Social Media ban for Children

Australia’s Social Media Ban for Children Under 16 is a global first in digital child protection. While India is yet to enact any law of such order, the debate of whether such a ban is feasible is ongoing. Read here to learn more.

The rapid expansion of social media has transformed how children learn, interact, and express themselves. While digital platforms offer opportunities for creativity and connectivity, they have also exposed children to serious risks, cyberbullying, online grooming, addictive algorithms, mental health stress, and exposure to harmful content.

In response, governments worldwide are debating age-based restrictions on social media, culminating in landmark steps such as Australia’s nationwide ban on social media for children under 16.

In India, however, the Supreme Court has clarified that such a ban is a policy matter for Parliament, not the judiciary. This debate raises critical questions about child protection, digital rights, platform accountability, and the state’s role in the digital age.

What is Australia’s Social Media Ban for children?

• It is a child online safety law that prohibits children below 16 from accessing major social media platforms.
• The law mandates platforms to prevent account creation and deactivate existing accounts of underage users.
• Enforcement responsibility rests entirely on social media companies, not parents or children.
• The law represents a shift from voluntary safeguards to hard regulatory limits on digital access.

Aim of the Law:

Don't miss ClearIAS updates: Add ClearIAS as a preferred source on Google Add →

• Protect children from addictive algorithmic design, excessive screen time, and dopamine-driven engagement loops.
• Reduce exposure to cyberbullying, online harassment, sexual grooming, and predatory behaviour.
• Shield minors from harmful and age-inappropriate content, including self-harm, eating disorders, and extremist material.
• Restore healthier boundaries between childhood development, family life, schooling, and the digital ecosystem.
• Signal that child safety overrides platform growth incentives.

Key Features of the Ban

Age Threshold

• Children under 16 years of age are prohibited from creating new social media accounts.
• Existing accounts belonging to underage users must be identified and deactivated by platforms.
• The age threshold is uniform and non-negotiable, avoiding ambiguity in enforcement.

Platform-focused Liability

• No criminal or civil penalties are imposed on children or parents.
• Technology companies face heavy fines (up to AUD 32-33 million) for failing to prevent underage access.
• This reflects a “duty of care” model, treating platforms as responsible digital gatekeepers.

Platforms Covered

• Major global platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, X (Twitter), Reddit, Twitch, and similar services are covered.
• These platforms are identified as algorithm-driven, social interaction-heavy, and high-risk for minors.

Exempted Platforms

• Messaging, education, and gaming platforms are currently excluded, including:
  • WhatsApp, YouTube Kids, Google Classroom, GitHub, Roblox, and similar services.
• Exemptions are based on lower algorithmic risk, educational value, or functional necessity.
• The government retains the power to review and revise exemptions over time.

Age Assurance Mechanisms

• Platforms must take “reasonable steps” to verify user age.
• Accepted methods include:
  • Government-issued ID verification
  • Biometric tools (facial or voice recognition)
  • AI-based age inference technologies
• The law avoids prescribing a single method, allowing technological flexibility.

No Self-Certification or Parental Override

• Users cannot self-declare their age.
• Parental consent cannot override the ban.
• This prevents loopholes that previously allowed underage access despite formal safeguards.

Why Australia Chose This Model

• Research links heavy social media use among children to anxiety, depression, attention disorders, and sleep disruption.
• Platform algorithms are designed to maximise engagement, not child well-being.
• Existing voluntary tools (parental controls, age warnings) proved ineffective due to commercial incentives.
• Australia opted for structural regulation rather than behavioural nudges.

Global Significance

• Sets a precedent for platform-centric accountability rather than user blame.
• Challenges the long-held assumption that self-regulation by Big Tech is sufficient.
• Likely to influence debates in the EU, UK, US, and Global South on child digital safety.
• Raises critical questions about privacy, surveillance, and proportionality in age verification.

Ethical and Policy Debates Raised

Child Protection vs. Autonomy

• Supporters argue children lack informed consent capacity in algorithmic environments.
• Critics warn of overreach that may limit digital literacy and expression.

Privacy Concerns

• Biometric and ID-based verification raises risks of data misuse and surveillance.
• The law requires strict data minimisation, but enforcement remains a challenge.

Digital Inequality

• Children from disadvantaged backgrounds may face greater exclusion from online social spaces.
• Highlights the need for safe, public-interest digital alternatives.

What is India’s stand?

In April 2025, the Supreme Court refused to examine a plea seeking to prohibit children below 13 from using social media, observing it was a policy issue.

• The Supreme Court of India has declined to entertain a petition seeking a nationwide ban on children below 13 years using social media platforms.
• The Bench clearly stated that such a regulation falls within the domain of policy-making, not judicial intervention.

Policy Framework for India

• Child-Centric Digital Governance: Enact a Child Online Safety Law combining protection, education, and accountability. Define age-appropriate access rather than binary bans.
• Platform Duty of Care: Mandate safer design: no addictive features, default privacy, restricted recommendations. Strong penalties for algorithmic harm to minors.
• Robust Age Assurance with Privacy Safeguards: Use privacy-preserving age verification (token-based or offline verification). Strict limits on data retention.
• Digital Literacy and Parental Empowerment: Integrate digital literacy into school curricula. Provide parents with enforceable control tools, not just advisory settings.
• Independent Oversight: Establish a Digital Child Safety Authority to monitor platforms, audit algorithms, and handle grievances.

Conclusion

Australia’s under-16 social media ban marks a paradigm shift in digital governance, prioritising child safety over platform freedom.

By placing responsibility on companies, the law reframes online harm as a systemic design problem, not individual failure.

While challenges around privacy, enforcement, and inclusion remain, the law sets a powerful global benchmark.

As countries like India grapple with rising digital exposure among children, Australia’s approach offers a critical case study in rights-based, preventive digital regulation.

Related articles:

• Effect of technology on children
• Cybercrime