On December 10, 2025, Australia rolled out a sweeping new law banning individuals under 16 from having accounts on major social media platforms, including TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), Snapchat, and more. The Guardian The Verge
Platforms face fines of up to $49.5 million if they continue allowing under-16 accounts. Reuters
The law is being framed by supporters as a bold move to protect kids from online harms: cyberbullying, predatory algorithms, body-image pressures, mental-health risks, and misinformation.
On the surface, the rationale seems socially responsible, but once you scratch the surface, what emerges is far more troubling.
Why This Ban Smells Like More Than “Protecting Kids”
1. It grants sweeping new surveillance powers and normalizes digital control
To enforce the ban, platforms must implement age-verification mechanisms that may include biometric scans, behavior- or pattern-based “age inference,” or document/ID checks. The Verge The Guardian
That means kids, or their parents, may be forced to disclose sensitive personal data just to prove whether they’re “allowed” to exist online. As critics warn, this kind of wide-scale data collection and scrutiny risks normalizing mass surveillance. Al Jazeera
2. It treats kids like liabilities rather than citizens, cutting them off from digital life
Under-16s are effectively being told: “You don’t deserve a voice, a platform, or a connection until you reach 16.” That removes access to a considerable part of social interaction, creative expression, and community, especially significant in an age where online spaces are often where young people find identity, support networks, and solidarity. The Independent
The ban risks isolating vulnerable youth, especially those who rely on social media for social connection, self-expression, or as a refuge from brutal realities. It doesn’t guarantee safety; it only promises silence. Many experts warn that it may push teens toward less regulated, darker corners of the internet. The Guardian
3. It sets a dangerous global precedent, at a time when big-tech control serves elite interests
The Australian government portrays the ban as a “world-first.” Still, several other countries (and even some U.S. states) have floated or begun enacting stricter age-verification laws for social platforms. Reuters+2The Verge+2
That makes the move less about protecting children and more about asserting state control over digital communication once we accept that governments have the right to dictate who can “speak” online and when governments or powerful institutions can enforce digital identity checks, that opens the door to broader suppression: political dissent, whistleblowing, minority activism, and youth protest.
The U.S. Complicity: Why America’s Silence (or Embrace) Should Worry Us
Whether through active cooperation or willful neglect, the U.S. and other Western governments have gradually drifted toward a parallel stance. In 2024, the U.S. passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), which targets certain foreign-controlled apps (notably ByteDance’s TikTok) on grounds of “national security.” Wikipedia
On paper, this is framed as protecting U.S. citizens, but in practice, it effectively enables platforms to be banned or blocked based on vague national-security criteria.
Meanwhile, U.S. states have, in some cases, pushed for age-verification or more restrictions on social-media access for minors, often echoing arguments about parental control and online safety. The Verge+1
What this signals is disturbing: when a government as globally influential as the U.S. stands by while another democracy erects sweeping digital bans and simultaneously tightens “security-based” regulation, it normalizes the idea that centralized control over the internet is acceptable.
In other words: we’re watching the erosion of digital freedom, under the guise of “protecting kids,” “national security,” or “online safety.” And major powers aren’t just silently observing, they’re tacitly endorsing it.
Who Actually Benefits, and Who’s Getting Silenced
- Elite institutions, governments, and legacy media benefit. A younger generation shut out of open social networks is easier to control, less likely to organise en masse, and more likely to accept official narratives.
- Big Tech companies may publicly complain, but many will comply, shifting to alternative revenue models and new platforms, while still controlling the flow of information.
- The state of legitimate youth expression, grassroots activism, and dissent suffers. The ban doesn’t protect vulnerable youth; it censors them. It denies them a platform at a crucial stage in development, when identity, community, and self-expression matter most.
At best, the ban is a heavy-handed, one-size-fits-all “solution” for a complex social problem. At worst, it is a precedent for government-backed digital repression.
What We Should Ask, and Resist, as This Spreads Globally
- Is “under-16” really a safe cutoff? Or is this just an arbitrary threshold convenient for bureaucratic control?
- Could regulation be done more thoughtfully, e.g., through better algorithm transparency, content moderation, and education, rather than outright banning?
- What happens if the list of banned platforms expands, or if governments demand age verification for adult users, too? Once we allow digital ID and surveillance infrastructure, there’s no clear end.
- Will kids and young people still find ways to carve out spaces online, outside the mainstream? If so, those spaces may be far more dangerous and unregulated than the platforms we know now.
Conclusion: A Dangerous Path Dressed as Protection
Yes, we should care about the mental health and safety of young people, especially online. But the decision by the Australian Government isn’t just about safety: it’s about control.
By silencing under-16s, mandating age verification, normalizing digital surveillance, and giving governments the power to decide who gets to be online, this law goes beyond protecting kids. It sets a global precedent that treats the internet not as a public commons or vibrant public square, but as a managed, gated zone controlled by states and corporations.
If the United States and other powerful nations look the other way, or quietly cheer, that’s complicity. Because what’s happening in Australia today could easily become tomorrow’s norm elsewhere. And when we allow governments to determine who gets to speak, who gets to connect, and at what age, we’re building a digital world that prioritises compliance over community, silence over expression, and control over connection.
