Australian Social Media Ban for Under-16s Shows Limited Impact, Study Finds

A recent study indicates that Australia's social media restrictions for individuals under 16 have had a limited effect on curbing teen usage, raising questions about the efficacy of similar measures being implemented in the United Kingdom. The research, involving over 400 Australian teenagers, found that a significant majority continued to access social media platforms three months after the Social Media Minimum Age Act was introduced last December.

The Australian law was designed to protect young people from harmful content, including material promoting self-harm, eating disorders, misogyny, violence, and predatory behavior. To enforce the ban, the government urged tech companies to implement age verification processes. However, the study, published in the BMJ and led by researchers from the University of Newcastle, found that many teenagers are bypassing these checks using methods such as fake accounts, private browsing modes, or relying on others' accounts.

Specifically, the study reported that 86% of 12 to 13-year-olds and 89% of 14 to 15-year-olds used at least one banned platform in the week prior to the survey. Approximately two-thirds of participants encountered age verification measures, with methods ranging from self-declared age to photo uploads. Despite these measures, over half accessed banned platforms via their own accounts, while others used workarounds.

These findings emerge shortly after the UK announced its own plans to raise the minimum age for social media use to 16, a package dubbed 'Australia plus'. The UK's proposed reforms, set to take effect next spring, will also extend to gaming and live-streaming platforms, with the aim of preventing strangers from contacting children. Encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp are excluded from these regulations.

Experts have weighed in on the Australian study's implications for the UK's proposed legislation. Professor Alan Woodward, a cybersecurity expert at the University of Surrey, expressed concern that the Australian approach, often cited as an example for the UK, may not be effective. He suggested that a simple ban is insufficient and that governments should pay close attention to this evidence. "Many have used the Australian approach as the example to follow in order to keep under-16s safe online, and what this suggests, along with other similar studies published since Australia introduced their ban, is that a simple ban will not keep children safe," Woodward stated.

He further commented that the study highlights the ease with which children can find untraceable methods to access social media, potentially exposing them to more harmful content. Woodward emphasized the need for evidence-based policy rather than sentiment, cautioning that simplistic fixes are likely to fail. He advocates for a thorough understanding of how children are harmed and for addressing specific causes, suggesting that platform policing and algorithm modifications might be part of a solution, but not a blanket ban.

Dr. Amrit Kaur Purba, a social epidemiologist from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, noted that Australia's experience demonstrates the gap between legislating restrictions and enforcing them, particularly when age assurance relies on self-declaration.

Other experts urged a measured interpretation of the findings. Professor Dennis Ougrin, a child and adolescent psychiatry expert at Queen Mary University of London, acknowledged the study's limitations, such as its small sample size and short follow-up period, but deemed it valuable early evidence for policymakers. Professor Matt Williams, a criminologist at Cardiff University, stated that the research should not be seen as proof that age-based restrictions cannot work, but rather as an illustration of the challenges in translating legal restrictions into meaningful changes in online behavior for young people.