Australia has taken a bold and probably half-baked step this week, banning social media access for anyone under 16. The move targets platforms like Facebook and Instagram, TikTok, X, and Snapchat “among others,” with the goal of shielding kids from potential online harms.
The legislation, passed with significant bipartisan support, gives social media companies a year to implement age-verification systems or face fines of up to A$49.5 million (US$32 million).
It’s a noble cause, even if one ignores the political vote-winning aspects in it, but the way it’s been handled feels heavy-handed – especially when you consider how it impacts LGBTQIA+ youth, who broadly to online spaces for connection and support. Instead of protecting these kids, the ban could leave them more isolated and vulnerable. We know where that can lead.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese frames the ban as necessary to combat the negative impacts of social media on young people’s mental health. Yeah, there’s no denying the internet is a brutal place for the vulnerable. We’ve seen far too many stories of bullying, body image issues and suicide linked to online activity. It’s heartbreaking, and something clearly needs to change.
But why is the government ignoring the positive side of social media for young people—especially those who feel isolated in their real lives?
LGBTQIA+ kids, in particular, have often found hope and acceptance online when it’s been missing offline. Are we really okay with cutting off their lifelines?
Nearly 150 academics and experts have signed an open letter opposing the ban. One of them, Curtin University’s Professor Tama Leaver, summed it up perfectly when speaking with the ABC this week: “There are lots of examples of people finding the support, the acceptance, the community they need online.
“That’s the thing that’s helped them become who they are and solidify their sense of identity, their sense of worth in a way that perhaps they weren’t immediately able to get face to face.”
Maggie, a trans teen, says in the same article: “I’ve been able to find other people who are trans and talk to them and socialise with people who are just like me, even if they live hundreds or thousands of kilometres away.”
In comments that would be amusingly transparent in their dissent if the issue weren’t so grave to so many young people, federal Communications Minister Michelle Rowland conceded that social media “can have many benefits, particularly for young people who may be isolated for different reasons”.
But, she added, the government can’t ignore “content that can be inappropriate for young people to see, the addictive nature of social media, and some of the troubling activity that can occur on these platforms including online bullying”.
No shit, Michelle – just tell us what you’re going to do for those who’ve found their strength online.
Maggie nailed it when she said, “A blanket ban doesn’t really fix anything. It does absolutely nothing to progress the fight against these really important problems.”
The Australian Human Rights Commission agrees. It warns that such a ban can too easily replace one set of harms with another, particularly for marginalised groups. Instead of a sweeping restriction, the Commission says governments should focus on “the least restrictive option available to achieve the intended purpose.” Translation: use a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.
What should be done instead?
If the government is serious about protecting young people (which one does question, in general), they need to take a smarter approach. Start with education. Teach kids (and adults, frankly) how to navigate the online world safely, spot misinformation, and stand up to cyberbullies. This kind of program could be a game-changer — and it’s something the government could demand social media companies help fund.
At the same time, let’s hold platforms accountable. Legislate for stricter moderation, better transparency, and real investment in user safety. Social media giants rake in billions every year; it’s about time they used some of that cash to create online spaces that don’t put profit over people. They’re certainly turning much of it over in tax…
And finally, for kids who already depend on these platforms, there needs to be a plan. Work with psychologists, educators, and community groups to ensure young people in need of support and comfort and certainty from people like them, aren’t left behind.
Cutting off access without offering alternatives isn’t protection; it’s abandonment.
Leave a Reply