By Marty McGauran
Australia recently introduced a world first law requiring people to be at least 16 years old to have accounts on major social media platforms. Apps like TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram and YouTube fall under the rule. Importantly, the law does not ban young people from the internet entirely. Many online spaces remain available to them, including games such as Roblox and child-focused communication tools like Messenger Kids.
The goal of the legislation is not to punish young people. Instead, it shifts responsibility toward the companies that design and run these platforms. Governments are increasingly concerned that many social media products have been engineered to maximise engagement rather than prioritise the wellbeing of their users. Features such as infinite scrolling, notifications and algorithm-driven recommendations are designed to hold attention for as long as possible because attention drives advertising revenue.
In my work with primary schools through Inform & Empower, we regularly speak with students about their experiences online. During a recent session with more than 1,000 Year 5 and 6 students, we asked a simple question: Do you think the new social media law is a good idea?
The results were fascinating.
Around 21 percent said yes, they believed the law was a good idea. About 35 percent said no. But the largest group, 44 percent, chose “yes and no.” In other words, most students were not taking a simple side. They were weighing up the pros and cons.
When asked to explain their thinking, many students said the law could help protect them. Some spoke about safety and strangers online. One student wrote that the law is helpful because it “keeps us safe from talking to strangers or older people who can be creeps.” Others said it could protect mental health, prevent exposure to inappropriate content and reduce the pressure of constant scrolling. A number of students also mentioned sleep. “It helps us get off our phones and get more sleep,” one wrote. Another said it could stop people becoming addicted to “doom scrolling and brainrot.” Bullying was another theme. Several students felt that limiting access to social media might reduce exposure to hurtful comments or online drama.
But just as many students raised thoughtful concerns. Some pointed out that rules can be easily bypassed. “It didn’t even work, people just get around it,” one student commented. Others felt the law could unfairly punish young people who use the internet responsibly.
A few students also highlighted the educational value of platforms like YouTube. Many children use the platform to learn new skills, watch tutorials or explore interests ranging from coding to cooking. There has been some confusion around the new law, with many people assuming that YouTube will be completely banned for under 16s. In reality, the restriction is focused on the creation of accounts. Without an account, users cannot upload videos, comment, share content or interact in ways that allow the platform’s algorithm to track and personalise their data. Young people will still be able to access YouTube at home and at school to watch content.
Others argued that decisions about social media should sit with families rather than governments. “Parents should decide,” one student wrote.
And in an increasingly digital world, some students pointed out that young people are not just consumers online, they are also creators. For a small but growing number of kids, producing videos, tutorials or gaming content has become a creative outlet and sometimes even a source of income.
What struck me most was not which side students chose. It was the way they approached the question. They recognised that social media can be fun, creative and educational. But they also understood that some parts of the online world are deliberately designed to keep them hooked. There is broad agreement that something must be done to better protect children online. The real question is whether a ban is the best solution.
What if young people had more control over what content they engaged with and how they engaged with it? What if safety and wellbeing were built into platforms from the very beginning, rather than added later as a patch or afterthought?
Imagine online spaces where the incentives were different. Platforms where healthy design was rewarded. Where algorithms promoted positive experiences rather than simply maximising screen time. Surely it is possible to create online environments where young people can connect, learn and create safely.
The internet is not going anywhere. Social media is not disappearing either. But conversations about how these platforms are designed and who they are designed for are becoming increasingly important. And if the responses from our Year 5 and 6 students are anything to go by, young people themselves are more than capable of contributing thoughtfully to that conversation.
Marty McGauran is the founder of Inform & Empower, a Footscray based organisation that partners with primary schools around Australia to deliver innovative cyber safety and digital wellbeing education.
