After the Ban: Lessons From Australia

Australia became the first country in the world to introduce nationwide social media restrictions for under-16s, the experience is already raising some big questions. 

Are age restrictions actually keeping young people off platforms? What happens when young people simply move elsewhere? And what can Scotland learn from Australia as the UK considers its own approach? 

For youth workers, these aren’t abstract policy questions. Any changes will affect the online spaces young people use, the conversations they have with trusted adults and potentially where they go for information, advice and support. 

Australia’s social media “ban” came into effect on 10 December 2025, restricting all users under 16 from holding accounts on major platforms including Tiktok, Snapchat, YouTube, Reddit, Instagram, Facebook, Kick, Twitch, Threads and X. 

10 months on, what can we learn so far – particularly looking ahead to the similar proposed changes in Scotland and across the UK.  

The story so far 

By way of background, it’s important to note the world-leading work that was being done in Australia by the E Safety Commissioner and team for many, many years before the ban. Working on everything from public information to industry codes they have been global leaders in the online safety space for more than a decade – not only for their highly proactive approach but also for the level of engagement they had generated with industry. 

Of note, Australia also implemented the Enhancing Online Safety Act 2015 and the Online Safety Act 2021 to attempt to regulate platforms. While different to the UK Online Safety Act (e.g. relying heavily on take down orders – “you can’t delete your way out of this problem”) it is important to understand these measures for context – other approaches had been tried for a number of years. 

Then last year, what appeared to be a relatively sudden position emerged when the Australian Government announced their plans to move forward with a ban. A groundswell of public opinion seems to have underpinned this change. 

While those in favour of the ban tried to articulate that something had to be done urgently about the level of harm children were experiencing on some platforms and that they were banning platforms from having access to children and not children from having access to the platforms, there were also strong opponents to the move – including the Australian National Children’s Commissioner and the Human Rights Commissioner Australian parents and kids deserve better. 

Very similar differences in opinion emerged here in the UK last year – and if interested you can read the summary of the CyberSafe Scotland position on the proposed UK ban here UK Government Online Safety Consultation – CyberSafe Scotland Response. – which is based on our experiences of working with children from areas of deprivation. 

5 things we can learn  

Whatever your position, here are some points we need to consider urgently if the ban comes into force:  

1. At present the ban in Australia is simply not effective at doing what it set out to do (age gating children out of platforms). Early studies (including one from the Office of the e safety commissioner) indicate up to 80% of children under 16 still have access to the platforms named in the ban and the long process of the profound challenge of regulatory enforcement continues.  
2. There are indications that perpetrators of online abuse are attempting to use the ban to further manipulate children and young people through control tactics and shame, and of wide misunderstandings amongst parents as to whether children should be continuing to use platforms. 
3. The ban does not include some of the platforms where most harm is currently occurring (Roblox, Discord, WhatsApp) and many other emerging platforms. The position around AI chatbots is both slightly separate (access is to be restricted by a different legal provision) but equally challenging to enforce in practice – and so immediate effective enforcement is highly unlikely. 
4. Children were not widely directly consulted on the proposed ban in Australia or in the UK. In addition to this being a significant potential infringement of their rights this creates real concerns about how they will understand the changes and the impact of potential restrictions on them accessing digital services (including advice services) – we need to address both of these challenges before March next year to prevent harm. 
5. At all times we need to focus on education and enfranchising children and young people. Whatever the impact of these changes, children urgently need better platforms, and we must work to build these in Scotland. 

Finally, it is important to note that the UK Online Safety Act was intended to be the most progressive piece of legislation re platform regulation globally. I would encourage readers to consider how they can engage with that Act – e.g. by making information on platform failures available to Ofcom to support the process of regulation. It is critically important that we continue to try to work with that legislative framework as powerfully as possible. Fundamental platform changes are absolutely vital, and attempting to age gate ten platforms cannot be a sufficient solution to address current harms. 

W: https://www.cybersafescotland.org/ 

E: info@cybersafescotland.org