U16 Social Media Ban - Right Idea, Wrong Execution?

On the 28 November 2024, the Australian government passed a bill that required a minimum age of 16 to create an account on certain social media platforms. Coming into effect on the 10 December 2025, the ban is the first of its kind and the subsequent events since the imposition of the law have been watched very closely by the rest of the world, with many countries seriously considering the idea of introducing similar legislation. Leader of the Conservative party, Kemi Badenoch, has claimed she feels a likewise ban would be appropriate in the UK, with surprising cross-party interest from Manchester’s Labour Mayor, Andy Burnham. Even Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has stated an under-16s ban is not “off the table”.

Social media platforms are designed to capture attention, and for children still developing emotionally and cognitively, that can be dangerous. Therefore, the Australian government has stated that the ban is there to protect children and teens mental health as they find that the negatives of social media, being cyberbullying, exposure to harmful content, online predators, and more, outweigh the positives. Prior to the ban, the government conducted a study which found that 96% of children aged 10-15 used social media, with seven out of ten of them having been exposed to harmful content including, but not limited to, misogynistic and violent material, with some content promoting eating disorders and even suicide. 

As such, the government has used the following criteria to dictate which platforms will be included under the ban: first, whether a platform's “significant purpose” is to enable online interactions between two or more users; second whether it allows users to interact with either some or all other users; and third whether it allows users to post material. With this in mind, YouTube, X (Twitter), Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Reddit, Twitch, Threads, and Kick have been banned. Other platforms such as Whatsapp, Google Classroom, and YouTube kids have been permitted to be used by children under the age of 16. 

Many continue to express opposing beliefs that the ban is either a positive or negative matter, and whether it has a place here in the UK.

The punishment for violation of this ban also falls upon these companies - as opposed to the children themselves or their parents/guardians. The legislation posits that the banned tech companies must take reasonable action to prevent under-16s accounts, or risk paying a fine of A$49.5 million (around £25 millions) or even a prison sentence for executives of the companies. 

Since the imposition of the ban, social media platforms have expressed discontent with the ban but have sweepingly complied with the new legislation; for instance, Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram, and Threads, stated that they began deactivating accounts on the 4 December, blocking roughly 550,000 accounts over the span of only a few days. Thus, with the ban now taking effect, and the rest of the world watching closely, many in government have questioned whether the ban will work within their respective countries; and the UK is no exception to this. 

It is important to note that a large critic of the ban is its place within international human rights. According to Article 13 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Children, minors have the right to “seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds” including through speech, writing, art, or the internet. Thus, some have argued that the ban is in violation of young people's rights to freedom of expression, or freedom of speech. Whilst children's rights, in this sense, aren't exactly the same as adults, in that their rights are guided by their developing maturities and “evolving capacities”, a blanket ban of their access to information and ability to speak freely does in one way or another interfere with their basic universal rights. 

As previously mentioned, Starmer has not ruled out the possibility of a similar ban. When asked for his opinions of Australia’s recent actions, he stated he had been keeping a close eye on “what is happening in Australia”. Elaborating on this further, the Prime Minister assured that he believes we “need to better protect children from social media” whether that be through a likewise approach of banning under-16s from creating accounts, or addressing the issue of “under-fives screen time” a problem Starmer has made clear he finds particularly concerning as “children are turning up at age four at reception having spent far too much time on screens.” 

The House of Lords have now officially backed a move towards an under-16s social media ban; with, 261 votes to 150, the peers voted to support the ban through an amendment to the government’s schools bill. The House of Commons will now have to hold a binding vote concerning the issue in the next few months. Sources have indicated that many Labour MPs have privately expressed that they expect the UK government to follow Australia’s example, however many MPs remain divided. 

The Commons vote has not yet been scheduled, but we can expect it to take place in a short few months' time. Until then, many continue to express opposing beliefs that the ban is either a positive or negative matter, and whether it has a place here in the UK.

Image: NARA & DVIDS Public Domain Archive