Last week, the Federal Government announced legislation banning children under 16 from social media. The bill, which now heads to the Senate for consideration, was tabled in Parliament in response to growing concerns over social media’s impact on youth mental health.
A growing body of research has found that adolescents who spend more than three hours per day on social media face double the risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes, including symptoms of depression and anxiety.
Studies have also linked social media to reduced academic outcomes, with a staggering 89% of teachers saying social media is having a negative impact on children’s reading habits. Three quarters (75%) of those surveyed in the Reluctant Readers study believe students who cannot read at an expected level will be ill-equipped to access the curriculum, impacting on their ATAR results.
How will a ban be enforced?
Currently, social media companies are meant to forbid children under the age of 13 from having access to their platforms, but research by the eSafety Commissioner shows 84% of children aged 8-12 have used at least one online service since the beginning of 2024, with nearly all 12-year-olds accessing social media platforms.
To address this, the Federal Government will trial verification technology next year and place obligations on social media companies to enforce the new rules and take reasonable steps to make sure under 16s do not access their platforms.
“We don’t want to put the pressure on parents,” Federal Education Minister, Jason Clare, told ABC Melbourne Drive’s Ali Moore last Thursday. “The intention is the reverse, to take the pressure off parents, and that there will be a one year implementation process.”
Minister Clare said legislation to implement the new rules will be introduced into the Parliament before the end of the year.
“If [social media companies] don’t take [the legislation] seriously, then there will be increased penalties that will be part of the legislation that we introduce,” he said.
What is the most effective approach?
Barney Tan is Professor and Head of School at the UNSW School of Information Systems and Technology Management (SISTM). He says any regulations focused on keeping kids safe online should focus on making sure parents are well-informed and have control over the digital spaces their kids’ access.
“By mandating transparent communication and genuine consent mechanisms, parents can play a proactive role in guiding safe and balanced social media use,” Professor Tan told The Educator.
However, demand-side regulations that rely heavily on controlling individual behaviour can be difficult to enforce, Professor Tan pointed out.
“Instead, regulations may be more effective if they are focussed on the supply side—requiring social media platforms to implement robust safety mechanisms and processes,” he said.
“This could include improved content moderation tools, age verification systems, and default privacy settings that prioritise child safety. By shifting the responsibility onto platforms, we create a more consistent and reliable structure for online safety, complementing parental involvement with systemic protections.”
How solid is the research on social media’s negative impact?
Researcher Samuel Cornell, a PhD candidate with UNSW’s School of Population Health, says research on the effects of social media and smartphone usage on children’s mental health and well-being “remains inconclusive and inconsistent”.
“Many experts in the field debate the extent to which social media is harmful for children’s mental health, and several children’s NGOs and academics who research children and digital technology strongly oppose imposing legal age restrictions on social media,” Cornell told The Educator.
“That said, my research suggests that social media can drive risk-taking behaviour among young people, incentivizing dangerous trends such as risky outdoor activities and imitating viral challenges that can be hazardous.”
Cornell said these challenges, like breath-holding games or the ice bucket challenge, have resulted in injuries and even fatalities.
“I believe that the physical risks social media poses haven’t been adequately discussed among academics or the public. The focus has largely been on mental health concerns,” he said. “For these reasons, I support placing age restrictions on social media use for children.”
Cornell said while this is “unlikely to be a perfect solution”, there’s also a need for educating both parents and children and expanding digital and social media literacy programs.
“However, given what we’ve observed, it seems disingenuous to deny that social media likely has harmful effects on children,” he said.
“On a broader population scale, placing age limits on social media use is unlikely to significantly reduce deaths or injuries linked to social media, as much of the risk-taking behaviour occurs among the 18–35 age group.”
However, Cornell said age limits are still “a meaningful step” toward protecting children from harmful and potentially dangerous content.
“I think, if anything, this is going to be a massive impetus for social media companies to clean up their acts, as, let’s face it, they are not going to like losing a big section of their market.”
The critical role of self-regulation
Neuroscientist Dr Ragnar Purje, Adjunct Lecturer School of Education and the Arts at Central Queensland University, says William Glasser’s Choice and Control Theories highlight personal accountability, asserting that students are responsible for their actions and decisions.
“These theories align with the broader educational goal of encouraging the development of independent critical thinkers who can hopefully develop the conscious capacities to navigate and overcome the immense multifaceted social challenges that will occur, especially outside of school environments and, most certainly, on social media,” Dr Purje told The Educator.
“By teaching students how to be consciously aware of their choices and the consequences of their actions, students can learn how to protect themselves and make decisions that will be in their best interests and their health and well-being.”
Dr Purje says Responsibility Theory and the Neuroscience of Self-empowerment complement this knowledge by offering insight and skills training into how they can learn to make constructive choices.
“Implementing programs that combine the tenets of Responsibility Theory with the practical applications of neuroscience can provide students with a robust framework for decision-making,” he said.
“The empirical evidence of Responsibility Theory suggests that students should have the potential to develop and reflect on their thought processes to understand the impact of their choices better and, with this, develop self-directing insightful strategies for the specific purpose of taking only positive actions.”
Dr Purje says this holistic approach has the potential to prepare students for the absence of immediate supervision so that they can equip themselves with the valuable skills of critical thinking to help them make constructive choices.
“Ultimately, the conversation about mobile phones in schools isn’t just about the devices themselves; it’s about preparing students for a world where they will constantly encounter choices and challenges,” he said.
“Therefore, it is crucial for students to understand the immense importance of personal responsibility as it is closely linked to academic success and life skills development.”
Dr Purje said research indicates that when students take ownership of their learning, they are more likely to set and achieve learning goals, believe in their ability to succeed, and exhibit initiative and self-direction.
“By integrating theories of personal responsibility and self-empowerment into the curriculum, educators can help students build a foundation of self-awareness, self-regulation and self-management that will serve them in the classroom and, perhaps most importantly, throughout their life.”