WHAT’S the first thing that comes to mind when you hear a country has outrightly banned social media for kids under 16? Groundbreaking? Overkill? Welcome to Australia’s latest headline-grabbing move as it passed a law that forces tech giants to take “reasonable steps” to keep under-16s off platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat and X. Bold? Definitely. Effective? Let’s see. Parents everywhere are probably toasting this news with their morning coffee, finally feeling vindicated in their endless battles over screen time. But let’s be real—will a ban like this actually work?
Tech companies, for one, are in a full-blown panic. Sure, Australian kids might not make up a huge chunk of their user base, but it’s the domino effect they fear. If this works (or even if it doesn’t but looks like it’s working), other countries might jump on the bandwagon. That’s bad news for companies like Meta, that are already wagging fingers at Australia for rushing through this legislation. They argue they’ve already implemented safeguards. And honestly, don’t they sound just a little like a student insisting they’ve already done the homework, only to realize the teacher’s got a pop quiz planned? But let’s zoom in—how does this actually affect kids?
The law’s intentions are noble, sure. But history’s taught us something about bans like these: the forbidden fruit always looks juicier. Deny access to social media and teens might just go underground, finding sneakier, riskier ways to get their digital fix. Picture a 14-year-old with a VPN, smugly dodging age verification and tell me you’re surprised. And what about the unintended side effects? Social media isn’t all doom scrolling and filters. For many kids, especially those in isolated or vulnerable communities, it’s a lifeline—a place to connect, learn or simply feel seen.
Strip that away and you might end up isolating the very people you’re trying to protect. Suddenly, the risk isn’t just about what they see online—it’s about what they miss offline. Also enforcing this law isn’t exactly child’s play. “Reasonable steps” sounds nice on paper, but who decides what’s reasonable? And who’s stopping a tech-savvy teen from simply borrowing their older sibling’s phone? Spoiler alert: probably no one. Australia’s ban forces us to confront some tough questions:
How do we protect kids in a digital-first world? Who’s responsible—parents, governments or corporations? And perhaps most importantly, do we really believe teenagers won’t find a way around this? Fact is they probably will. For now, Australia’s experiment has the world’s attention. Will it inspire a global trend or will it be remembered as a cautionary tale of good intentions gone awry? Either way, one thing’s for sure—teens are probably already plotting their next move. Because if there’s one thing you can count on, its that nothing gets a kid to want something more than being told they can’t have it.
—The writer is contributing columnist, based in Islamabad.
