Australia is banning social media for people under 16. Could this work elsewhere — or even there?

It is an ambitious social experiment of our instant in history — one that experts declare could accomplish something that parents, schools and other governments have attempted with varying degrees of achievement: keeping kids off social media until they turn 16.

Australia’s recent law, approved by its Parliament last week, is an attempt to swim against many tides of modern life — formidable forces like technology, marketing, globalization and, of course, the iron will of a teenager. And like efforts of the history to protect kids from things that parents depend they’re not ready for, the country’s shift is both ambitious and not exactly straightforward, particularly in a globe where youthful people are often shaped, defined and judged by the online corporation they keep.

The ban won’t leave into result for another year. But how will Australia be able to enforce it? That’s not obvious, nor will it be straightforward. TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram have become so ingrained in youthful people’s lives that going cold turkey will be challenging.

Other questions loom. Does the ban limit kids’ free expression and — especially for those in vulnerable groups — isolate them and curtail their chance to connect with members of their throng? And how will social sites verify people’s ages, anyway? Can’t kids just get around such technicalities, as they so often do?

This is, after all, the 21st century — an era when social media is the primary communications tool for most of those born in the history 25 years who, in a fragmented globe, seek the ordinary cultures of trends, music and memes. What happens when large swaths of that fall away?

Is Australia’s initiative a excellent, long-period-coming advancement that will protect the vulnerable, or could it become a well-meaning experiment with unintended consequences?

The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts. “It’s obvious that social media companies have to be held accountable, which is what Australia is trying to do,” said Jim Steyer, president and CEO of the nonprofit ordinary Sense Media.

Leaders and parents in countries around the globe are watching Australia’s policy closely as many seek to protect youthful kids from the internet’s risky corners — and, not incidentally, from each other. Most nations have taken different routes, from parental consent requirements to minimum age limits.

Many kid safety experts, parents and even teens who have waited to get on social media consider Australia’s shift a positive step. They declare there’s ample rationale to ensure that children wait.

“What’s most significant for kids, just like adults, is real human connection. Less period alone on the screen means more period to connect, not less,” said Julie Scelfo, the founder of Mothers Against Media Addiction, or MAMA, a grassroots throng of parents aimed at combatting the harms of social media to children. “I’m confident we can back our kids in interacting in any number of ways aside from sharing the latest meme.”

The harms to children from social media have been well documented in the two decades since Facebook’s launch ushered in a recent era in how the globe communicates. Kids who spend more period on social media, especially when they are tweens or youthful teenagers, are more likely to encounter depression and anxiety, according to multiple studies — though it is not yet obvious if there is a causal connection.

What’s more, many are exposed to content that is not appropriate for their age, including pornography and violence, as well as social pressures about body image and makeup. They also face bullying, sexual harassment and unwanted advances from their peers as well as grown-up strangers. Because their brains are not fully developed, teenagers, especially younger ones the law is concentrated on, are also more affected by social comparisons than adults, so even joyful posts from friends can send them into a negative spiral.

Many major initiatives, particularly those aimed at social engineering, can produce side effects — often unintended. Could that happen here? What, if anything, do kids stand to misplace by separating kids and the networks in which they participate?

Paul Taske, associate director of litigation at the tech lobbying throng NetChoice, says he considers the ban “one of the most extreme violations of free talk on the globe stage today” even as he expressed relief that the First Amendment prevents such law in the United States

“These restrictions would make a massive cultural shift,” Taske said.

“Not only is the Australian government preventing youthful people from engaging with issues they’re passionate about, but they’re also doing so even if their parents are ok with them using digital services,” he said. “Parents recognize their children and their needs the best, and they should be making these decisions for their families — not large government. That benevolent of forcible control over families inevitably will have downstream cultural impacts.”

David Inserra, a fellow for Free Expression and Technology, Cato Institute, called the invoice “about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike” in a recent blog post. While Australia’s law doesn’t require “challenging verification” such as an uploaded ID, he said, it calls for effective “age-assurance” that includes an array of ways companies can approximate someone’s age. He said no verification structure can ensure accuracy while also protecting privacy and not impacting adults in the procedure.

Privacy advocates have also raised concerns about the law’s result on online anonymity, a cornerstone of online communications — and something that can protect teens on social platforms.

“Whether it be religious minorities and dissidents, LGBTQ youth, those in abusive situations, whistleblowers, or countless other speakers in tricky situations, anonymous talk is a critical tool to safely test authority and express controversial opinions,” Inserra said. “But if every user of online platforms must first identify themselves, then their anonymity is at uncertainty.”

Parents in Britain and across Europe earlier this year organized on platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram to commitment not to buy smartphones for children younger than 12 or 13. This way costs almost no money and requires no government enforcement. In the United States, some parents are keeping kids off social media either informally or as part of an organized campaign such as Wait Until 8th, a throng that helps parents delay kids’ access to social media and phones.

This fall, Norway announced plans to ban kids under 15 from using social media, while France is testing a smartphone ban for kids under 15 in a limited number of schools — a policy that could be rolled out nationwide if successful.

U.S. lawmakers have held multiple congressional hearings — most recently in January — on kid online safety. Still, the last federal law aimed at protecting children online was enacted in 1998, six years before Facebook’s founding. In July, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation designed to protect children from risky online content, pushing forward with what would be the first major attempt by Congress in decades to hold tech companies more accountable. But the Kids Online Safety Act has since stalled in the House.

While several states have passed laws requiring age verification, those are stuck in court. Utah became the first state to pass laws regulating children’s social media use in 2023. In September, a judge issued the preliminary injunction against the law, which would have required social media companies to verify the ages of users, apply privacy settings and limit some features. NetChoice has also obtained injunctions temporarily halting similar laws in several other states.

And last May, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy said there is insufficient evidence to display social media is secure for kids. He urged policymakers to address the harms of social media the same way they regulate things like car seats, baby formula, medication and other products children use.

Said Scelfo: “Why should social media products be any different? Kids may try to get around the restrictions — just like they do for alcohol, tobacco or drugs — but nobody is saying that because they try, we should provide them unfettered access to them. Parents cannot possibly bear the entire responsibility of keeping children secure online, because the problems are baked into the design of the products. And so we require policies that hold large Tech accountable for ensuring their products are secure.”

___

Associated Press Writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this narrative.