Social media giant Reddit bites back after Australia’s under-16 ban
One of the biggest social platforms on the planet has taken Australia to the High Court over the controversial new ruling, as teens scramble to find loopholes.
When Australia’s under-16 social media ban was announced, the government billed it as a global first.
The decisive move was technically designed to rein in powerful tech companies and protect young people from online harm. For months, ministers praised the policy as bold, necessary and overdue.
But as the law is implemented, the practical reality is proving more complex.
With potentially millions in lost revenue at stake, social platforms have predictably rallied against the policy. In Reddit’s official response to the ban, two simple words stood out.
“Open platform.”
They capture the grey areas now emerging beneath the government’s revolutionary reform.
The legislation prevents children under 16 from holding accounts on designated platforms. It does not, however, shut those platforms off entirely from children. Public content remains accessible across much of the internet, and in many cases can still be scrolled, searched and viewed without logging in.
Reddit has been explicit on this point, making it no secret that it heavily opposes the Australian government.
While under-16s in Australia can no longer have accounts, anyone can continue to browse the site without signing up. Other platforms covered by the ban also allow varying degrees of logged-out access, from full video feeds to limited profile viewing via direct links.
The result is a policy that draws a clear legal boundary around account ownership, but leaves exposure, discovery and passive consumption largely intact.
Under the new regime, platforms must take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16s from creating or maintaining accounts. What counts as reasonable is left largely to the companies themselves.
While many detractors say it’s another step down the slippery slope towards mandatory government ID checks for internet use, they are not yet required. The government has emphasised that privacy-preserving approaches are preferred.
In practice, this has produced a patchwork of compliance methods. Platforms are relying on combinations of self-declared birthdates, automated age-prediction systems and selective verification for users flagged as underage.
Appeals processes are built in, and enforcement depends heavily on internal systems rather than external oversight.
Supporters of the law argue that perfection was never the aim. Reducing harm, they say, does not require eliminating every workaround.
But there are still deep concerns over cyber-bullying amongst children, with messaging apps remaining free to use for anyone with a smartphone regardless of age.
There is also the issue of new, fringe platforms emerging for teens without the government’s knowledge.
The commercial reality facing platforms also plays a role in this complicated new scenario. User numbers directly affect advertising revenue, engagement metrics and long-term growth. Any policy that removes a segment of users — even younger ones who perhaps spend less money on-platform — has financial consequences.
That gives platforms a strong incentive to retain as much lawful participation as possible. Logged-out browsing, delayed login prompts and continued access to public content all serve that interest, while remaining within the letter of the law.
Reddit’s position reflects this tension. While it has implemented age restrictions, it has also launched a High Court challenge, arguing the law is overly broad, infringes implied political communication freedoms.
The extremely popular online forum claims that the government wrongly categorises Reddit alongside platforms built around real-name social networking and algorithmic feeds.
The company maintains it is complying while seeking judicial review.
The policy has demonstrated Australia’s willingness to confront global technology companies and has attracted international attention.
But experts continue to question whether age limits alone address the deeper sources of digital harm. For some, the ban is a symbolic band-aid to the broader problems that persist and affect people of all ages.
Engagement-driven design, recommendation algorithms and attention-maximising features remain largely untouched by the legislation.
“The real question is not how old a young person is, but whether they are developmentally ready to navigate online environments that are designed to capture their attention,” Associate Professor at RMIT Vasileios Stavropoloulos said in a statement.
“Many digital products rely on reward systems that keep users engaged far longer than intended, these design choices are not accidental, and they disproportionately affect young people.
“Some of the most damaging digital impacts are invisible: disrupted sleep, compulsive checking and emotional fatigue that accumulate long before a crisis becomes visible.
“Content moderation alone cannot address the structural features that make online spaces risky; safety needs to be built into the design architecture itself.
“Australia has an opportunity to lead globally by anchoring digital safety reforms in rigorous, conflict-free evidence, when researchers and policymakers work together, we can shape digital environments that genuinely support young people’s wellbeing.”
