Australia's social media ban for kids mostly isn't working, research suggests

[midian182]

In brief: Australia led the way in implementing nationwide social media bans for users under a certain age, introducing the law in December. Four months later, how effective is it proving to be? Not very, according to a new survey.

Australia's world-first social media ban on users under the age of 16 isn't keeping kids off the platforms as well as the government hoped.

A new study by the UK-based suicide prevention charity Molly Rose Foundation (MSF) found that 61%, or three in five, Australian 12 – 15-year-olds who had accounts on restricted platforms before the ban came into force still have access to one or more accounts.

Most of the large platforms have held on to the majority of their underage users. 53% of previous TikTok users can still access their accounts, as can 53% of previous YouTube users and 52% of previous Instagram users.

Soon after Australia's law was implemented, there were reports of teenagers circumventing facial age verification scans by making unusual facial expressions, applying makeup, or using VPNs. There were also reports of some who passed age verification checks using their faces to help friends and family members sidestep the ban.

The MSF report found that in the majority of cases where kids were still accessing their social media accounts, the platforms have failed to identify and remove under-16 accounts, meaning most children haven't needed to resort to workarounds.

Almost two-thirds (64%) of YouTube users, 61% of Snapchat users, and 60% of both Instagram and TikTok users said the platforms had taken "no action" to remove or deactivate an account they had before restrictions.

As with similar bans in other countries, one of the reasons for its creation was to make children safer online. But 51% of those surveyed who used restricted platforms prior to the ban say the law has made no difference to their online safety, while 14% say it actually makes them feel less safe.

The MSF says the evidence shows an Australia-style ban on kids' social media usage in the UK won't deliver the immediate improvements in safety that parents and children demand and deserve. It is instead calling on Prime Minister Keir Starmer to commit to a new Online Safety Act.

After Australia introduced the ban, Greece, France, Indonesia, Austria, Spain, and the UK implemented similar restrictions or are considering them.

Several US states have already introduced their own social media bans or restrictions. Some believe a nationwide ban could eventually follow, particularly after Meta was recently found liable for harming children in a social media addiction lawsuit.

Permalink to story:

Australia's social media ban for kids mostly isn't working, research suggests

 

[Squid Surprise]

Is anyone shocked by this? Let’s see how effective (aka useless) Greece’s ban goes…

 

[yRaz]

This just in, kids aren't as dumb as we assumed that they were. I remember my dad teaching me calc when I was barely a teenager. And I will never forget him saying this, "you're about the age when boys and girls start thinking about other things, but it's still important that you learn calculus." And, to be perfectly honest, calc is way more useful than anything that jumbled hormones had me doing 20 years ago. The thing is, Kids are going to leverage every ounce of their intelligence to help those hormones regardless of what restrictions we put on them. This is why I believe(and you are free to disagree with me), that governments don't protect children, parents do.

 

[gigantor21]

It was always gonna be more useful for collecting data than “protecting kids.”

 

[Endymio]

It was always gonna be more useful for collecting data than “protecting kids.”

Oops! Australia's social media ban literally forbids platforms from requiring government-issued IDs for access. That's the entire reason 60% of children are circumventing it.

And while the ban is stopping less than half of children from accessing social media, I would posit that those circumventing the ban average to be older and/or more emotionally mature than those who are not, and are thus less at risk.

 

[brucek]

What a surprise. So now by the time they are 18 many young adults will have confronted, and broken, their first 3 laws: social media age, speed limit, drinking age, all while being heavily encouraged to do so by their peers and finding little wider social resistance from the same society that passed those laws in the first place.

There's probably a reason the world is the way it is but it makes my programmer brain hurt trying to understand it.

 

[Vanderlinde]

It was always gonna be more useful for collecting data than “protecting kids.”

Correct.

They knew damn well what they where doing at Meta and any other social media platform. As long as there's growth and thus growth in advertising revenue then nobody gives a **** at Meta.

I recall one day my feed being different, in a sense to see more hardcore type of stuff. Now I'm used to it but you can imagine what it does to a far younger mind who never saw these things before.

They literally opened up the gates of hell, because, they want to increase the TOD (Time spend on Device) and thus higher ad revenue. Zuckerberg is a scumbag first class.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Correct.

They knew damn well what they where doing at Meta and any other social media platform. As long as there's growth and thus growth in advertising revenue then nobody gives a **** at Meta.

I recall one day my feed being different, in a sense to see more hardcore type of stuff. Now I'm used to it but you can imagine what it does to a far younger mind who never saw these things before.

They literally opened up the gates of hell, because, they want to increase the TOD (Time spend on Device) and thus higher ad revenue. Zuckerberg is a scumbag first class.

You seem to be confused here.

Gigantor isnt talking about Meta. They got data regardless. Meta didnt propose the 18 rule were talking about here. This bill helped THE GOVERNMENT collect data, specifically, attaching real world ID to anyone who says a naughty word they dont like, or criticizes them.

 

[Anton Longshot]

You seem to be confused here.

Gigantor isnt talking about Meta. They got data regardless. Meta didnt propose the 18 rule were talking about here. This bill helped THE GOVERNMENT collect data, specifically, attaching real world ID to anyone who says a naughty word they dont like, or criticizes them.

"We didn't KNOW kids would find ways to fark this up!"

Barefaced lie. They knew. As the OP implied their objectives were way more nefarious than harebrained attempts to protect kids from evil.

 

[Endymio]

Gigantor isnt talking about Meta. They got data regardless. Meta didnt propose the 18 rule were talking about here. This bill helped THE GOVERNMENT collect data, specifically, attaching real world ID to anyone who says a naughty word they dont like, or criticizes them.

The law specifically forbids Meta -- or any other platform from requiring a photo ID to access their site. How does that fit into your theory?

 

[protodeus]

No surprises this was an absolute failure. The Aus government is very tech illiterate, this is just another in a series of failures. They could have implemented it so much better by providing an anonymized private key generated from gov identity profiles that could be given to tech platforms instead of the malicious data collection apparatus it devolved into instead. If these face scans aren't yet being fed into facial recognition models and services (which I highly doubt) they will be very soon. My internet connection will be living in New Zealand for the time being.

 

[Karlos95]

Oops! Australia's social media ban literally forbids platforms from requiring government-issued IDs for access. That's the entire reason 60% of children are circumventing it.

And while the ban is stopping less than half of children from accessing social media, I would posit that those circumventing the ban average to be older and/or more emotionally mature than those who are not, and are thus less at risk.

It's a ploy to encage everyone with a Digital ID, if you cannot see this, you are dense.

 

[Karlos95]

The law specifically forbids Meta -- or any other platform from requiring a photo ID to access their site. How does that fit into your theory?

When they make something fail on purpose, it is to use it as an excuse to bring in something even worse, such as DIGITAL ID. No one will be safe from it and it will then bring in CBDCs and social credit score just like in China.

 

[p51d007]

There is only a couple ways to keep children under a certain age off "social media" would be:
1. Dumb phones only. No texting...phone calls only
2. No screens of any kind

And even with that, they will still figure a way to get "online".

 

[Aus spot]

It was always gonna be more useful for collecting data than “protecting kids.”

that is totally wrong as there are rules against what can be collected, including government issues ID.

however, there is a growing list of areas on the internet where you must prove you are an adult. this includes basic search results. so the government can clearly identify who is on the internet and what they are searching for.

right idea, wrong avenue.

 

[Alpine7995]

The funniest part is that the report says most kids didn’t even need workarounds. Everyone expected some cat-and-mouse arms race with VPNs and fake faces, but it turns out the platforms just… didn’t enforce it. That’s less a failure of teenagers and more a reminder of who actually controls the switch.

 

[airbornex]

Policy was designed for headlines, not systems. Age bans sound clean on paper, but the internet isn’t a nightclub with a bouncer, it’s a messy network of incentives where nobody wants to turn away users.

 

[Endymio]

When they make something fail on purpose, it is to use it as an excuse to bring in something even worse.

Who says the law has failed? Nearly half of Australia's children are now off social media, and I strongly suspect that the remainder still using it are doing so on a significantly more limited basis.

We have laws against murder, and yet still half a million people are murdered each year. Does that mean these laws have failed, and should be repealed?

 

[Karlos95]

Who says the law has failed? Nearly half of Australia's children are now off social media, and I strongly suspect that the remainder still using it are doing so on a significantly more limited basis.

We have laws against murder, and yet still half a million people are murdered each year. Does that mean these laws have failed, and should be repealed?

It clearly is a failure. I work in a school and can guarantee you, the law isn't working and was never meant to work. It is all by design to bring in Digital ID. Every western country going the same route. The rightwings thought electing trump would fix it for them, they are just doing it more stealth via Palantir.


You have to be some kind of gullible to think a law to not kill people works. If you are willing to kill another person, the law is of no concern to you. All actions have consequences regardless of what law is in place. Most laws are there simply to protect the elites.

 

[Northy]

40%-50% reduction in social media use in teens in just a few months, that shows a definitive change of teen culture to move away from social media now the minority are using it... I'd say it's right on track.

No one thought the change would happen overnight, the kids already on social media are already hooked and won't easily give up getting their swipey endorphin fix, but the generations coming where it's not normalised are the ones who will really benefit.

The conspiracy to push the digital ID is all well and good, but this is an American idea. They already have mandatory ISP metadata collection on residential addresses here in Australia, they already know exactly which households and phones are visiting exactly which websites.

Myopic press love to push the 'it's failed, we told you so" clickbait agenda just a few months after an inter-generational policy is enabled, myopic readers vehemently agree.

 

[DrSuess]

This was always the expected outcome. Most people that want to access restrict materials will find a work around to access those materials.

 

[Karlos95]

40%-50% reduction in social media use in teens in just a few months, that shows a definitive change of teen culture to move away from social media now the minority are using it... I'd say it's right on track.

No one thought the change would happen overnight, the kids already on social media are already hooked and won't easily give up getting their swipey endorphin fix, but the generations coming where it's not normalised are the ones who will really benefit.

The conspiracy to push the digital ID is all well and good, but this is an American idea. They already have mandatory ISP metadata collection on residential addresses here in Australia, they already know exactly which households and phones are visiting exactly which websites.

Myopic press love to push the 'it's failed, we told you so" clickbait agenda just a few months after an inter-generational policy is enabled, myopic readers vehemently agree.

You haven't done enough research on digital ID and it shows.
To think it will be limited to America is greatly mistaken and Id say it'll actually be the last place to be in place as the Americans still have guns to violently object to it.

They can collect all the data they want, without digital ID, they cannot tie it all together and use it to stop the way you spend or travel. Which is the ultimate end goal.

The "it's failed" headlines is merely a way for them to say, "well, the only way now to limit internet usage is to make everyone put in the digital ID to use it". It is no coincidence they want to roll it out at device level and now Mexico wanting you to register your phone number with it. Honestly, to say it is a conspiracy now, is just plain ignorance.

 

[Endymio]

It clearly is a failure. I work in a school and can guarantee you, the law isn't working

The study this very article is based upon calls that a lie.

... and was never meant to work. It is all by design to bring in Digital ID. Every western country going the same route. The rightwings thought electing trump would fix it for them,

Ahh, well you just outed yourself. Anyone interjecting Trump into an article about Australian Internet laws is already beyond all rational debate.

You have to be some kind of gullible to think a law to not kill people works. If you are willing to kill another person, the law is of no concern to you.

Eh? This is even worse than I thought. You literally believe we shouldn't have laws against murder? And that no one has ever been dissuaded from murder due to the thought of punishment?

I'm literally so aghast at this that I do need to request verification ... it's as if you've gone to a brain surgeon and specifically requested a frontal lobotomy. Please sign here first to confirm ... in triplicate.

 

[Karlos95]

The study this very article is based upon calls that a lie.


Ahh, well you just outed yourself. Anyone interjecting Trump into an article about Australian Internet laws is already beyond all rational debate.


Eh? This is even worse than I thought. You literally believe we shouldn't have laws against murder? And that no one has ever been dissuaded from murder due to the thought of punishment?

I'm literally so aghast at this that I do need to request verification ... it's as if you've gone to a brain surgeon and specifically requested a frontal lobotomy. Please sign here first to confirm ... in triplicate.

Way to take everything I said out of context.

If there is still a majority of kids using it, it is a failure. Pretty simple statistically.

"Oh look, you mentioned trumpo so what you say is completely false." You just outed youself as a lefty. You guys love that TDS. We hate trump for different reasons, but at least my reasons are based in reality lol!
Still doesn't take away the fact as to what I said is correct. The rightwingers were duped into voting for trump for him to do a complete 180.

Where, my god, where did I say we shouldnt have murder as a law? I said, if you are at that point already, a stupid bit of writing telling you not to do it won't persuade you not to do it. Hell, people do it out of frustration whilst drunk and not thinking. The last thing on their mind is what will be the consequences of this. They are already at the point of no return.

If you need laws to tell you right from wrong, you are already a lost soul. By large, majority of laws has nothing to do with keeping society safe and mostly keeping you in a cage and protecting the elites. If you disagree with that, then I am sorry to tell you, that you have been severely brainwashed.

 

[pnntmp]

I wouldn't describe reduction of social media use nearly by half as "mostly isn't working".
Obviously it's not 100% effective, but that's simply impossible without strict identification laws. A little bit more pressure on the platforms can make it practically fully working.

I mean, teens are a herd. They do a lot of stuff (especially of the dumb kind) simply because others are doing it and they don't want to be perceived as different or 'losers'. As the social media use gradually diminishes, the motivation to use it will diminish as well because those who don't use it will not be different any more. We may see a social media use death spiral, which will be a very good thing.