Kids’ social media ban ‘the most vital law on the planet’
When it comes to protecting kids from Big Tech, author Jonathan Haidt calls Australia’s social media ban for under-16s ‘the biggest game changer we’ve seen, period’. And it’s mums who drove it.
On December 10, Australia’s new law comes into effect, guaranteed to affect millions of households and families – its core provision being that designated social media platforms and companies will not be permitted to let Australians under 16 create or possess an account.
This will have a profound impact on young people, parents, families and schools. It is a large-scale social and technological revolution where Australia is leading the way across the world.
Success or failure in Australia will influence not just our own country but also shape how other democracies counter and mitigate the damaging consequences of the smartphone on young people – what Haidt in his 2024 book The Anxious Generation called “the rewiring of childhood”.
In that book Haidt identified four “foundational” reforms to save childhood from the malaise engendered by Big Tech with the social media ban for under-16s being an enshrining initiative. In the process he has become a global advocate for governments to act on his research-based analysis and conclusions.
In an exclusive interview with Inquirer Haidt says: “The Australian bill to have an age minimum, and have the companies responsible for verifying it, is by far the most important single piece of legislation ever enacted on planet Earth to protect children in the internet age. In a sense it is the first real piece of legislation to be enacted since everything else is fiddling with details.
“We need a global recognition that many of the things happening to kids online should not be happening and that social media is an inherently adult activity.
“Australia is the first country in the world that said: ‘We’re calling time on it.’ Your Prime Minister said: ‘It may be a rough transition but we’re going to do it.’ The proof of how important this is, is the fact that so many countries are now planning on following. The Australian bill is the biggest game changer we’ve seen, period.
The mothers’ revolution
“We are absolutely seeing a revolution. I have been calling it a mothers’ revolution because that is what has been driving it all over the world. Fathers care a lot, too, but it is mothers in every country who are already desperate to do something, who already feel their kids being pulled away. Wherever I look it is mothers or female legislators or the wives of male legislators who are taking the lead on this.
“Since the tech companies have profoundly alienated the mothers of the world, they have turned the mothers of the world into their enemies. That is arguably the most powerful political force in existence – mothers protecting their children. What I’ve seen from the beginning is that governors and heads of state are choosing to make this their issue. They are not being pressured into it. So many governors have reached out to me and my team in the first couple of months. It’s not pressure. They want to do this.”
Facing a constitutional challenge filed in the High Court and an inevitable degree of disruption and complaint when the December 10 threshold is triggered, Communications Minister Anika Wells told parliament this week: “Despite the fact that we are receiving threats and legal challenges from people with ulterior motives, the Albanese government remains steadfastly on the side of parents and not of platforms. We will not be intimidated by threats. We will not be intimidated by legal challenges. We will not be intimidated by Big Tech. On behalf of Australian parents, we stand firm.”
Building resistance
The selling point used by the Albanese government is that by lifting the age restriction from 13 to 16 this represents a delay, not a ban, to social media access, giving kids more time and maturity to build resistance; in effect, giving young people back their childhoods.
Haidt’s interview makes clear that Australia is the global focus of the campaign to turn back the corrosive impact of Big Tech that has seen Generation Z, born after 1995, become the collective test subjects for a remaking of childhood. He calls the worldwide acceptance of allowing kids to grow up on a smartphone “the biggest blunder we have ever made” in terms of child raising.
Asked about the criticism of his book and the critics of the Australian law, Haidt says: “We really don’t have a choice. The damage to children is so gargantuan. It’s not just mental health, the bigger damage is the loss of the ability to pay attention; we see test scores dropping, we see IQ dropping, so we don’t have a choice.
“But the wonderful thing is that the kids are actually not opposed. The adults seem to think the kids are going to riot, the kids are going to be furious about being separated from their phones. But what the kids are afraid of is not being separated from their phone, it’s being separated from the other kids.”
He says once everyone else is in the same situation, then acceptance comes much faster. Haidt says the pivotal aspect of the Australian law is making the tech companies responsible for validation. There are no penalties for under-16s or their parents who access an age-restricted account. The platforms face penalties of up to $49.5m if they refuse to take reasonable steps to implement the law.
“I am confident about the way incentives and flexibility is built into the Australian bill,” Haidt says. “These companies can do just about anything, given that they already know everything about all of us anyway.”
The opponents constitute a bizarre coalition but could be formidable. They range from the libertarian right, with its obsessions about censorship; parts of the progressive left offended by a blunt use of state power; the Greens; a range of independents; human rights lawyers; a stack of academics; polarised media critics from both the left and right; some child safety advocates; the Big Tech companies; and activist young people saying the law won’t work and that its bad consequences will outweigh its good intentions.
The High Court challenge comes from the Digital Freedom Project led by NSW Libertarian politician John Ruddick, who told Chris Kenny on Sky News his action was designed to secure an injunction to stop the law from becoming operational on December 10. Ruddick said he opposed the law because “kids will get around it” and it constituted “censorship of the internet”. The hearing is likely to focus on the implied right of freedom in political communication.
In his recent New York visit – where Anthony Albanese also had a brief meeting with Haidt – the Prime Minister signalled the social media ban was one of the defining goals of his leadership, saying: “It’s the right thing to do by children and it is the right thing to do by parents. It isn’t foolproof but it is a crucial step in the right direction. We know from experience that schools banning phones in the classrooms has produced real and positive results – both academically and socially.”
Political perspectives
Albanese said he had been deeply affected by the stories of girls and boys “so overwhelmed by what got to them through their social media accounts, they saw no other way out”. He asked: “In what world should a 14-year-old be exposed to sexual extortion? It is a wilderness no child should know.” Referring to the December 10 trigger, Albanese said: “We know the world will be watching – and we are glad to have you with us.”
While the original idea came from Peter Dutton as opposition leader and then was taken up by the Albanese government, the Coalition looked wobbly this week. The political temptation to exploit the transition difficulties and inevitable protests will be too alluring for many. The role of the media will be pivotal – whether it gives a loud voice to the complaints, notably those coming from young people, or whether it recognises the transforming principle in play: that in a liberal democracy Big Tech should not be able to control, damage and exploit the consciousness of young people for its financial gain.
Speaking to Inquirer on Thursday, Sussan Ley clarified the Coalition’s position: “We do support the social media ban because this was a Coalition initiative in the last term of parliament. We are very determined that it work in the real world. So we are not going to step back from holding the government to account to make sure it does work. It’s not good enough to simply put the rules out there and say if anything goes wrong it’s the big tech companies.
“I want to see the government stand up to Big Tech in the interests of kids. We know the tech companies are able to institute the required protections on their platforms. We will be watching closely to make sure the government ensures that they do.”
This is a different position from the confusion opposition communications spokeswoman Melissa McIntosh caused on Sky News on Wednesday when she was more aligned with the critics, warning there was a “high risk” of failure, saying as shadow minister she questioned whether the policy “is going to work or not” and declaring: “I don’t support the rollout of it or what the government has done.”
On Thursday morning McIntosh issued a clarifying statement saying “the Coalition supports the social media ban” and wanted it to work but had “genuine concerns about Labor’s implementation”.
The listed platforms subject to the law are Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Snapchat, Reddit, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube. The eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, will oversee enforcement and has warned the tech companies they need to adhere to the law if they wish to operate in Australia. The law specifies that companies must take “reasonable steps” to ensure kids under 16 don’t have an account, suggesting a degree of flexibility. The unknown question remains: How seriously will the companies take this legal obligation?
Haidt tells Inquirer the biggest feature of the social revolution since the release of his book has been the realisation that people can have agency. He says: “A big part of this revolution – the biggest single change – is dropping the sense of inevitability and despair. When my book came out a lot of people said: ‘Oh, come on, you may be right but it’s too late, the train’s left the station, you can’t put toothpaste back in the tube, the technology’s here to stay, what are you going to do?’
“Now everybody knows that’s not true. We can put toothpaste back in the tube if our children’s lives depend upon it. I think we are now looking at the role of technology in our children’s lives in a very different way with the sense of possibility now that was largely absent two years ago.
“I was in Paris in April and someone connected me to President Macron’s office and he agreed to see me on the spur of the moment. We had a 20-minute meeting. He told me France will act, that he will try to work through the EU, and if he can’t get it through the EU then he will do it in France.
Leading the way
“I am extremely concerned about the known effects of Big Tech on the US congress. The US congress had never been able to do anything, not a single thing – ever – to protect children. We can’t sue Big Tech, no matter what they show to our kids. No other industry has this. No other industry has been granted freedom from responsibility for the harms they are committing. But thank god for Australia. You are going first, you volunteered to go first. I know your team sees this as a process – that even if it’s not right on the first day they will get it right in a relatively short order. I know the Scandinavian governments are also considering this. Leaders correctly perceive there is very broad popular support and they are acting.
“This is already happening in the United States where several states have raised the age. The problem is that Meta and the other tech companies, they fund all kinds of ‘citizens groups’ that file lawsuits, and bills are being held up in the courts. What I hope will happen is that as many countries follow Australia, especially if the EU follows Australia, then I think the companies will pretty much have to do it globally.”
Polls over 2024 and 2025 reveal overwhelming public support in Australia for tougher action on social media. A late 2024 YouGov survey showed 77 per cent of people backed the proposed social media ban with only 23 per cent opposed.
In 2024 a Guardian Essential poll found 69 per cent supported the ban with only 14 per cent in opposition. Support within Labor remains strong with South Australian Premier Peter Malinauskas being the initial prime mover in the ALP for this action.
Elon Musk is an arch opponent, calling the proposed bans a “backdoor way to control access to the internet”. This prompts the question: will Donald Trump act on demands from Big Tech and retaliate against Australia because of the social media ban? Trump, obviously, is unpredictable, but Haidt is an optimist on this issue.
He says: “Donald Trump and JD Vance have shown that they are very focused on censorship, they are very upset about any government that tries to regulate content or that punishes people for tweets. So this is a major concern, except that on kids’ issues I haven’t seen any opposition. I have not seen any sign that the Trump administration is committed to keeping 11-year-olds on social media. I don’t see any sign the Trump administration is going to block efforts to protect children.”
Minister Wells has warned the implementation will be “really untidy” for months, a prudent precaution that probably understates the difficulties. There is apprehension within Labor about how some kids and parents will react. The message from Wells is the need for patient explanation to kids about the benefits inherent in the policy.
Scope for sabotage
The eSafety Commissioner has released advice for parents and kids. She makes the obvious point that because the policy won’t be 100 per cent effective that is no reason to oppose it. Young people often breach alcohol laws but that doesn’t mean such laws should be abandoned. But the scope for platforms to sabotage the policy shouldn’t be underestimated. For instance, platforms are expected to try to stop under-16s from using VPNs to pretend to be outside Australia. The eSafety Commissioner advice warns families that the restrictions may release a range of emotions among young people “including being upset, worried, frustrated, confused, sad or angry”.
The four reforms Haidt championed in his book are: no social media before 16, phone-free schools, no smartphones before high school, and more unsupervised play and childhood independence. He says the key to success is collective action: every parent who acts makes it easier for other parents to act. Haidt’s research has led him to reject the claim his solutions are radical, saying they would be widely welcomed by parents, kids and school principals.
He quotes Pew Research that a third of teens say they are on a social media site “almost constantly” – that’s about 16 hours a day – with 45 per cent saying it is “almost constantly”. This is a substantial period in which children are “not fully present” to what is happening around them. Surveys show high numbers of students being anxious “always” or “most of the time” with self-harm and suicide rates skyrocketing.
Asked about his critics, Haidt says some psychologists have been vocal claiming he confuses correlation with causation but the actual analytical work condemning him has been very limited: “What we are finding is that most people studying this actually do believe these things are hurting kids.”
Australia’s most influential global initiative in decades faces growing political assault at home but the intellectual architect of the social media ban for children under 16, American social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, says Australia’s law is what the world “desperately needs to do”.