Social media is a vast landscape that is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate. Filled with limitless content and comprised of a variety of platforms, it requires the right tools and regulations to be successfully managed.
In November of 2024, the Australian Government passed a law called the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024. This Bill will enforce a mandatory minimum age of 16 on select social media platforms, beginning in December of 2025.
The ban may include popular platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, X, and YouTube.
Despite this Bill targeting young Australians, adolescents and their families will not face punishment for disregarding this law. Instead, the tech companies behind social media platforms will face fines of up to $50 million.
This new law is designed to protect the safety, wellbeing, and mental health of children, as the Government believes the risks of social media outweigh the benefits.
In the Parliamentary Library’s Bills Digest document, the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children is referenced. This study states that increased use of social networking sites is associated with increased symptoms of depression. The document also mentions that social media is known to have triggered eating disorders, bullying, and forms of self-harm.
Despite these claims, the document also contains opposing perspectives, such as social media amplifies rather than causes harm. It mentions that social media risks are heightened for children ill-equipped to handle complex situations, and that a teen’s response to social media is greatly influenced by the context of their upbringing.
In addition to this, excerpts from the document demonstrate the Government’s awareness of the potential ineffectiveness of a ban.
“There is limited evidence to suggest that a blanket ban to prohibit children from using social media is the most advantageous solution to addressing online harms.”
The Australian Government is aware of their far too simple solution, yet this ban will still be enforced.
Although a key reason for this ban is social media’s capacity to negatively impact mental wellbeing, the relationship between social media and mental health must be better understood.
According to research on screen use and mental health in adolescents by the Black Dog Institute, there is a definite link between poor mental health and social media use. Despite this certainty, the fact that there is a link is the extent of knowledge, even amoung qualified researchers.
The correlational evidence and data are strong, but the causation is unclear. Social media could certainly be the cause of many mental health issues, but existing mental health issues could also be the cause of increased and unhealthy screen use.
Dr Clare Watsford, a senior lecturer in clinical psychology at the University of Canberra, commented on teen mental health in relation to social media.
“Adolescents develop the part of the brain responsible for emotions and reward seeking [behaviour] before the part of the brain responsible for planning and decision making. This means that adolescents are particularly vulnerable to acting impulsively, seeking immediate gratification and having a high focus on social interactions. As a result, young people are susceptible to using social media platforms in an intensive, unhealthy, and impulsive manner.”
The road between mental health and social media is a two-way street; social media has the potential to cause or amplify mental health issues, but the social media habits of teens stem from their already vulnerable and developing brains.
In addition to the commentary made by researchers, the public and organisational backlash for the Bill has been significant.
Included in the Bills Digest, Senator Jacqui Lambie and House of Representatives Member Kylea Tink both stated that a ban is not the best solution for youth mental health challenges.
The Bill was also opposed in a letter from the Australian Child Rights Taskforce, signed by a variety of professors and researchers in fields relating to social media and mental health. The letter states that a ban is too blunt and will be challenging to implement. It also emphasises the benefits of online spaces, such as access to information, improved social and technical skills, and connection with others.
As part of the inquiry into the Bill, the University of Sydney made a submission stating that online communities can support wellbeing, as they enable social networking and promote a sense of belonging for those in minority groups.
In a submission from UNICEF, concerns over the short consultation period for this complex issue were raised, as well as concerns that children will lose access to essential wellbeing-related resources.
Evidently, the discourse and feedback surrounding the Bill is vast and complex. It is clear that social media is related to a decrease in mental wellbeing, but the full extent of this relationship is unknown, and social media can also be a great place for connection and resources.
The information presented in the Parliamentary Library’s Bills Digest also demonstrates the Government’s awareness of the benefits of social media and the bluntness of the ban.
Unfortunately, it is unclear why the ban was still proposed despite this awareness and the amount of contradictory evidence. If the Government’s concerns about children’s online safety are legitimate, there are much better ways they could’ve approached legislation surrounding social media regulation.
In an article by the Australian Academy of the Humanities, it is suggested that the focus should not be excluding children from online spaces, but instead protecting them within those spaces. It is also stated that the collection and potential commercialisation of children’s data should be minimised, and age-appropriate access on various platforms should be strengthened.
RMIT University also released an article discussing alternatives to a ban. Resources and support for parents and caregivers was suggested, as they play an integral role in helping their children establish skills for navigating the internet. It was also stated that many of the problems that arise online can be regulated by minimising children’s exposure to advertising and harmful interactions. This can be achieved through various mechanisms such as behavioural analytics.
In the University of Sydney’s inquiry submission, it was also suggested that education should be provided for parents and caregivers. This would encourage safe social media use and improve the ability of parents and children to balance the need for social interaction with safety concerns.
Overall, these various sources suggest that more effective solutions could have been resources for parents about online safety, better safety measures for children within platforms, and better education for children about safe social media use.
Despite these suggestions and the mountain of backlash, the ban is still going ahead in December of this year.
Dr Clare Watsford provided some advice for young people in relation to social media and mental health.
“I encourage them to diversify their social interactions to be in person and to open up to trusted adults to help them navigate the complexities of using social media.”
This advice can be applied to navigating the upcoming ban.
It will be essential for parents and caregivers to provide support for their children when the ban is put in place.
Adolescents should also focus on strengthening and relying on their real-life relationships. Having regular and meaningful social interactions can help replace the social connections that may be lost or weakened after the ban.
Evidently, the loss of social media is unfair, but Australian teens can adjust to this legislation.
Social media is a unique space that can foster social connections, but these connections can be made in real life too. So, get out there, connect with friends, and always reach out for support and guidance.
Original photos by Maddie Smith