Australia's Social Media Break: Parents Concerned, Teens Sleeping Better

Teenagers in Sydney Navigate New Social Media Restrictions

Woolwich Pier, one of the thirty docks connecting Sydney's riverfront suburbs to the city center, has become an unusual gathering spot this summer as teenagers engage in fishing. Fourteen-year-old Jamie D. shared that during the final week of his vacation, he has been arriving every morning. “I think I was sleeping better without watching TikTok and after the holidays I decided to come here earlier because the other docks are full,” he explained while juggling fishing rods and wiping sweat from his forehead. Although reducing his social media usage has improved his sleep, it has led to social challenges. Jamie noted, “I come alone because it's a hassle to meet,” mentioning how some friends have created new Snapchat accounts that he isn't allowed to use.

A Pioneering Law: Australia's Social Media Ban

This summer has been unconventional for many Australian teens following the implementation of a groundbreaking law on December 10 by the Labor Government. The law prohibits minors under 16 years old from accessing platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat. Violating platforms face fines up to AUD 49.5 million (approximately EUR 30 million) for failing to take “reasonable steps” to verify user ages and suspend minor accounts. By mid-January, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that approximately 4.7 million accounts had been deactivated across ten monitored platforms, including Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), and YouTube.

Impact and Implementation Challenges

In a statement made while visiting Queensland, Albanese acknowledged the challenges posed by the new law, saying, “We know it has been difficult for many. Any change is.” He emphasized that the summer has seen young people participating in outdoor activities like cycling and reading books instead of being glued to screens. Albanese further described the legislation as a point of national pride, sparking discussions in other countries like France, New Zealand, and Denmark about similar measures.

Despite this, many teenagers have found ways around the restrictions. Reports indicate that Sydney's docks thrived with young fishers, while different cities saw groups of teens invading golf courses or evading facial recognition controls on apps to create new accounts on platforms like TikTok and Instagram. Many continue to watch YouTube videos without needing to log in.

Ongoing Efforts and Criticisms

The Australian Government recognizes that it faces a long-term challenge with these laws. Digital Safety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant stated, “We do not expect that safety laws will eliminate all infractions.” Citing traffic laws as an analogy, she explained that the goal is not to limit youth access to technology but to protect children from predatory practices by social media companies.

Authorities have yet to release detailed statistics on the number of accounts blocked by each platform. However, Meta reported deactivating over half a million accounts belonging to users under 16, including 330,639 on Instagram, 173,497 on Facebook, and 39,916 on Threads. The company criticized the government's approach, arguing that it falsely assumes that preventing minors from having social media accounts would entirely eliminate exposure to algorithms.

Parental Concerns and Legal Challenges

Parental concerns have intensified, particularly regarding algorithm-related issues. Marie Easton, a mother from New South Wales, expressed frustration about her children's continued dependence on YouTube despite having stopped paying for premium services: “It's even worse. Before they watched everything they wanted without ads. Now ads for mobile games or betting sites pop up every two minutes.”

Meta's stance suggests that the law isolates vulnerable youths by preventing access to online communities and potentially directing them to less regulated platforms. This criticism has led to legal challenges against the government. Reddit has filed a lawsuit in the Australian Supreme Court, claiming that the restrictions violate adolescents' constitutional rights to political communication and asserting that its platform should not be subject to such regulations due to its nature.

The court is expected to address these significant legal challenges in the coming month.