Australia positioned itself at the center of the international debate after passing a law that prohibits the use of social media by minors under 16 years old. The regulation, a world first, will require platforms like Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, YouTube, X, or Reddit to prevent the opening and continuity of accounts for users who do not exceed that age. The implementation will begin on December 10, 2025, and companies that do not comply will face million-dollar fines.
The measure was driven by the government of Labor leader Anthony Albanese, who has been working for months on a “child digital protection” agenda backed by parent associations, psychiatrists, and educators. The central argument is compelling: the country has recorded a sustained increase in levels of depression, anxiety, cyberbullying, and self-harm among adolescents over the last decade. For Canberra, massive exposure to social media content is directly linked to these indicators.
Behind the prohibition operates a political conviction: the state must be more aggressive towards tech companies that, with their algorithms, shape youth behaviors without proportional safeguarding mechanisms. The government argues that the psychological maturity required to navigate social media is not guaranteed in users aged 12, 13, or 14, and that the potential harm outweighs any “socializing” benefits.
The architecture of the veto: age verification, obligations, and limits
The law requires that platforms adopt “reasonable measures” to verify the age of each user. While it does not specify a single method —to avoid privacy violations or excessive state surveillance— it opens the door to verification systems through documents, facial recognition, or data cross-referencing. This point is one of the most controversial: ensuring that minors do not enter without establishing invasive mechanisms seems, to many specialists, a practically unsolvable challenge.
Additionally, the regulation requires the elimination or suspension of existing accounts of minors under 16 years old and the creation of agile reporting channels for parents to report suspicious cases.
The criticisms: freedom of expression, risk of isolation, and doubts about implementation
The social reaction was not homogeneous. Digital rights organizations and youth groups appealed the law to the Court, arguing that it constitutes a disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression and civic participation. They also argue that adolescents aged 15 or 16 actively engage in political debates, social causes, or climate mobilizations that are organized almost exclusively on social media.
Another concern is the social effect: for many young people, platforms are a space of belonging, friendship, and identity exploration. Without them, specialists warn, isolation could deepen, especially in rural communities or those with fewer recreational options.
The technical debate is also central. If age verification is weak, the law fails; if it is robust, it is likely invasive. And if adolescents resort to false identities, foreign accounts, VPNs, or alternative applications, they may end up consuming even riskier content, far from any supervision.
International impact: Australia as a model or a warning?
The Australian movement has already sparked legislative discussions in Europe and North America. France, the UK, and some states in the U.S. are analyzing similar restrictions, although no country has advanced with a total prohibition. The Australian case could become a global laboratory: if it works, it will set a trend; if it fails or generates unintended effects, it will be an example of overregulation.
For Latin America —where access to social media begins on average at 10 or 11 years old— the debate is already established. The challenge is to find a balance between freedom, protection, and digital literacy. Australia chose a drastic path. Time will tell if it inaugurates a new era of digital policies or if it exposes the limits of legislating against an uncontainable global ecosystem.
Comments