Misleading title. Usage dropped after the ban and has risen slightly since the initial drop.
The article does very little besides report this. It speculates that it might be due to vpn or the ban not working. It doesn't even go into how the ban works or and basic journalistic follow up questions.
Does anyone have a better source or info why it's not effective
1. It's not a ban on using social media, it's a requirement for age verification to create an account. This only limits usage on the few platforms that force an account to do anything.
2. The technical controls platforms implement are, unsurprisingly, generally quite weak. Kids are crafty enough to circumvent them, and share how freely.
3. Wannabe-influencer parents just create accounts for their kids, making the circumvention trivial.
4. There are no consequences for using a social media account while under 16.
I think the final point is the main one, though. By design there's no mechanism in place for the government to take any action if a kid gets onto social media, only if a platform fails to implement age checks that satisfy the legislation's criteria. So platforms all implemented tokenistic age checks. Platforms don't care, or need to care, if they get bypassed. The government doesn't care.
If I were a more suspicious man I'd say that either the point was never to reduce the use of social media by kids in the first place, or it was well intentioned but railroaded into toothlessness by lobbyists.
The big issue that media and the like are careful not to mention lately were the algorithms social media refused to do anything about when asked to by the govt when the public complained -too hard or whatever- back 7 or 8 years ago. At the time parents were discovering some social media [1] was funnelling children into darker areas [focus teenage anxiety] for profit. Though bullying was one of the concerns for children, the under 16 ban means any smart social media company, with an understanding some kids will still use social media just like under age unlicensed driving still happens, the last thing the company needs is ending up in the courts due to the bad algorithms or piss poor moderation. With the ban it should be assumed, for they (social media and their friends) seem to be claiming their pii scraping and analysis is near hopeless, they will have preemptively removed the troubling algorithms at the very least - less they find themselves in the courts due to use by an under 16 child that was groomed to a dark place, without a leg to stand on.
The ban also means parents and teachers alike have the means to make children put their phone down or away and pay more attention to real life things.
I think that the fragmentation of social networks is what hurts big social networks the most. It creates competitors who can tune their formula / algorithm in obscurity and then just "come out of nowhere"
The number of you who confidently commented something incorrect because you couldn’t be bothered to read the 13 sentence article is as unsurprising as it is disappointing.
Kids cant find a way if they dont have access to a phone.
To be able to do this they need unrestricted access to a smart phone in their personal time. This is something parents very much can control for 10-12yr olds.
A parent can reasonably ensure that their child doesn't have a phone. Ensuring that they don't have access to a phone is much more difficult. I suppose that you can insist that your children only socialize with other children under your supervision, the effect of which is twofold: you can see that they don't use a phone, and they will be much less likely to have friends in the first place.
It's very hard to not give them internet access at all though even if you don't give them a phone, because they need it for homework and you can't and don't want to supervise them every moment they are doing homework.
A lot of parental control systems stop working when they turn 13 so you have a system that works fine and then suddenly it stops working. I know a lot of parents who have complained about this.
As the father of two children who grew up with the Internet, which I restricted for them, and grandfather of five, one of which is 13, I would say yes, parents always have the ultimate say in it.
>Kids just don't understand the effects that it has on them
Neither does anybody else since it's not settled science. And even then it's questionable how much you can trust the science due to the replication crisis.
My parents believed that sitting too close to the TV ruined my eyesight, rather than it being an indicator that I needed glasses.
I believe that too. I think myopia is an adaptation that we acquire by spending too much time in dim lighting. Ie indoors.
Daylight outside is an order of magnitude brighter (and will therefore give you more detail to resolve) than indoor lighting.
But that's just my personal belief. Sitting too close to the TV ruining your eyes is a just an urban myth. The story goes that once upon a time a company did produce faulty CRT TVs that could harm eyesight if you sat too close to them, but that was decades before I was born.
I never really know what to think about this issue, On the one hand I used the internet unsupervised at around 10 and I think it was positive and I really do wonder if the extreme stuff such even murder videos and such are actually that bad for children in that lots of children would have seen execution's of people in the past. On the other hand I think the most negative thing about the internet today is social media and the sort of socialization it provides, The sort of way even fully grown adults treat influencers and the sort of trite conversations that you will now have with people on various topics and are only capable of holding these positions that youtubers have told them to. All of this has always existed of course but now the internet amplifies this and has connected too many people together and amplified the most stupid qualities of theses people and by extension society at large. Just look at the way are industry of supposed intelligent people have adopted the phrase 'token-maxxing' and other phrases that are just stupid. I think this is what is most damaging to children being exposed to that much stupidity that has been given far too much dignity.
A proper FF back to you, Sir. We are quite far out on the parental spectrum with regards to controlling their devices and I can attest to ultimately having no control at all. They will find a way. (And that’s natural in a way.) You just hope that next to controls, the talks about keeping your balance in life and being aware of dangers, even when everyone does XYZ, help in the long run.
Social media are a scourge on society and a US hegemonic instrument. Who cares about this opinion…? (Hint: nobody, it’s about parenting the three I want to help grow up in life.)
Maybe the issue is that they should not have their own devices at young age.
Time limited use on a supervised family computer might be an alternative idea.
We do not need to give into the solutions supported by the tech companies. Voters need to vote for a solution that restricts them, not us.
I say lock down a legal definition for social media that only applies to sites that alter what you see based on algorithms. Ban them on all internet connections by default until the account owner undoes the block and the block will be per device when it comes to phones. We can also block these sites in all wifi routers until someone disables it there too.
Yes, adults can just unlock it for their kids, but that is something that could be addressed if a problem. All solutions can be bypassed by a willing parent.
> Such a thing would require mandatory age verification of every user of the platform
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, it would be entirely between the social media companies and their users. No blanket requirements across devices or the internet.
I’d add a provision that creates even steeper fines and private liability for retaining any ID, etc. collected to verify age.
> which is obviously a significant privacy complication.
I'm sure the companies will default to the darkest of dark patterns, and the most privacy violating mechanism possible, but the law doesn't have to be written to require this, and can be written to forbid it.
Same, on both counts, as the cookie popups. Consent not actually required for things necessary for the functionality of the system, and the popups themselves are often not compatible with the law as written.
Age verification can be done in a way that preserves privacy. The websites must be required to do so, and fined if they try to weasel out of privacy preservation.
Remember that these sites spent years insisting people use their "real name" and if they thought you weren't doing so they wanted users to show a government ID. These sites want people using real photos as their profile picture. These sites want to know where you live, where you work, and of course who your friends are.
While keeping kids away from social media makes sense, legislative ban leads straight to implementing invasive biometric verification for everyone.
Is there a chance to make the dopamine fueling scrolling only a phase, just like e.g. messaging over ICQ is a thing of the past? I mean seriously, people who remember birth of these media are getting old and unattractive, newcomer influencers are thoroughbred professionals, and AI slop is taking over the content.
LOL - I remember saying this would not be something that could be policed, and a bunch of my fellow countrymen tut-tutting at me saying things like “it’s the thought that counts”, etc.
Now it’s gone underground and it’s worse than ever. Meantime, there are kids in high schools across the nation who can’t watch World War II documentaries on Youtube because that’s considered “restricted content”.
Best ban them at the DNS level if you want to get into it.
And not by age.
Edit: any rule/law has ways around it. It’s the intent of the law that matters, and I do not think the sentiment in the community that made it possible is worried about your LOL.
The law basically said these companies have to have reasonable measures. They could make a dent if they actually required age verification. But people think it's some civil rights violation like you have some fundamental right to use social media.
Also it's not underground. Kids aren't allowed to create accounts and just lie about their age. Below 13yo did that before as that's the min she already.
Misleading title. Usage dropped after the ban and has risen slightly since the initial drop.
The article does very little besides report this. It speculates that it might be due to vpn or the ban not working. It doesn't even go into how the ban works or and basic journalistic follow up questions.
Does anyone have a better source or info why it's not effective
Source: Australian, with teenager.
1. It's not a ban on using social media, it's a requirement for age verification to create an account. This only limits usage on the few platforms that force an account to do anything.
2. The technical controls platforms implement are, unsurprisingly, generally quite weak. Kids are crafty enough to circumvent them, and share how freely.
3. Wannabe-influencer parents just create accounts for their kids, making the circumvention trivial.
4. There are no consequences for using a social media account while under 16.
I think the final point is the main one, though. By design there's no mechanism in place for the government to take any action if a kid gets onto social media, only if a platform fails to implement age checks that satisfy the legislation's criteria. So platforms all implemented tokenistic age checks. Platforms don't care, or need to care, if they get bypassed. The government doesn't care.
If I were a more suspicious man I'd say that either the point was never to reduce the use of social media by kids in the first place, or it was well intentioned but railroaded into toothlessness by lobbyists.
It's impossible to keep kids out if there is a non small amount of parents sucking their kids into social media.
The big issue that media and the like are careful not to mention lately were the algorithms social media refused to do anything about when asked to by the govt when the public complained -too hard or whatever- back 7 or 8 years ago. At the time parents were discovering some social media [1] was funnelling children into darker areas [focus teenage anxiety] for profit. Though bullying was one of the concerns for children, the under 16 ban means any smart social media company, with an understanding some kids will still use social media just like under age unlicensed driving still happens, the last thing the company needs is ending up in the courts due to the bad algorithms or piss poor moderation. With the ban it should be assumed, for they (social media and their friends) seem to be claiming their pii scraping and analysis is near hopeless, they will have preemptively removed the troubling algorithms at the very least - less they find themselves in the courts due to use by an under 16 child that was groomed to a dark place, without a leg to stand on.
The ban also means parents and teachers alike have the means to make children put their phone down or away and pay more attention to real life things.
[1] One in particular iirc though.
Related: "Australia's social media ban has failed (reuters.com)" 02.aug.2026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49141877 127 comments
Who would have thought banning something would make it attractive to kids. Radical.
Exactly. During Prohibition, did alcohol consumption decrease, including of course, illegal alcohol consumption? Then…
I also wonder how many Australian teens are using less regulated and lesser-known social networks
I think that the fragmentation of social networks is what hurts big social networks the most. It creates competitors who can tune their formula / algorithm in obscurity and then just "come out of nowhere"
The number of you who confidently commented something incorrect because you couldn’t be bothered to read the 13 sentence article is as unsurprising as it is disappointing.
Telegram CEO predicted this the moment countries started to announce that. His idea, that I completely agree with, is: Awareness > Control
Banning is the only surefire way to provoke interest among kids. Whatever they're denied, they will inevitably be drawn to (at least a healthy %).
Nature finds a way :-p
Also, who allows their 10-12yr old children to use TikTok, Instagram or Snapchat, FFS!
Do you think parents have a say in it? Kids find a way.
Kids just don't understand the effects that it has on them
Kids cant find a way if they dont have access to a phone.
To be able to do this they need unrestricted access to a smart phone in their personal time. This is something parents very much can control for 10-12yr olds.
A parent can reasonably ensure that their child doesn't have a phone. Ensuring that they don't have access to a phone is much more difficult. I suppose that you can insist that your children only socialize with other children under your supervision, the effect of which is twofold: you can see that they don't use a phone, and they will be much less likely to have friends in the first place.
It's very hard to not give them internet access at all though even if you don't give them a phone, because they need it for homework and you can't and don't want to supervise them every moment they are doing homework.
Of course they have a say in it. It’s bordering on neglect to give a 10 year old that junk.
You enable parental control on the phone before you give it to your kid. Then you can easily manage allowed applications/web sites and screen time.
A lot of parental control systems stop working when they turn 13 so you have a system that works fine and then suddenly it stops working. I know a lot of parents who have complained about this.
Apple has MDM (Mobile Device Management) that locks a device down pretty well.
As the father of two children who grew up with the Internet, which I restricted for them, and grandfather of five, one of which is 13, I would say yes, parents always have the ultimate say in it.
A child shouldn't even have a smartphone IMO.
>Kids just don't understand the effects that it has on them
Neither does anybody else since it's not settled science. And even then it's questionable how much you can trust the science due to the replication crisis.
My parents believed that sitting too close to the TV ruined my eyesight, rather than it being an indicator that I needed glasses.
OTOH turns out spending time outdoors during childhood appears to reduce the risk of developing myopia.
I believe that too. I think myopia is an adaptation that we acquire by spending too much time in dim lighting. Ie indoors.
Daylight outside is an order of magnitude brighter (and will therefore give you more detail to resolve) than indoor lighting.
But that's just my personal belief. Sitting too close to the TV ruining your eyes is a just an urban myth. The story goes that once upon a time a company did produce faulty CRT TVs that could harm eyesight if you sat too close to them, but that was decades before I was born.
"Epidemiologic research indicates that greater average daily light exposure is associated with a reduced axial elongation during childhood"
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/25158414211059246
I owe my career on the Internet to my dad thinking he could block it from me when I was 11 years old.
I never really know what to think about this issue, On the one hand I used the internet unsupervised at around 10 and I think it was positive and I really do wonder if the extreme stuff such even murder videos and such are actually that bad for children in that lots of children would have seen execution's of people in the past. On the other hand I think the most negative thing about the internet today is social media and the sort of socialization it provides, The sort of way even fully grown adults treat influencers and the sort of trite conversations that you will now have with people on various topics and are only capable of holding these positions that youtubers have told them to. All of this has always existed of course but now the internet amplifies this and has connected too many people together and amplified the most stupid qualities of theses people and by extension society at large. Just look at the way are industry of supposed intelligent people have adopted the phrase 'token-maxxing' and other phrases that are just stupid. I think this is what is most damaging to children being exposed to that much stupidity that has been given far too much dignity.
spineless parents with a ton of excuses, just ask 'em, you'll be schocked.
A proper FF back to you, Sir. We are quite far out on the parental spectrum with regards to controlling their devices and I can attest to ultimately having no control at all. They will find a way. (And that’s natural in a way.) You just hope that next to controls, the talks about keeping your balance in life and being aware of dangers, even when everyone does XYZ, help in the long run.
Social media are a scourge on society and a US hegemonic instrument. Who cares about this opinion…? (Hint: nobody, it’s about parenting the three I want to help grow up in life.)
Maybe the issue is that they should not have their own devices at young age. Time limited use on a supervised family computer might be an alternative idea.
The teeth have to apply to the social media companies. Fines for under-16 users.
Such a thing would require mandatory age verification of every user of the platform, which is obviously a significant privacy complication.
We do not need to give into the solutions supported by the tech companies. Voters need to vote for a solution that restricts them, not us.
I say lock down a legal definition for social media that only applies to sites that alter what you see based on algorithms. Ban them on all internet connections by default until the account owner undoes the block and the block will be per device when it comes to phones. We can also block these sites in all wifi routers until someone disables it there too.
Yes, adults can just unlock it for their kids, but that is something that could be addressed if a problem. All solutions can be bypassed by a willing parent.
> Such a thing would require mandatory age verification of every user of the platform
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, it would be entirely between the social media companies and their users. No blanket requirements across devices or the internet.
I’d add a provision that creates even steeper fines and private liability for retaining any ID, etc. collected to verify age.
> which is obviously a significant privacy complication.
I'm sure the companies will default to the darkest of dark patterns, and the most privacy violating mechanism possible, but the law doesn't have to be written to require this, and can be written to forbid it.
Same, on both counts, as the cookie popups. Consent not actually required for things necessary for the functionality of the system, and the popups themselves are often not compatible with the law as written.
Age verification can be done in a way that preserves privacy. The websites must be required to do so, and fined if they try to weasel out of privacy preservation.
Remember that these sites spent years insisting people use their "real name" and if they thought you weren't doing so they wanted users to show a government ID. These sites want people using real photos as their profile picture. These sites want to know where you live, where you work, and of course who your friends are.
I hate how this is described as a social media ban. It's a social media delay.
Similar to delaying access to alcohol or nicotine because it’s known to be harmful to children. That’s never really framed as a ban.
Primarily it's social media forced deanonymization, with "think of the children" as an excuse.
While keeping kids away from social media makes sense, legislative ban leads straight to implementing invasive biometric verification for everyone.
Is there a chance to make the dopamine fueling scrolling only a phase, just like e.g. messaging over ICQ is a thing of the past? I mean seriously, people who remember birth of these media are getting old and unattractive, newcomer influencers are thoroughbred professionals, and AI slop is taking over the content.
LOL - I remember saying this would not be something that could be policed, and a bunch of my fellow countrymen tut-tutting at me saying things like “it’s the thought that counts”, etc.
Now it’s gone underground and it’s worse than ever. Meantime, there are kids in high schools across the nation who can’t watch World War II documentaries on Youtube because that’s considered “restricted content”.
You can’t make this shit up.
Best ban them at the DNS level if you want to get into it.
And not by age.
Edit: any rule/law has ways around it. It’s the intent of the law that matters, and I do not think the sentiment in the community that made it possible is worried about your LOL.
The law basically said these companies have to have reasonable measures. They could make a dent if they actually required age verification. But people think it's some civil rights violation like you have some fundamental right to use social media.
Also it's not underground. Kids aren't allowed to create accounts and just lie about their age. Below 13yo did that before as that's the min she already.
So basically, you say it's all ineffective and can't be policed.
It isnt worse than ever. Read the article, usage is down overall since the ban.