The Australian Digital Crossing
An Analysis of the Social Media Minimum Age Legislation
Executive Summary
Information is correct as of 3 December 2025
On November 29, 2024, the Australian Parliament passed the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, a legislative instrument that fundamentally alters the digital contract between the state, technology corporations, and the citizenry. Mandating a minimum age of 16 for access to “age-restricted social media platforms,” the Act positions Australia at the vanguard of a global regulatory movement seeking to reclaim childhood from the perceived encroachments of the algorithmic attention economy. Scheduled for full enforcement on December 10, 2025, following a twelve-month implementation period, this legislation represents one of the most aggressive state interventions into the digital sphere in the history of the internet.
The legislation is predicated on a growing consensus—both political and increasingly clinical—that the unchecked proliferation of smartphone-based social media has correlated with a precipitous decline in youth mental health. However, the policy is not without significant detractors. Critics argue that the “ban” is a blunt instrument that risks isolating vulnerable youth, creating privacy “honeypots” through mandatory age verification, and degrading digital literacy by driving usage underground.
This report offers an exhaustive analysis of the legislation, exploring its operational mechanics, the sociological debates driving its adoption, and the probable positive and negative externalities. It further examines the technical feasibility of enforcement in an era of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and encryption, and concludes with a strategic framework for parents navigating this transition. As the world watches this “social experiment,” Australia serves as the canary in the coal mine for the future of global internet governance.
Part I: The Legislative Framework and Operational Mechanics
1.1 The Architecture of the Online Safety Amendment Act 2024
The legislative vehicle for this ban is an amendment to the Online Safety Act 2021, a strategic decision that places enforcement power within the existing remit of the eSafety Commissioner. The Act introduces a new category of regulated entity: the “age-restricted social media platform.” For these designated services, the law is absolute: they must take “reasonable steps” to prevent individuals under the age of 16 from holding an account.
Crucially, the legislation targets the supply side of the digital equation. There are no penalties for children who manage to circumvent the ban, nor for parents who facilitate such circumvention. The punitive focus is entirely on the corporate entities, with systemic breaches attracting civil penalties of up to AUD $49.5 million. This liability structure is designed to force a fundamental redesign of user onboarding processes, shifting the cost of compliance from the family unit to the platform operator.
The timeline for implementation is aggressive. The Act received Royal Assent on December 10, 2024, triggering a one-year countdown. By December 10, 2025, platforms must have robust age assurance systems operational, or face immediate sanctions.
1.2 Defining the “Social” in Social Media
One of the most contentious aspects of the legislation has been the definition of what constitutes a banned platform. The Act avoids a static “black list,” opting instead for a definitional framework to future-proof against new entrants. A service is deemed age-restricted if it meets three criteria:
Social Interaction: Its sole or significant purpose is to enable social interaction between two or more end-users.
Connectivity: It allows end-users to link to or interact with some or all other end-users.
Content Creation: It allows end-users to post material on the service.
This broad definition captures the giants of the industry—TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, X (formerly Twitter), and Reddit. However, the inclusion of YouTube sparked intense debate. Google argued that YouTube is primarily a content library or educational resource rather than a social network. The government rejected this, pointing to the platform’s algorithmic recommendation engines and social features (comments, likes, community posts) as vectors for the very harms the bill seeks to mitigate.
Conversely, the Minister for Communications exercised the power to exempt specific classes of services, creating a complex regulatory topography.
Table 1: Regulatory Status of Major Digital Platforms
| Platform Category | Regulatory Status | Included Platforms (Examples) | Rationale for Classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social Networking | Banned | Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Threads, X | Primary function is social connection and algorithmic content dissemination; high risk of "addictive" loops. |
| Video Streaming | Banned | YouTube, Twitch, Kick | Interactive features and algorithmic feeds classify these as social media despite "library" arguments. |
| Messaging | Exempt | WhatsApp, Messenger, Signal, SMS | Considered essential communication infrastructure; distinct from "broadcasting" to an audience. |
| Gaming | Exempt | Roblox, Minecraft Online, Steam Chat | Primary purpose is gameplay; social interaction is incidental to the gaming experience. |
| Community Chat | Exempt | Discord | Successfully argued that its architecture (private servers vs. public feed) aligns more with messaging than social media. |
| Education/Health | Exempt | Google Classroom, Headspace, Kids Helpline, YouTube Kids | Services providing essential educational or health support are protected to prevent collateral damage to youth welfare. |
| Professional | Exempt | Low risk of harm to minors; professional networking focus. |
The exemption of Discord is particularly notable. While it functions as a social hub for millions of gamers, its architecture—based on semi-private “servers” rather than an infinite public scroll—allowed it to escape the definition of a “social media platform” under the current rules. This creates a potential migration pathway for youth seeking digital connection, a phenomenon discussed later in this report.
1.3 The “Reasonable Steps” Standard and Enforcement
The Act does not mandate a specific technology for age verification (e.g., uploading a passport). Instead, it requires platforms to take “reasonable steps” to determine the age of their users. The definition of “reasonable” is determined by the eSafety Commissioner and was outlined in regulatory guidance released in September 2025.
This guidance adopts a risk-based approach. “Reasonable steps” for a massive platform like Instagram, which possesses vast data processing capabilities and high-risk content, will be more stringent than for a smaller, niche forum. The guidance emphasizes that age assurance can be achieved through multiple methods:
Age Verification (Hard ID): Checking government-issued ID (passport, driver’s license). This is high-certainty but high-friction and privacy-invasive.
Facial Age Estimation: Using AI to analyse a live selfie to estimate age. This preserves anonymity (as the image is deleted instantly) but has margins of error.
Age Inference: Analysing behavioural data (vocabulary, network connections, app usage) to infer age. This is less intrusive at the point of entry but requires invasive ongoing surveillance of user behaviour.
The eSafety Commissioner has clarified that a simple “tick box” self-declaration is no longer considered a reasonable step. Furthermore, the government has mandated that platforms cannot rely solely on government ID, acknowledging that many 14-year-olds do not possess such documents and that forcing them to do so would create equity issues.
Part II: The Sociological and Political Drivers
2.1 The “Anxious Generation” Hypothesis
The political will to enact such sweeping legislation is rooted in a profound shift in the public understanding of youth mental health. The government’s rhetoric heavily borrows from the “Anxious Generation” hypothesis, popularised by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. This theory posits that the “Great Rewiring” of childhood—which occurred roughly between 2010 and 2015 with the ubiquity of the smartphone and the front-facing camera—has directly caused the global surge in adolescent anxiety, depression, and self-harm.
Haidt and supporters argue that social media platforms are not neutral tools but are engineered with “dark patterns”—intermittent variable rewards, infinite scroll, and social quantification (likes/views)—that hijack the dopaminergic pathways of the developing brain. By raising the minimum age to 16, the government aims to protect children during a critical window of neuroplasticity, effectively delaying their entry into the “attention economy” until they possess greater cognitive maturity and impulse control.
2.2 The Political Consensus and the “36 Months” Campaign
The legislation enjoys rare bipartisan support, driven by the “36 Months” campaign which advocated for delaying social media use from 13 to 16. This movement reframed the issue from one of “digital literacy” to one of “product safety.” Just as the state restricts access to alcohol, tobacco, and gambling due to their inherent risks to minors, proponents argue that algorithmic social media is a dangerous consumer product that requires age-gating.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese explicitly framed the ban as a measure to return childhood to the physical world: “We want our kids off their devices and onto the footy fields and the netball courts and the swimming pools”. This “displacement theory”—that time spent on screens is time stolen from healthy developmental activities—resonates deeply with an electorate of parents exhausted by the daily battle over screen time.
2.3 Counter-Narratives: The Lack of Causal Consensus
Despite the political momentum, the scientific community remains divided. Organisations like the Black Dog Institute, Headspace, and Beyond Blue—Australia’s leading mental health bodies—have expressed scepticism regarding the ban. They argue that the evidence linking social media to mental health declines is correlational, not causal. It is unclear whether social media causes depression, or if depressed teens spend more time on social media.
Furthermore, these organisations warn that a blanket ban ignores the complexity of adolescent life. For many young people, social media is a source of connection, support, and information. Removing it entirely could cut off lifelines for at-risk youth, a concern that the government’s broad-brush approach largely dismisses in favour of a precautionary principle.
Part III: Projected Positive Effects
3.1 Disruption of Algorithmic Feedback Loops
The most significant probable benefit is the interruption of harmful algorithmic targeting. Platforms like TikTok and Instagram rely on “interest graphs” to serve content. For a vulnerable teenager, this can quickly spiral into “pro-ana” (anorexia), self-harm, or extremist content pipelines. By legally preventing under-16s from holding accounts, the legislation stops the platforms from building these personalised data profiles. Even if a teen accesses content (e.g., on a signed-out device), the lack of a logged-in profile prevents the algorithm from “learning” their vulnerabilities and exploiting them for engagement.
3.2 De-normalisation and Parental Empowerment
Legislation performs a normative function. Currently, parents face immense pressure to allow social media use because “everyone else has it.” The ban provides parents with a powerful external authority—”it’s against the law”—to resist this pester power.26Over time, this could shift the cultural window, making 16 the socially accepted entry point for social media, much like 18 is for alcohol. This “collective action” solution solves the prisoner’s dilemma where no single parent wants their child to be the only one excluded.
3.3 Mitigation of Online Grooming and Extortion
Social media platforms are the primary hunting grounds for sexual predators. The eSafety Commissioner has highlighted the rise of “sextortion,” where predators coerce minors into sending explicit images and then blackmail them. By removing the profile-based presence of under-16s from these public platforms, the legislation drastically reduces the “attack surface” available to predators. While predators may migrate to gaming chats, the sheer scale of access provided by open social networks is curtailed.
Part IV: Projected Negative Impacts and Unintended Consequences
4.1 The “Signed-Out” Paradox: Degradation of Safety Tools
A critical, unintended consequence of the legislation is the degradation of existing safety features. YouTube’s response to the ban illustrates this perfectly. To comply with the law, Google announced that all users under 16 would be automatically signed out of YouTube. While this achieves the goal of preventing data collection and account creation, it also disables Restricted Mode, parental supervision tools (Family Link), and content curation.
In a signed-out state, a child is navigating the “raw” version of the platform. Parents cannot block specific channels or monitor watch history because these features require an account. As a result, the “ban” may lead to a less supervised online environment, where children are exposed to the full spectrum of content without the digital guardrails parents previously relied upon. This “compliance by degradation” forces parents to rely on blunt device-level blocking rather than nuanced platform-level supervision.
4.2 The “Splinternet” and Underground Migration
History suggests that prohibition often drives activity underground. There is a high probability that Australian teens will migrate to platforms that are either exempt (like Discord) or non-compliant/offshore.
Discord Migration: Discord, while exempt, poses its own risks. It hosts thousands of unmoderated, private servers where extreme content and grooming can occur away from the public eye. The ban may simply shift the location of risk from the “public square” of Instagram to the “private rooms” of Discord.
The Rise of “Alt-Tech”: Teens may flock to newer, less regulated apps that lack the safety infrastructure of Meta or Google. The surge in interest for apps like Lemon8 (before it also committed to the ban) demonstrates the fluidity of the youth market.
4.3 Social Isolation and the “Town Square” Deficit
For the modern adolescent, social media is not merely a pastime; it is the primary venue for social organisation and cultural participation. A 15-year-old plaintiff, Noah Jones, who filed a legal challenge against the ban, argued that social media is the “modern-day town square”. Exclusion from this square means exclusion from peer groups, cultural discourse, and social arrangements.
This isolation is likely to be felt most acutely by marginalised groups. LGBTQIA+ youth, particularly in rural or unsupportive households, often rely on online communities for identity formation and support. Indigenous youth in remote communities also use these platforms for cultural connection and storytelling. Cutting these digital lifelines could exacerbate feelings of alienation and loneliness, counteracting the mental health benefits the ban aims to achieve.
4.4 Privacy Risks: The “Honeypot” Problem
To enforce the ban, platforms must verify age. This necessitates the collection of sensitive identity documents or biometric data on a massive scale. Privacy advocates and the Human Rights Law Centre warn that this creates massive “honeypots” of data—databases linking real-world identities (passports, faces) to online profiles.
Given the frequency of data breaches in the tech sector, there is a legitimate fear that this data could be compromised. A breach at a third-party age verification provider could expose the identities of millions of Australian minors. Furthermore, the need for “age inference” may incentivise platforms to engage in even more invasive surveillance of user behaviour to detect “child-like” patterns, effectively reducing privacy for all Australian users, adults included.
4.5 Economic Impact on the Creator Economy
The ban represents a significant economic shock to the youth creator economy. Thousands of Australian teenagers earn income or build careers through content creation on TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram. The ban effectively de-platforms this demographic, destroying their businesses and audiences overnight. This not only impacts current income but also removes a pathway for digital entrepreneurship. Agencies and brands will likely pull ad spend from the Australian youth demographic, and young influencers may be forced to look for workarounds or abandon their burgeoning careers.
Part V: Technical Feasibility and the “Arms Race”
5.1 The Limits of Age Assurance Technology
The effectiveness of the ban rests on the “Reasonable Steps” taken by platforms. However, the technology is imperfect. The eSafety Commissioner’s own trials found that while age estimation is improving, it is not infallible.
False Positives: Facial estimation can struggle with different ethnicities and younger faces, potentially blocking eligible young adults or allowing older-looking children.
The “Buffer Zone”: To avoid fines, platforms may set conservative buffer zones (e.g., blocking anyone who looks under 18 or 20), creating access barriers for young adults.
5.2 The VPN Circumvention Loophole
A glaring technical loophole is the use of Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). A tech-savvy teen can use a VPN to route their traffic through a country without age restrictions (e.g., the US or UK), thereby bypassing the Australian ban.
While the government has suggested that “reasonable steps” might include blocking known VPN IP addresses, this leads to a game of whack-a-mole. Commercial VPNs constantly cycle IP addresses to evade such blocks (as seen with Netflix). Furthermore, blocking VPNs would cause significant collateral damage to businesses and privacy-conscious adults who use VPNs for legitimate security purposes. The consensus among cybersecurity experts is that while the ban will filter out the compliant majority, it will not stop the determined minority.
Part VI: International Context: A Global Precedent?
Australia’s “hard ban” stands in contrast to other global approaches.
France: Attempted a “digital majority” at 15 but allowed a parental consent override. Technical enforcement failed, and the law has been largely ineffective.
United States: States like Florida and Utah passed similar bans, but these have been bogged down in federal courts over First Amendment challenges. Australia, lacking a constitutional bill of rights protecting free speech, faces fewer legal hurdles, allowing it to implement a stricter regime.
European Union: The GDPR sets a “digital age of consent” (ranging from 13-16), but this generally refers to data collection consent, not a total access ban.
If the Australian model proves successful—meaning high compliance and manageable political backlash—it is highly likely that the UK and potentially Canada will follow suit. However, if it results in a “Splinternet” of VPN usage and underground apps, it may serve as a cautionary tale.
Part VII: Strategic Guidance for Parents and Guardians
While the legal onus is on Big Tech, the practical burden of managing this transition falls on families. The period leading up to December 2025 will be one of friction and adjustment.
7.1 Managing the “Digital Sunset”
Parents should view the next 12 months as a “digital sunset” for their under-16s’ social media accounts.
Data Preservation: Encourage children to use the “Download Your Information” tools on Instagram, TikTok, and Snapchat. This preserves their memories, photos, and chat logs, softening the psychological blow of losing the account.
Migration Strategy: Actively help children move their social groups to exempt platforms. Setting up group chats on WhatsApp or Signal ensures they remain connected with friends without the algorithmic risks of social media.
7.2 Handling the “Signed-Out” YouTube Environment
With YouTube’s parental controls disabled by the signed-out mode, parents must revert to device-level controls.
Device-Level Blocking: Use Apple’s Screen Time or Google’s Family Link at the operating system level to restrict access to the YouTube app or browser if the signed-out content is deemed too risky.
Physical Oversight: Return to the practice of keeping screens in shared family spaces. Without software filters, physical presence becomes the primary safety tool.
7.3 Addressing the “FOMO” and Conflict
Expect significant resistance. For a teen, this ban feels like a revocation of civil rights.
Unified Front: Use the law as a shield. Explain that this is not a parental rule but a federal law. This removes the parent-child conflict dynamic (“I can’t give you permission; the company will delete the account”).
Digital Literacy: The ban is not a cure-all. Children will still be online. Continue conversations about scams, misinformation, and critical thinking, as these risks exist even on exempt platforms and the open web.
Conclusion
The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 is a watershed moment in the history of the internet. It represents a definitive rejection of the “user responsibility” model in favor of a “product safety” model, asserting that the harms of algorithmic social media are intrinsic and cannot be managed by individuals alone.
Whether this bold social experiment succeeds will depend on the interplay of technical enforcement, adolescent adaptability, and parental engagement. While it promises to shield a generation from the worst excesses of the attention economy, it also threatens to fragment the digital experience, creating new risks of exclusion and surveillance. As December 2025 approaches, Australian families stand at the threshold of a new, albeit restricted, digital frontier.
Works cited
1. Social media ban in Australia | A simple guide - UNICEF Australia, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.unicef.org.au/unicef-youth/staying-safe-online/social-media-ban-explainer
2. Online Safety Amendment - Wikipedia, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Safety_Amendment
3. Debate: Social media in children and young people – time for a ban? Beyond the ban – empowering parents and schools to keep adolescents safe on social media, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12573062/
4. Social media bans distract from the real issue - Digital Child, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://digitalchild.org.au/social-media-bans-distract-from-the-real-issue/
5. Human Rights Explainer Proposed Social Media Ban for Under-16s in Australia, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-11/AHRC_Social-Media-Ban-Explainer.pdf
6. Safeguarding or overstepping? Australia’s social media ban for under 16s | Australian Human Rights Institute - UNSW Sydney, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.humanrights.unsw.edu.au/students/blogs/australia-social-media-ban-under-16s
7. New study tracks effects of world first social media ban on teens, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.mcri.edu.au/news/news-stories/new-study-tracks-effects-of-world-first-social-media-ban-on-teens
8. Australia is banning children under 16 from social media: Here’s what happens now, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/social/australias-social-media-ban-for-children-under-16-explained-10395791/
9. Australia social media ban: when is it, how will it work and what apps are being banned for under-16s? - The Guardian, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/dec/03/social-media-ban-or-delay-australia-list-under-16-explainer-guide-when-what-apps-included-getting-banned
10. Social media reforms to protect our kids online pass Parliament | Prime Minister of Australia, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.pm.gov.au/media/social-media-reforms-protect-our-kids-online-pass-parliament
11. Social media minimum age | Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/media-communications/internet/online-safety/social-media-minimum-age
12. YouTube says it will comply with Australia’s under-16s social media ban, with Lemon8 to also restrict access, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/dec/02/australian-children-moving-to-new-social-app-lemon8-but-owner-expected-to-restrict-users-to-over-16s
13. YouTube to follow Australia’s teen social media ban, confirms company, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/youtube-to-follow-australias-teen-social-media-ban-confirms-company/articleshow/125733678.cms
14. Australia’s under 16s social media ban could extend to Reddit, Twitch, Roblox and even dating apps - The Guardian, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/sep/24/australia-under-16-social-media-ban-could-extend-reddit-twitch-roblox-lego-play-steam-dating-apps
15. Regarding U16 Law for social media : r/AskAnAustralian - Reddit, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAustralian/comments/1h63lxj/regarding_u16_law_for_social_media/
16. Reddit targeted by Australia’s under-16s social media ban as list of platforms grows, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1oo51et/reddit_targeted_by_australias_under16s_social/
17. “Reasonable Steps” under Part 4A of the Online Safety Act 2021 (Cth): eSafety Commissioner Guidance and Implications, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.twobirds.com/en/insights/2025/australia/reasonable-steps-under-part-4a-of-the-online-safety-act-2021
18. Social Media Minimum Age Regulatory Guidance - eSafety Commissioner, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-09/eSafety-SMMA-Regulatory-Guidance.pdf?v=1760659200060
19. EXPERT REACTION: Age verification trial results to enable kids’ social media ban - Scimex, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/expert-reaction-age-verification-trial-results-to-enable-kids-social-media-ban
20. Governments are pushing teen social media bans - University of Wollongong – UOW, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.uow.edu.au/media/2024/governments-are-pushing-teen-social-media-bans.php
21. Australia’s social media “ban” & The Anxious Generation : r/AustralianTeachers - Reddit, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AustralianTeachers/comments/1o4hr47/australias_social_media_ban_the_anxious_generation/
22. Social media ban for U16s: UniSC experts comment | UniSC | University of the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.usc.edu.au/about/unisc-news/news-archive/2024/november/social-media-ban-for-u16s-unisc-experts-comment
23. Roy Morgan Update December 2, 2025: Social Media Ban, Most Trusted Brands and Consumer Confidence, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.roymorgan.com/findings/roy-morgan-update-december-2-2025
24. Mental health organisations collaborate to call for changes to social media platforms, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/media-releases/mental-health-organisations-collaborate-to-call-for-changes-to-social-media-platforms/
25. Leading mental health organisations say proposed ban won’t make social media safe, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/media-releases/leading-mental-health-organisations-say-proposed-ban-wont-make-social-media-safe/
26. How to minimise family conflict over the social media ban, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2025/11/04/how-to-minimise-family-conflict-over-the-social-media-ban.html
27. OIA24-08210: Social Media Age Limit - The Office of Impact Analysis, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://oia.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/posts/2024/11/Supplementary%20Analysis%20-%20Social%20Media%20Age%20Limit.pdf
28. YouTube access restrictions for users under the age of 16 in Australia - Google Help, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/16758081?hl=en-GB&ref_topic=9267586
29. YouTube Enforces ‘Signed-Out’ Mode for Australian Teens, Warning Ban Degrades Safety, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://winbuzzer.com/2025/12/03/youtube-enforces-signed-out-mode-for-australian-teens-warning-ban-degrades-safety-xcxwbn/
30. Australia Social Media Ban For Kids | YIP Institute Technology Policy, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://yipinstitute.org/policy/australia-social-media-ban-for-kids
31. How would brands react if minors were banned from social media?, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.nssmag.com/en/lifestyle/43575/consequences-social-network-ban-australia
32. Australian teen takes social media ban to court, calls it unsafe, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/australian-teen-takes-social-media-ban-to-court-calls-it-unsafe/articleshow/125710006.cms
33. Whose Safety? Digital Bans in a Settler Colony - ANTAR, accessed on December 3, 2025,https://antar.org.au/blog/whose-safety-digital-bans-in-a-settler-colony/
34. Banning social media won’t fix Australia’s youth mental health crisis - News - The University of Queensland, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://news.uq.edu.au/2025-01-07-banning-social-media-wont-fix-australias-youth-mental-health-crisis
35. Australia’s social media ban… A looming implementation disaster | hey.paris, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://hey.paris/posts/ageassurance/
36. Social media age verification possible but laden with risks, landmark study warns. : r/australia - Reddit, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/1n4wndd/social_media_age_verification_possible_but_laden/
37. Australia’s teen social media ban pushes content creators to look abroad, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com/australia-socialmedia-contentcreators-six/
38. What Australian social media bans mean for youth creators??!! : r/NewTubers - Reddit, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/NewTubers/comments/1laurcq/what_australian_social_media_bans_mean_for_youth/
39. How To Bypass Age Verification in Australia (Tested 2025) - AllAboutCookies.org, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://allaboutcookies.org/how-to-bypass-age-verification-in-australia
40. Does the Australian government have the right or legal framework to successfully ban VPN’s and enforce penalties for using them? - Reddit, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/AusLegal/comments/1on0g54/does_the_australian_government_have_the_right_or/
41. Doesn’t a VPN circumvent the social media bill? : r/aus - Reddit, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/aus/comments/1gx6sw7/doesnt_a_vpn_circumvent_the_social_media_bill/
42. The EU wants age limits on social media. What other countries already have limits? - The Independent, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.the-independent.com/tech/social-media-children-eu-australia-b2872985.html
43. How Australia’s tough social media ban compares to laws in other countries - The Guardian, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/29/how-australias-tough-social-media-ban-compares-to-laws-in-other-countries
44. Utah’s social media law explained: Legal insight and implications - ExpressVPN, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.expressvpn.com/blog/utah-social-media-bill-explained/
45. Explainer: Teen Social Media Law—The Ebbs and Flows in 2025 - JURIST - Features, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.jurist.org/features/2025/05/05/teen-social-media-law-the-ebbs-and-flows-in-2025/
46. A parent’s guide to help teens adjust to social media age restrictions, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://www.sbs.com.au/language/english/en/podcast-episode/a-parents-guide-to-help-teens-adjust-to-social-media-age-restrictions/38a5bkegb
47. How the teenage social media ban may end internet anonymity, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://thenightly.com.au/society/technology/how-the-under-16s-social-media-ban-coming-into-effect-on-december-10-will-affect-you-in-australia-c-20864263
48. ‘Strict prohibition often breeds secrecy, not safety’: Aussie social media ban draws fire; experts divided, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/australias-social-media-ban-for-teens-sparks-global-controversy/articleshow/125712716.cms
49. Social media ban: How parents can help kids stay connected safely - University of South Australia, accessed on December 3, 2025, https://unisa.edu.au/media-centre/Releases/2025/social-media-ban-how-parents-can-help-kids-stay-connected-safely/