a smartphone will be excluded from their use, or have to jump through further hoops to verify their identity. Issues like these need to be taken into consideration thoroughly: noting that not all social media users access them through smartphones, for starters.”

Dr Alexia Maddox, the Director of Digital Education and Senior Lecturer in Pedagogy and Education Futures at La Trobe University, agrees that “The proposed age restrictions on social media access highlight the complex relations between technology and society. While aiming to protect youth from online harms like cyberbullying and inappropriate content, we must consider the broader societal implications.

“Social media platforms have become integral to modern social structures, particularly for young people. Any restrictions must be evaluated in light of how these technologies shape social interactions and identity formation.

“Historical precedents suggest that users, especially youth, often find ways to circumvent technological restrictions. A more nuanced approach involving education, platform design, and community engagement might be more effective in fostering responsible digital citizenship.

“It’s crucial to analyse this proposal not just in terms of its stated aims, but also its underlying social and political motivations. The key concern is balancing protection with the need for digital literacy and social connection in an increasingly online world. ”

Scarlett Smout, a Research Associate from the Matilda Centre at the University of Sydney, says “A key concern with the Federal Government’s announcements of these bans is that the voice and priorities of young Australians – who will be most impacted by the bans – is completely lacking. Albanese’s comments focus on the concerns of parents, but studies show that parents and adolescents have differing perspectives on the mental health and wellbeing impacts of social media, with parents’ perspectives more negative than that of adolescents.

“Further, while bans may help to delay the onset of social media use, there is a ‘cliff’ when the age cut-off is reached. As such, it is essential that any blunt policy measures such as this are coupled with meaningful investment in evidence-based, wraparound approaches that empower young Australians to engage with social media in a healthy way.

“It is positive that the Government is placing the onus (and penalty) on social media companies to comply with these bans, however it would be great to see the Government use its power to drive social media companies to make their platforms a healthier environment for everyone, not just holding off the age of first use.”

Professor Uri Gal, the Professor of Business Information Systems at The University of Sydney, supports the Government’s action, as “Restricting teenagers’ access to social media is essential for protecting their mental and emotional well-being, particularly teenage girls who are disproportionately affected.

“Social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok are deliberately designed to maximize engagement, often at the expense of users’ mental health. Features such as infinite scrolling, algorithmically curated content, and constant notifications create an addictive experience that keeps users glued to their screens.

“This design exposes teenagers to unrealistic beauty standards and idealized lifestyles, which can lead to body image issues, anxiety, and depression. Moreover, it prevents them from engaging in crucial real-world activities, such as free outdoor play, which is vital for both physical and psychological development.

“Just as society enforces age restrictions on voting, driving, alcohol, and cigarettes to protect teenagers, limiting their access to social media serves a similar purpose. Extended time on these platforms robs young people of opportunities for real-life interactions, spontaneous exploration, and physical activities that enhance their well-being, help reduce stress, improve attention spans, and strengthen emotional resilience.

“By enforcing age limits on social media use, we prioritize teenagers’ mental and physical health to ensure that they have the chance to grow and develop in healthier, more balanced environments.”

Associate Professor Megan Lim, the Deputy Program Director (Behaviours and Health Risks) at the Burnet Institute and a member of the Expert advisory panel for eSafety Commissioner Age Verification Roadmap, believes that “Social media can have both positive and negative impacts on children and on adults. Implementing a ban for children would be difficult and would require an age verification system. We don’t yet know how that would be implemented. We know that the eSafety Commissioner is working on a trial of age verification, which is a vital first step.

“My research has shown that children and parents do see the value of online age verification. However, they aren’t sure if they can trust current technologies. We need to trial the technology and method of implementation, but also look at community reactions and ideas. We particularly need to engage with children and young people to hear their ideas. Children do understand the problem and they can contribute to the solutions.”

Dr Samantha Schulz, a Senior Sociology of Education at The University of Adelaide argues that “Although social media has democratised knowledge production our online worlds are also dangerous, poorly regulated, and are vehicles for circulating deeply divisive beliefs. There is logic in establishing boundaries that limit young people’s access.

“However, young people are not ‘the’ problem and regulating youth misses the more urgent task of regulating irresponsible social media platforms. Social media is an unavoidable part of young people’s lives. All young people deserve and require critical thinking skills aimed at generating relations of reparative coexistence.

“Schools are spaces where inclusive, informed, and compassionate forms of citizenship must therefore be fostered and supported, including critical digital citizenship. Teachers have always been up for this challenge. Yet, successive Australian governments have undermined the importance of critical literacies in place of standardised ‘tests’ that view literacy as a decontextualised, measurable skill, while colonising teachers’ time.

“Far from making us ‘clever’, these approaches leave us vulnerable to exploitation. Prohibiting or limiting young people’s access to social media may provide short-term protection but is no replacement for the critical and social literacies we should have been valuing in Australia schooling for decades.”

Associate Professor Stan Karanasios, a researcher of Information Systems at the University of Queensland, observes that “The push to ban social media for children has been gaining momentum throughout the year, driven by increasing concerns about the impact of smartphones and social media on young people. Earlier this year, a French government report called for restricting smartphone use by children under 13.

“While there is widespread support for these measures—largely due to the lack of evidence suggesting any benefits of smartphone use for children—the debate centres on how best to implement and enforce such regulations.

“Age verification presents significant privacy challenges, and there are concerns about children finding ways to bypass the rules. Moreover, with social media now embedded in a wide range of platforms, including games and websites with social features, enforcement becomes even more complex. Despite these obstacles, advancing the conversation by involving platforms and key stakeholders is essential to create an effective and balanced solution.”

Dr Shaanan Cohney, a Senior Lecturer in Cyber Security, Computing and Information Systems at the University of Melbourne, cautions that “The current internet is not safe for young children. But, the government’s proposal is light on details and high on risks.

“If the law requires platforms to store our IDs, this will add one more tempting target for hackers and another blow to the privacy rights of adult Australians. The right policy would target device manufacturers–requiring them to implement more child safety features. This would empower parents to protect their children, without compromising the safety and privacy of all Australians.”

Dr Dana McKay, a senior lecturer in innovative interactive technologies at RMIT University

“Social media has become a de-facto public space, and one of the only public spaces where children can communicate directly with their friends—often maintaining connections with distant friends and loved ones that would otherwise be impossible. Banning children from social media is a blunt instrument that ignores the social benefits children get from having direct communication with their friends.

“While there are risks inherent to social media, these risks could be addressed by regulating social media, rather than children. Many of the problems can already be addressed: minimising advertising, detecting and addressing harmful interactions through behavioural analy​tics for example. The answer to the challenge of social media and kids isn’t banning kids from one of the final remaining publics available to them; it’s making those publics safer​.”

Dr Belinda Barnet, a Senior Lecturer in Media at Swinburne University of Technology, said “I think this is a good idea as long as it is implemented in a way that protects our privacy: platforms are not the right custodians of our identity data and age verification should be done by a single trusted third party. We also don’t want this debate to be conflated with the push for full identity verification by some conservative politicians. It should be limited to age verification only, and even then cannot be done by the platforms themselves.”

Professor Lisa Given, the Director of the Centre for Human-AI Information Environments, and Professor of Information Sciences at RMIT University, feels that “Government calls for a ban on social media for young people are premature and not supported by clear evidence of harms for young people. Social media play a major role in all people’s lives, including connecting those who are isolated and marginalised, as well as educational purposes, including supporting mental health and wellbeing.

“Banning them from social media will be difficult to enforce, but may also create other harms, by excluding access to educational and helpful material. There are technological challenges around age verification that will make a ban very difficult to enact or enforce. For example, strategies of age assurance (clicking “yes, I am 14” on a site) are easily circumvented by users, while strategies for verifying age (e.g., uploading ID) raise data privacy concerns.

“Children and teens do need support in using social media, including technical and information literacy to use these platforms, which is a key role that teachers and parents can play in supporting them. They also need support in navigating harmful behaviour online (e.g., bullying), where adult support is critical. Young people may find ways to circumvent these bans (e.g., accessing content via older siblings’ accounts or using VPNs) but may not disclose they have encountered harmful content due to being banned.

“Children need to gain the skills needed to navigate their online worlds – including via social media – and banning them from these platforms is not the solution. Technology companies need to be regulated to keep harmful content (e.g., deepfake pornography) off their sites and to ensure safety protocols are in place, to support all users.

Dr Aleesha Rodriguez, a Research Fellow at the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence of for the Digital Child at QUT, believes that “Children have a right to internet experiences that are safe, playful, exploratory, fun, entertaining, positive, and educational. This is why it is useful to think about the digital products, services, and content that children experience online—such as social media—as the ‘Children’s Internet’ and there are numerous things we can do to create a better Children’s Internet for the future.

“The Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child has published the Manifesto for a better Children’s Internet which outlines 17 actionable Principles on a better Children’s Internet, including Principle 4: Less focus on protecting children from the digital environment and more focus on protecting them within.

“This principle underscores that when legislation and policy is being developed, there needs to greater emphasis on improving guardrails within the digital environment rather than excluding children from accessing these online experiences; policy should be child-centred and focus on children and young people’s perspectives in the use of digital media in their everyday lives.

“It is important to remember that the internet provides children with a multitude of positive and pleasurable opportunities, including entertainment, social connection, and learning opportunities. The internet, which includes social media experiences, has enhanced children’s lives in many ways and we need to recognise that it will continue to play an important role as they move through childhood, into their teen years and adulthood; online experiences will be central to how they learn, the careers they undertake and how they experience everyday life throughout the 21st century. Excluding children is not the answer.

“From a media and cultural studies perspective, it is important to note that the current political and public discourses surrounding children and social media has been fuelled by the release of the pop-psychology book The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt. We can see a direct link between the language in Haidt’s book and the popular 36months campaign, led by media personalities, which Anthony Albanese endorsed on radio, back in May.

“Haidt’s claims have been disputed by leading experts at LSE (the London School of Economics). Haidt’s book makes similar claims to Jean M Twenge’s 2017 book called iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids Are Growing Up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy—and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood—and What That Means for the Rest of Us. However, Twenge’s book has been critiqued by leading scholars in the field of children and digital media (for example, by Professor Sonia Livingstone, 2017). It is paramount that books that tap into parental anxieties are not used as the driving force to enact policy.”

Dr Susanne Schweizer is a Scientia Associate Professor in Psychology and an ARC DECRA Fellow at the University of New South Wales who remains open minded about the ban’s potential impact.

“Research on social influence suggests a social media ban could be the silver bullet or backfire terribly. If a ban is rigorously implemented it could offer young people who are sensitive to the effects of social media a reprieve from its pressures.

“Unfortunately, it will also remove opportunities for connection for highly vulnerable groups, such as young people from certain minority groups and those with certain types of neurodivergence, who greatly benefit from connecting with peers online.

“What’s more if a ban is introduced without having very rigorously tested the feasibility of its implementation, the risk for young people to experience harm is substantial.

“Of the many potential consequences, the most harmful is that if the ban is not uniformly applied some young people will be left out from opportunities to connect with peers. Being excluded is highly detrimental to young people’s mental health, on this – unlike social media – the evidence is unequivocal”

Professor Selena Bartlett, a Professor in Neuroscience in the School of Clinical Sciences at Queensland University of Technology and author of ‘Being Seen: Master Parenting in the Digital Age’ takes a more robust approach to the issue as “Social media companies are serving unregulated adult rated content through algorithms to younger and younger children. This current approach from government is only one baby step to tackling the mental health crisis in children and the more than 100 ways that criminals and predators are accessing and exploiting children in 2024.

“The internet with AI-enabled messenger apps, chatbots and games has meant that there is no longer safe places for children to hang out together online. The French government has released a more in depth policy calling for smartphones and devices connected to the internet to be regulated and made safe for children. Happy to share the English translation.

“Science unequivocally demonstrates that early life experiences shape brain and child development. We are now spending on average 7 hours a day on screens. Children need to be seen by healthy and attentive adults. It does not take an expert to know that a 12 month old baby in a pram holding a smart phone for entertainment will not provide the baby with health and wellness needed to become a thriving adult.”

Associate Professor Mamello Thinyane, the Optus Chair of Cybersecurity and Data Science at the University of South Australia (UniSA), asks “Are there any benefits of social media to children? Yes. Are there any harms of social media on children? Yes. Do the potential benefits of social media outweigh the harms? Probably not. This discussion has largely been framed around the benefits and risks of social media, which by the way do not just accrue to or affect only children, but the rest of society.

“However, fundamentally this is about holding Big Tech accountable and putting the burden on them as technology developers to be good citizens and to consider the impacts of their solutions on society. Much as we require other consumer products and services to be safe and secure and to advance human wellbeing and thriving, we need to demand the same from the digital products and services we use.

“Many of our children are digital natives, and they are going to live in world much different from ours and from our parents’. One of the ways that we ensure that they thrive in this digital world, is by bringing tech companies, government, academia, and civil society around the table to advance humane and responsible technology practices. Hopefully, these measures by the government go some way towards catalysing that conversation.”

Dr Michael Nagel, an Associate Professor of Human Development and Learning at the University of the Sunshine Coast, says that “While the intent is admirable the practicalities of such bans are questionable. Yes, there is more than ample evidence of the deleterious impact of social media on children and teens, but trying to ban something so omnipotent is unlikely to achieve anything.

“It is better to spend any resources on educating and supporting parents and mental health professionals. Providing greater funding to support young people with pre-existing mental health conditions would go far in terms of those who use social media to self-diagnose or feel good about themselves.”

Associate Professor Faith Gordon, the Director of the International Youth Justice Network at the Australian National University, notes that “The Federal Government’s announcement that they will legislate ‘a minimum age for social media to keep children safe’ before the next election, has not been accompanied with the much-needed details. We need to know how this will actually operate in reality. It’s likely that a ban will be very difficult to actually implement, promote and enforce.

“Everyone will agree that something needs to be done about the lack of accountability of social media companies. I research digital childhoods and that includes unearthing the voices of children and young people who have experienced cyberbullying, unwanted contact, unwanted content, grooming, and exploitation.

“They report the negative impacts of deep fakes, eating disorder videos, sextortion, pushed misogynistic content, scams and other forms of online harm, on their well-being, safety and mental health. This needs to be urgently stamped out.

“One key feature is that we are hearing very little from kids themselves on this issue. Banning children and young people from social media platforms will not stop their data and imagery being manipulated and used. The Government needs to press ahead with the reforms to the privacy legislation. We can’t afford to see delays on that and this new proposal should not detract from the solutions that changes to privacy law in Australia can achieve.”

Professor Richard Buckland, a Professor in CyberCrime, Cyberwar and Cyberterror at the School of Computer Science and Engineering UNSW says that “Social media could well be the new tobacco or gambling. There are likely real benefits in children and even adults reducing their exposure to it. However we have to be careful the cure isn’t worse than the problem.

“There is no technological way of being able to monitor the online behaviours of tech savvy teenagers without also monitoring the online activities of all Australians. Is this really what we want? What safeguards are going to be legislated to protect all Australians from government monitoring?”

Professor Tama Leaver, Professor of Internet Studies at Curtin University and a Chief Investigator in the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child says “Social media bans will prevent young people participating fully in a digital world, infringing on their rights, and not allowing them to flourish as digital citizens. Many commentators have said we deal with dangerous situations by adding regulation, such as putting fences around pools. Rightly so.

“What’s being proposed here is filling the pools with concrete, and then magically expecting older children to have figured out how to swim. If we vastly increase our national spending on digital literacy, everyone can learn to swim, and to deal with whatever digital waters they find themselves in the future. Today’s proposals for bans simply kick the problems that exist down the road to a few years later but solves nothing.

“Committing to bans before the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society has yet to deliver any findings or recommendations, also shows an utter disregard to evidence-based policy making, which is deeply disappointing.

“I would direct anyone interested towards the ARC Centre for Excellence for the Digital Child’s ‘Manifesto for a Better Children’s Internet’ which addresses many of the issues circulating here.”

Toby Murray, an Associate Professor in the School of Computing and Information Systems at The University of Melbourne, recalls “The government’s plan to ban teens under 14 from social media, and require 14- and 15-year-olds to obtain parental consent, comes after similar laws have been enacted or proposed overseas, including in Florida, Texas, and Spain.

“It also comes at a time when the government has also tasked the tech giants like Meta, Apple and Google, to develop codes to keep kids safe from online harms. However, it is not clear that we currently have the technological mechanisms that would be required to reliably enforce such bans. The government is currently trialling ‘age assurance’ technology. But we already know that present age verification methods are unreliable, too easy to circumvent, or risk user privacy.

“The SA premier has compared social media to tobacco or alcohol. Yet research to date is far less conclusive about the harms of social media to children and teens compared to the very well understood harms of alcohol on brain development, for example. Bans are a very blunt instrument and are often challenging to enforce.

“Just consider how many teens regularly vape despite those products being illegal to sell to under-18s. In addition, banning teens from social media also cuts off those who are marginalised, such as queer and trans kids, from the online communities that they rely on for a sense of belonging and wellbeing during this critical time of their adolescence.

“Rather than outright bans, government should focus its efforts on encouraging the tech platforms to work together to implement holistic child safety features throughout their products and platforms.”

Prof Daniel Angus, the Professor of Digital Communication in the QUT School of Communication and and Chief Investigator in the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision Making and Society, opposes the bans as “The Australian federal government’s reckless decision to impose an age ban on youth using social media — before the joint inquiry into social media in Australia has even issued a proper interim report from hundreds of expert submissions — shows utter disregard for evidence-based policy.

“This knee-jerk move undermines the joint inquiry and deliberative democratic principles and threatens to create serious harm by excluding young people from meaningful, healthy participation in the digital world, potentially driving them to lower quality online spaces, and removing an important means of societal connection.

“It also means that very large online platforms are going to be let off the hook in making necessary and long overdue reforms to the quality of content on their platforms, as this simply places a leaky gate at the door rather than improving what’s on the other side. No doubt this populist policy will sell well with older demographics, but it’s a misguided distraction from the necessary structural reforms that would provide long term benefit to youth in this country.”

Finally, Dr Jordy Kaufman, a researcher in psychology at Swinburne University exploring the intersection of child development and technology, concludes that “Recent studies show a connection, but they don’t conclusively prove causation. Some teens may feel depressed due to social isolation and turn to social media as one of their options for interaction. Others may be finding support online that, for whatever reason, they are struggling to attain from their face-to-face interactions.

“For teens who gravitate to social media because of their struggles, a ban could potentially worsen their situation by reducing one of the interaction options available to them. Given this, it would be sensible for the government to invest in further research to better understand the situation before implementing these proposals. Otherwise, the policies may inadvertently harm some of those they aim to protect.”