Australians React To Controversial Social Media Ban.

Three months in, what do Australians think about the controversial blanket banning of social media for children under the age of 16?

The ban came into force on the 10th December 2025 after the legislation passed both houses of the Australian federal government in November. 

TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and X are among the platforms which have been barred from under-16s. 

Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, has described the new law as a “profound reform which will be a source of national pride in years to come.” 

He also said: “As Prime Minister, I’ve had the sombre experience of meeting with mums and dads who have seen their child’s wellbeing crushed by the worst of social media.” 

But 3 months in, do Australian ‘mums and dads’ agree with Prime Minister Albanese? 

I travelled to Australia and spoke to a number of people, to ask their opinion, and in almost every case they supported the decision. 

I spoke to Nadia, a mother to a young child, who said : “I think it’s great! Social media is really damaging for children’s brains.” Nadia also suggested other countries ‘follow suit’.

Nadia’s partner Alberto, was also in support of the ban. He said: “You can’t just take your young kid to see a 16 rated film and social media allowed children to see anything.“ I thought this was an interesting comparison. 

The worry that children could ‘see anything’ was a concern for parents across Australia prior to the ban. A report commissioned in 2025 revealed that of the 96% of 10-15 year olds who used social media, seven out of 10 had been exposed to harmful content, especially on X.

In January of this year Prime Minister Albanese strongly criticised Elon Musk's X and its AI tool Grok, describing its ability to create sexualised images as ‘abhorrent’. 

Michael, a middle aged man who skateboards in Bondi, told me he has a ‘mixed opinion’ on the ban. He acknowledged that ‘tech is at the centre of our future’ but suggested the ‘Wild West’ nature of social media could be dangerous for children. 

Michael also said he thinks ‘it is a small bargaining chip for the government, to have leverage over tech bros’. He thinks it will help to hold social media companies ‘accountable’ and ensure they improve age verification systems. 

This is plausible, as the legislation was designed to penalise the social media companies if children under 16 are found on their platforms, not to punish parents or children. 

Social media companies face fines of up to A$49.5 million, the equivalent to £25 million. 

Some suggest the fine is too lenient, after a report indicated it takes Meta just under two hours to make A$50 million in revenue, therefore the fine is less than a slap on the wrist. 

The ban is still in its early days , and the effect it has on young children in Australia will be monitored, but won’t become clear for years to come. 

Nadia suggested that other countries should follow suit, but will the UK? 

In January, 61 Labour MP’s wrote a letter to the PM, urging him to follow the example of Australia. 

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has not ruled it out, saying “all options are on the table”.

Kemi Badenoch, leader of the conservatives said she would introduce a ban for under-16s if her party won the next election.

Many children’s charities, including the NSPCC,  have argued against a blanket ban, describing it as the “wrong solution”. Instead they suggest existing laws are more “robustly implemented”.

Deep Dive: Why is the UK Court System Failing?

I was summoned for Jury Service under the authority of the Lord Chancellor, and as a journalist and democratic enthusiast I was excited to carry out a civic duty so early into adult life. 

After three near misses, it was confirmed to me that I would not sit on trial as a juror. This, alongside the many hours spent in the waiting room frustrated me, and I seriously questioned the effectiveness of the system. 

Not only did it waste my time, it cost the government and therefore the taxpayer. I spent four days in St Albans Crown Court and I am expecting to receive around £45 when my expenses claim comes back. As I am a student, my expenses claim is relatively low, but if I were employed and claiming lost earnings as well as child care, It would cost the government significantly more. 

In 2024, the Ministry Of Justice reported that expenses claimed by jurors cost a staggering £36.5 million. 

Aside from the cost, the courts are facing the worst backlog in UK history. As of the end of June 2025 there were 78,329 outstanding cases in the Crown Court system, with the number projected to reach 100,000 by 2028 according to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). 

The concern regarding the backlog is growing as nearly 1 in 5 (18%) of the backlogged cases which have been open for more than two years are cases involving sexual offences.

What caused this backlog?

Covid impacted the backlog enormously, and in June 2019 the number of backlogged cases was 34,184, just under half of the current figure. During the first lockdown Crown Courts were closed for two months other than for urgent work. Once reopened, some individual court rooms could still not reopen as they failed to comply with social distancing rules. 

Another major cause of backlog is the cuts to the Justice System, notably those implemented by George Osborne's austerity agenda. Since 2010 funding for the MoJ is down by 22.4%, and whilst there have been instances of increased government investment, it hasn't been enough to reverse the damage. 

A shortage of judges has exacerbated the problem, with UCL reporting that the number of judges intending to quit within five years has risen from 23% in 2014 to 39% in 2024. 

The Labour Government will be hoping that David Lammy's reforms, which include scrapping juries for crimes likely to carry a sentence of less than three years, will help to reduce the backlog.

The government projects that this new system would get cases dealt with a fifth faster than trails by jury.