Australia just launched what is being called the world’s first ban on social media for children under 16. It takes effect today (December 10, 2025). What the law does is that it prevents Australians under 16 from creating or keeping accounts on age-restricted social media platforms. That means the government is deactivating a huge number (over 1 million) of social media accounts that transgress that standard. There are no parental consent exceptions. Even with parental permission, kids can’t use these platforms. The most affected platforms are Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X (Twitter), YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, Threads, and Kick. Those that are exempted include WhatsApp, Messenger Kids, Google Classroom, Discord, Roblox, and various educational/health services.
Stop and think about that…the infamous “Magnificent Seven” (or “Mag 7” for short) are the seven tech companies that now account for over one-third of the value of the entire S&P 500… which is unprecedented market concentration. They are Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Meta (Facebook/Instagram), Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla. This new law directly impacts one of them (Meta), exempts another (Alphabet/Google) and pretty much affects them all with the possible exception of Tesla (and even there, it hurts Elon in its impact on X (Twitter)). That is a degree of government intervention in modern commerce that is pretty groundbreaking. We have all been somewhat surprised and perhaps disappointed by how much insidiousness has been evidenced in 2025 by all of these Mag 7 to varying degrees with their cow-towing and even courting of Trump’s commercially-driven policy machinery. The conflict of interest and influence peddling activity is at all-time record highs in this country and elsewhere and yet here is Australia, the “Land of Oz”, going its own way with self-righteousness, showing concern for their sense of society and the protection of the young minds in their society. This ranks right up there with China’s use of their public video monitoring system and its deployment for both avoidance of public harm and promotion of public good. Where does independent human rights and privacy intersect with the greater good of society as the government chooses to define it? I cannot imagine a thornier ethical issue. And the interesting thing is that it’s happening in Australia, which may be the only country that has been more fiercely independent as an historical cultural trait than the United States. Where we expect this from China, we don’t from Oz.
Now, in the Land of Oz, social media companies can face fines up to $50 million for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16 access, while there are no penalties for children or parents who violate the standard. Prosecute the prostitutes and not the John’s…interesting. The people are the victims and the big bad social media companies are the demons. That implies supply push rather than demand pull…which may be mostly correct, but is never 100% correct. Companies must use age verification technology (facial scans, ID checks) to prevent kids from sneaking past the filters…which adds to the quandary about who’s to blame here.
The rationale for this all comes from a government-commissioned study showing 96% of Australian children ages 10-15 use social media, with 70% exposed to harmful content including misogynistic material, fight videos, and content promoting everything from eating disorders to suicide. Officials framed it as protecting children from addictive algorithms and mental health harms. The controversy over that is quite animated. Supporters argue that this law protects mental health during critical developmental years, shifts responsibility for this detrimental affect from parents to tech companies, and, most importantly, that 77% of Australians support the law based on recent polling (and we all understand how reliable polling has become in the digital era…NOT!). Critics contend that the government rushed legislation and passed it without consulting affected youth (say, what?!), that this will push kids to even darker corners of the internet, and hinder young people’s expression and access to support networks. This obviously also raises free speech and privacy concerns left and right. Two 15-year-olds have already filed a legal challenge claiming it violates constitutional rights to political communication.
The government of Oz acknowledges that the ban won’t be perfect initially and that teenagers will find workarounds. Some kids have already reportedly fooled age verification by drawing on facial hair. That almost suggests that the unintended positive consequence is making our children MORE, not less creative! The platforms are supposed to continuously check for underage users, not just once, so presumably this will be a case of tech companies chasing their tails while the kids develop their hacker and deception skills by running through the legs of the social media police.
This is not just about the Land of Oz. Global impact can be anticipated and even Australia’s eSafety Commissioner called this “the first domino”, with other countries watching closely. Denmark and Malaysia are considering similar bans, and some US states have their own restrictions, though a federal ban seems unlikely given First Amendment concerns. And there’s the rub…is it liberal thinking Denmark that will get past the privacy/individual freedom issues, or is it not-so-liberal thinking Malaysia, which is considered a “flawed” democracy that is trying to break free of its 60 years of autocratic rule. It’s all essentially a massive experiment in whether government-mandated age restrictions can actually work in the internet era – or if it just creates a game of whack-a-mole with kids migrating to unregulated alternatives. It’s a pretty fundamental issue. The world seems to accept the value of limiting drinking and driving among youth, but messing with their media seems to be a much bigger challenge and goes to the heart of what it means to be a part of society in our new age…at least to Millenials and Gen Z folks. We found ways to control content on radio and TV in their day, but it is the true democratization that has come from the internet and the massive worldwide rollout of WiFi with which to access it via the smartphones that virtually every person beyond the age of 10 seems to (and actually does for the most part) have in their pockets that has exploded this issue to the proportions requiring the sorts of controls that Oz wants to attempt.
We have all long-since come to understand that unconstrained and unregulated content proliferation and dissemination via the internet has its challenges with humans of all ages. It may be testing our concerns about influencers of our children, but it is just as big a problem divining truth as shared information with adults. I have already said that there will ultimately need to be an arbiter of truth and that it should not just be driven by the loudest or mightiest. History may be written by the victors, but truth should be the province of all. We all have a right to know what is and isn’t truth and then to choose to follow its guidance or not. As adults we inhabit the presumption of free will, but as children, there is a strong argument that truth needs to be managed for us, not to invade our freedom, but rather to grant us the ability to adequately develop our sense of free will consistent with our forming moral codes. Like in the movie, the Wizards of Oz are well-intentioned and want to protect more than control, but that will not stop the debate from raging on, probably until some trigger event makes the answer culturally irrefutable.