In recent years, concerns about the potential harms of social media use by children and young people have intensified, leading to increasing calls for stricter regulation of digital platforms. Several jurisdictions have responded with legal measures; Australia has adopted one of the most restrictive approaches by prohibiting individuals under the age of sixteen from accessing social media. This paper critically examines the Australian model and demonstrates that, despite its protective intent, the approach suffers from significant legal and practical weaknesses. It argues that the disadvantages of a blanket ban outweigh its benefits, as the measure disregards the positive functions of social media, raises serious challenges of enforceability, and risks displacing children into less regulated and potentially more harmful online environments. In addition, unresolved concerns relating to privacy, autonomy, and other fundamental rights further undermine the legitimacy of the prohibition. Beyond identifying these shortcomings, the paper analyses alternative strategies aimed at improving online safety for minors in a more proportionate and effective manner. It argues that online environments should be made safer for all users through targeted, risk-specific measures rather than uniform prohibitions. Particular emphasis is placed on the better enforcement of existing rules and the introduction of enhanced mechanisms to prevent grooming and predatory behaviour. Furthermore, the paper highlights the importance of strengthening digital skills among children, parents, and caregivers, including through mandatory educational programmes such as an “online driving licence.” It would also be conceivable to strive for a paradigm shift and impose a digital duty of care on platforms.
Stephanie Volz (Sat,) studied this question.