No Scroll Zone – Why Australia Just Ghosted Social Media For Kids

Australia has made history (in a way).

It’s the first country to ban social media for kids under 16.
A sweeping law that’s earned the nickname “the sledgehammer approach.”
Supporters say it’s a necessary step to combat the mental health crisis among young people.
Critics (like me) argue it’s a blunt tool for a nuanced problem.

But here’s the real question:

Does banning social media fix the problem – or does it just push it elsewhere?
Under the new law, platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat must take “reasonable steps” to block users under 16.
Failing to comply could cost them fines of up to $45 million.

It’s a big stick.

But here’s the catch: the legislation doesn’t define “reasonable steps.”
This lack of clarity leaves enforcement as murky as the problem it’s trying to solve.
And with a government review of age-verification technologies not due until 2025, even Australia seems to be figuring it out as it goes.

The case for a ban:

There’s no denying the data.
A recent study found that 40% of teens who use social media struggle with sadness.
Teen girls are particularly vulnerable, twice as likely as boys to experience suicidal thoughts or be bullied online.
For many, social media isn’t just a distraction – it’s a daily source of stress.
The argument is simple: take it away, and you take away the harm.
But is it that simple?

The pushback:

Unintended consequences.
Forbidding kids from something doesn’t mean they’ll stop wanting it.
In fact, it often has the opposite effect.
Banning social media might drive kids to darker corners of the internet where protections are non-existent.

The platforms themselves have pushed back hard (obviously).

Meta and TikTok have called the law rushed and harmful, noting that it ignores advice from mental health and youth advocacy experts.
Then there’s the risk of oversimplifying the issue.

Social media isn’t all bad.

For isolated kids, it’s often a lifeline – a way to connect with like-minded peers, engage in activism, or access vital information.
Take it away, and you risk taking away the good along with the bad.

Is there a better way?

Instead of a ban, we need a more balanced approach.
Matt Hatfield, executive director of Open Media, suggests gradual education on social media use.
“Young people shouldn’t be completely off social media one day and thrown to the wolves the next,” he says.
Others (me raising my hand here!) argue that governments should focus on the root causes of harm: better mental health services, education, and content moderation.
It’s less headline-grabbing than a ban, but potentially far more effective.

Canada is watching closely.

The Online Harms Act, also known as Bill C-63, is already in its second reading.
If passed, it would create a regulatory body to enforce safety requirements across platforms.
It’s a far cry from Australia’s sledgehammer, but it signals a growing global appetite for holding tech companies accountable.

Accountability is a two-way street.

If we focus solely on regulation, do we risk letting governments off the hook for providing real support?

The bigger picture:

Social media has become the battleground for how we protect – and empower – our kids.
But banning it outright feels like using a chainsaw for surgery.
Yes, something (lots!) needs to change.

The question is: Are we willing to do the hard work to get it right?

This is what Elias Makos and I discussed on CJAD 800 AM. Listen in right here.

https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/1972712435

Before you go… ThinkersOne is a new way for organizations to buy bite-sized and personalized thought leadership video content (live and recorded) from the best Thinkers in the world. If you’re looking to add excitement and big smarts to your meetings, corporate events, company off-sites, “lunch & learns” and beyond, check it out.