The Great Firewall of Down Under: Why Australia’s Social Media Ban is a Dangerous Illusion

The focus must shift from restricting users to regulating the platforms. We do not ban cars because they are dangerous; we mandate seatbelts, airbags, and speed limits.

​The road to legislative hell is paved with good intentions, and the Australian government’s latest paving stone is the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024.

By banning social media access for anyone under the age of 16, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese claims to be tackling a genuine mental health crisis. He speaks of the “purgatory of comparison” and the “behavioural cocaine” of algorithmic feeds – concerns that any parent can empathize with. Yet, in attempting to shield their youth, the government, like governments all over has reached for a sledgehammer when it needed a scalpel. This ban is not just a logistical nightmare; it is a profound overreach that usurps parental autonomy and ignores the lessons of history.

​We have seen this movie before. In the 1930s, the United States attempted to solve the societal ills of drunkenness through the prohibition of alcohol. It was a spectacular failure. It did not stop consumption; it merely drove it underground, birthing the unintended consequence of organized crime and unregulated, dangerous liquor.

​Australia is now poised to repeat this mistake in the digital realm. The notion that a government can erect a digital fence around the internet that a technically savvy 15-year-old cannot vault over is, frankly, naive. In the age of VPNs, side-loaded apps, and encrypted networks, a ban does not delete the demand; it displaces it. By criminalizing the mainstream, they risk driving their children from the regulated, monitorable town squares of Instagram and TikTok into the dark, unmoderated alleyways of the web – digital spaces where parental oversight is impossible and safety tools are non-existent.

​More alarming than the technical futility is the philosophical angle this law represents. It is a direct undermining of parental autonomy. For generations, the family unit has been the primary arbiter of lifestyle behaviors and moral guidance. Parents know their children, and the nuances of living in a particular environment, best. They know when a child is mature enough to handle a smartphone, just as they decide when they are ready to walk to school alone. By setting a blanket age of 16, the state effectively declares that parents are incompetent. It strips them of the right to parent according to their own values and their child’s specific developmental needs.

​This is once again the classic “nanny state” overreach – a government attempting to legislate lifestyle. It treats 15-year-olds, many of whom are entering the workforce or the real world, with the same broad brush as 10-year-olds. It is age discrimination disguised as protection, criminalizing the digital existence of a group that uses these platforms not just for entertainment, but for connection, education, and identity formation. To cut them off with a total ban is to sever them from their modern means of interacting with the world.

​So, if prohibition is the wrong answer, what is the solution? We must demand more from the architects of these digital spaces without locking the doors.

​The focus must shift from restricting users to regulating the platforms. We do not ban cars because they are dangerous; we mandate seatbelts, airbags, and speed limits. Social media companies must be held to a statutory duty of care. This means “safety by design,” not safety by exclusion.

​Legislation should force platforms to turn off the “behavioural cocaine” for minor accounts. This means disabling autoplay, removing infinite scroll, and eliminating the “likes” metrics that fuel the anxiety of comparison. Algorithms should be retuned to prioritize chronological feeds over engagement-baiting rage and polarization. Default settings for users under 16 should be private, with strict prohibitions on data harvesting and targeted advertising.

The actions required from social media platforms should be similar to those that are not banned by the legislation! (Messaging apps such as WhatsApp, some ​Gaming platforms and ​Educational platforms such as Google Classroom and YouTube Kids)

Education before legislation - we need to empower parents, not replace them. Platforms should be required to provide easy-to-use parental controls that allow families to make their own decisions. If a parent wants to allow their 14-year-old to use a version of Instagram that has no algorithm and strict time limits, that should be their prerogative, not the government’s decision to forbid.

​The mental health issues among the youth is real, but banning the medium of their generation is “shooting from the hip” reaction. It is a placebo. It offers the illusion of action while introducing new dangers to privacy and rights. We need to teach our children to swim, not drain the ocean. Let us navigate the currents, let us define safe areas, put up warning signs and even install shark nets, let us manage the algorithms and the business models, but never ever permanently ban swimming in South Africa (metaphorically speaking) like they are doing Down Under.

Charl Heydenrych is a retired human resources practitioner and a libertarian.