Australia bans social media for under 16s
Discussion
It's a waste of time and basically unenforceable. My 8 year old daughter has lots of friends with TikTok and similar whose parents are happy to sign in for them and complete any verification checks. Also many friends with unsupervised phones without parental controls who can just download whatever they want.
I'm all for the state staying out of people's lives BUT in the case of children, I think it's reasonable to impose some restrictions on freedoms (just as we don't let them drive, drink, get tattoos, etc.).
My personal view is that social media has, overall, had a negative effect on children and childhood, so I think the ban is a step in the right direction. Indeed, I'd go as far as to say that I'd probably even vote for Labour if they proposed something similar here (which is saying a lot, given the current state of the government!).
My personal view is that social media has, overall, had a negative effect on children and childhood, so I think the ban is a step in the right direction. Indeed, I'd go as far as to say that I'd probably even vote for Labour if they proposed something similar here (which is saying a lot, given the current state of the government!).
A fine idea in principle. I don't see how it can possibly work in reality.
It'll be eternal whack-a-mole with young folk latching on to the countless alternatives.
It would be infinitely more powerful to tame the content at source, but it's impossible to correctly identify what is rotting little minds and what isn't.
It'll be eternal whack-a-mole with young folk latching on to the countless alternatives.
It would be infinitely more powerful to tame the content at source, but it's impossible to correctly identify what is rotting little minds and what isn't.
There is no scientific evidence that the increase in yoof mental illness is caused by access to screens, social media etc. Maybe there is a connection, maybe there isn't. No one knows and anyone who claims they know either way is mistaken or a bulls
tter.
So, what to do? Assume there is a significant risk of a causal link and adopt a "precautionary principle"? Or suck it and see?
So far we've all gone down the "suck it and see" route, except now Australia is heading off in a different direction.
So at least someone is doing an experiment. By looking at what unfolds in Australia in the coming years we at least have a chance of seeing if the policy works and demonstrates a strong correlation between social media access and childhood mental health.
Personally this feels like a moral panic to me. People fear change and they like to look for simple, external things to blame when stuff goes wrong. E.g. "my child is ill becoz Facebook" is more palatable than "my child is ill becoz I've made some parenting mistakes".
One of the bits of data that doesn't seem to fit the social media casual theory is that the decline in childhood mental health seems to be much stronger in some countries than others, but there isn't much difference in the use of social media platforms between those countries. So why does social media access make you ill if you're an Australian child, but not if you're a German? That'd suggest the problem isn't social media, at least not in isolation.
tter.So, what to do? Assume there is a significant risk of a causal link and adopt a "precautionary principle"? Or suck it and see?
So far we've all gone down the "suck it and see" route, except now Australia is heading off in a different direction.
So at least someone is doing an experiment. By looking at what unfolds in Australia in the coming years we at least have a chance of seeing if the policy works and demonstrates a strong correlation between social media access and childhood mental health.
Personally this feels like a moral panic to me. People fear change and they like to look for simple, external things to blame when stuff goes wrong. E.g. "my child is ill becoz Facebook" is more palatable than "my child is ill becoz I've made some parenting mistakes".
One of the bits of data that doesn't seem to fit the social media casual theory is that the decline in childhood mental health seems to be much stronger in some countries than others, but there isn't much difference in the use of social media platforms between those countries. So why does social media access make you ill if you're an Australian child, but not if you're a German? That'd suggest the problem isn't social media, at least not in isolation.
I've been doing some work in schools recently, one of them is a SEN specialist place which is often quite a horrific place to be. One thing that all the teachers seem to agree on is that kids with access to phones and SM are worse behaved and greatly lacking in social skills.
What they do say exacerbates the situation is the number of parents with their faces stuck in their own phones paying the kids no attention.
What they do say exacerbates the situation is the number of parents with their faces stuck in their own phones paying the kids no attention.
ATG said:
There is no scientific evidence that the increase in yoof mental illness is caused by access to screens, social media etc. Maybe there is a connection, maybe there isn't. No one knows and anyone who claims they know either way is mistaken or a bullstter.
Dunno about mental illness. tter.I don't see how anyone could describe social media's effect on the world as a net positive.
Too late now whatever happens.
iphonedyou said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Good to see the State removing personal parenting choices because the State knows best.
The social media businesses can't credibly contend they weren't well warned. Every opportunity to clean up their respective acts.All for it. They're cancerous.
It's a knee-jerk reaction to blame the parents. There's an article in The Guardian today about Fista. Something new to me. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/dec/09/yout... META, it appears, ignored the wishes of the public and decided to continue harming children. Can't think of a more honest way of putting it. Eventually, after a considerable amount of time and effort, there has, apparently, been a slight change. It's not enough.
The Aussie action is not targeted against the rights of parents but an attempt to put pressure on the multi-national on-line giants who think they are too rich to worry about the concerns of parents.
It's a good move.
Of course children will still access social media sites but this does make it more difficult for them. As anyone who has been a child can say, you make stupid decisions at that age and some can cause significant damage. It can't all be dismissed out of hand by shouting 'hurty words' or blaming the parents for being feckless. It would seem as if many social media giants are targeting kids for their own purpose. Good on Oz for taking a stand. Further, there should have been no need for these social media giants, with their desire for more, to be warned that they need to behave responsibly.
ATG said:
There is no scientific evidence that the increase in yoof mental illness is caused by access to screens, social media etc. Maybe there is a connection, maybe there isn't. No one knows and anyone who claims they know either way is mistaken or a bullstter.
So, what to do? Assume there is a significant risk of a causal link and adopt a "precautionary principle"? Or suck it and see?
So far we've all gone down the "suck it and see" route, except now Australia is heading off in a different direction.
So at least someone is doing an experiment. By looking at what unfolds in Australia in the coming years we at least have a chance of seeing if the policy works and demonstrates a strong correlation between social media access and childhood mental health.
Personally this feels like a moral panic to me. People fear change and they like to look for simple, external things to blame when stuff goes wrong. E.g. "my child is ill becoz Facebook" is more palatable than "my child is ill becoz I've made some parenting mistakes".
One of the bits of data that doesn't seem to fit the social media casual theory is that the decline in childhood mental health seems to be much stronger in some countries than others, but there isn't much difference in the use of social media platforms between those countries. So why does social media access make you ill if you're an Australian child, but not if you're a German? That'd suggest the problem isn't social media, at least not in isolation.
There’s quite a lot of evidence in the mental harm social media causes, from body image issues to bullying and communication skills being eroded. tter.So, what to do? Assume there is a significant risk of a causal link and adopt a "precautionary principle"? Or suck it and see?
So far we've all gone down the "suck it and see" route, except now Australia is heading off in a different direction.
So at least someone is doing an experiment. By looking at what unfolds in Australia in the coming years we at least have a chance of seeing if the policy works and demonstrates a strong correlation between social media access and childhood mental health.
Personally this feels like a moral panic to me. People fear change and they like to look for simple, external things to blame when stuff goes wrong. E.g. "my child is ill becoz Facebook" is more palatable than "my child is ill becoz I've made some parenting mistakes".
One of the bits of data that doesn't seem to fit the social media casual theory is that the decline in childhood mental health seems to be much stronger in some countries than others, but there isn't much difference in the use of social media platforms between those countries. So why does social media access make you ill if you're an Australian child, but not if you're a German? That'd suggest the problem isn't social media, at least not in isolation.
I personally think this is a good thing and more should be done here rather than letting billionaires do the f
k that they want in damaging people and the environment provided they chuck their party donations in the right direction oddball1313 said:
There s quite a lot of evidence in the mental harm social media causes, from body image issues to bullying and communication skills being eroded.
I personally think this is a good thing and more should be done here rather than letting billionaires do the fk that they want in damaging people and the environment provided they chuck their party donations in the right direction
If you can link to some proper peer-reviewed research, please do. I personally think this is a good thing and more should be done here rather than letting billionaires do the f
k that they want in damaging people and the environment provided they chuck their party donations in the right direction I'm a layperson, obviously, but it's telling to me that the more expert the person being interviewed, the less confidence they have in their being any evidence for a causal connection. They say words to the effect of "there has been no research, so we just don't know."
Loads of people express sincerely held strong opinions on this stuff, but if you poke at it a bit, those opinions always seem to be rooted in suspicion and received wisdom, not evidence.
My primary concern is that there may well be a genuine deterioration in childhood mental health, but if we just assume without evidence it's caused by access to social media and it turns out we're wrong, we'll have left the real underlying problems unaddressed and let even more kids suffer.
ATG said:
If you can link to some proper peer-reviewed research, please do.
I'm a layperson, obviously, but it's telling to me that the more expert the person being interviewed, the less confidence they have in their being any evidence for a causal connection. They say words to the effect of "there has been no research, so we just don't know."
Loads of people express sincerely held strong opinions on this stuff, but if you poke at it a bit, those opinions always seem to be rooted in suspicion and received wisdom, not evidence.
My primary concern is that there may well be a genuine deterioration in childhood mental health, but if we just assume without evidence it's caused by access to social media and it turns out we're wrong, we'll have left the real underlying problems unaddressed and let even more kids suffer.
There is research out there readily available, from serious sources, that support social media having a negative effect on many teens mental health. However, none of the ample online reports suggest it is the only, or even prime, reason for the reported increase in mental health of young people. Nor is anyone on here suggesting it is the only reason. If you search for the most cited research and then check the methodology, you can make up your own mind, even as a layperson. If these experts you listen to dismiss the suggestion, saying we just don't know, then view the research yourself.I'm a layperson, obviously, but it's telling to me that the more expert the person being interviewed, the less confidence they have in their being any evidence for a causal connection. They say words to the effect of "there has been no research, so we just don't know."
Loads of people express sincerely held strong opinions on this stuff, but if you poke at it a bit, those opinions always seem to be rooted in suspicion and received wisdom, not evidence.
My primary concern is that there may well be a genuine deterioration in childhood mental health, but if we just assume without evidence it's caused by access to social media and it turns out we're wrong, we'll have left the real underlying problems unaddressed and let even more kids suffer.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff