Australia has already pulled the trigger on a kids’ social media ban. Now the rest of the world – including the UK – is arguing about whether that’s protection or overreach.
Australia’s new rules make most mainstream platforms effectively off-limits to under-16s. TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, X and others must use age-verification to keep children out or risk huge fines.
Early enforcement reportedly led to millions of suspected under-16 accounts being restricted, which served as a signal to other governments that this model is workable – at least on paper.
As age checks tighten, the real battle over platform control begins
Supporters of the social media bans see this as something that’s well overdue. They point to rising anxiety, self-harm and eating-disorder concerns, and to inquests where families say harmful content has intensified existing problems.
Their analogy is simple: if an offline venue was repeatedly linked to serious harm, we wouldn’t hesitate to keep children out. Social media, they argue, should be treated the same way.
As a result, the new “age wall” is spreading. The European Parliament has backed a higher “digital minimum age” and tougher rules on addictive design features such as infinite scroll and autoplay. Denmark is exploring an under-15s ban, while Malaysia and New Zealand are also working on laws inspired by Australia’s move.
In the US, more than 10 states have passed or proposed measures tightening teen access, though as a result, several have run into First Amendment challenges.
But the UK, which launched an official consultation on the matter earlier this week, starts from a different place. The Online Safety Act already gives its media regulator, Ofcom, power to force platforms to assess risks to children, filter out harmful content and implement age-checks, with fines that can reach 10% of global turnover.
Until now, the focus has been on making social media safer for children, not excluding children entirely.
That line is exactly what’s beginning to blur. Ministers are considering whether to go further – potentially copying Australia’s under-16 ban and limiting “doom-scroll” features – with Keir Starmer insisting that “no option is off the table”.
Grieving parents, wary creators and regulators battle over what “safety” really means
Several parents, including the mother of murdered teenager Brianna Ghey, are urging the government to act, arguing that harmful content worsened their children’s mental health and that platforms failed to intervene in time.
In a letter addressed to Starmer, Ghey’s mother wrote: “Brianna had a social media addiction and struggled with her mental health from the age of 14. She developed an eating disorder and was self-harming, and all of this was significantly exacerbated by the harmful content she was consuming online.”
Creators like Simon Squibb have also entered the widely-divided debate, warning of something darker in blanket bans.
In a post from early December, Squibb responded to Australia’s social media ban by calling it “an abuse of power” and “a desperate attempt for more control”. In his view, social media is “the most powerful tool for freedom that has ever existed”.
With just a phone and an internet connection, anyone can build an income, an audience and a life on their own terms – without needing permission from a boss or a government. He points out that a teenager vlogging their hobby can now reach more people than a boardroom of executives, and for him, that levelling of the playing field is the whole point.
Squibb, who curated tens of millions of followers and a seven-figure income from content within just one year, argues that instead of banning platforms, governments should be teaching social media in schools.
How to use it intentionally, how to create rather than just consume, how to build something you love and stay safe while doing it.
He’s since built a free “system” to teach others how to do the same, and even tied it to a cash giveaway and mentoring offer – a very creator-economy way of making his argument that social media is not just entertainment, but infrastructure for economic freedom.
One problem – two very different futures
Experts around the globe are split. Some child psychologists see adolescence and engagement-maximising feeds as a fundamentally bad mix, and argue that age-gating is a reasonable protective step.
Others warn that strict bans could drive teens onto less regulated platforms, increase family conflict and normalise intrusive age-verification systems that affect everyone’s privacy.
At one end lies the Australian-style model: draw a hard legal line at 16 and treat today’s social media as an adults-only space.
And at the other lies a more Squibb-like vision: redesign feeds, improve education and empower families and creators, while keeping the door open for young people to participate.
Overall, the UK’s latest move into the debate isn’t just about screen-time, but about what the future of social media creation and consumption looks like for generations to come. At the end of the day, the question is as simple as it is complex.
Are we willing to write young people out of today’s online culture – or are we equipped to build a version of social media they’re actually meant to grow up in?
