Australia’s Under-15 Social Media Ban Leaves Rural Teens Worried About Staying Connected

MELBOURNE, Australia (Journos News) – Australia is preparing to enforce one of the world’s strongest age-based social media restrictions, leaving many young people unsure how they will stay connected during the long summer break. In rural regions, where communities are spread over vast distances and alternative communication options are limited, the uncertainty feels even sharper.

Riley Allen, a 15-year-old student living on a sheep ranch outside the small town of Wudinna in South Australia, is among those bracing for change. His friends are scattered across farms and small settlements, some more than 70 kilometers away. For many rural teenagers, social media functions as a primary bridge to social life, school coordination and shared interests.

Riley said he understands why the government is pursuing tighter protections for children online, but fears the sudden removal of nearly all mainstream platforms may leave young people isolated. “We don’t have a lot out here to get in contact with each other,” he said. With Australia’s long summer holidays beginning this week, he worries that the disconnect will come quickly.

Under the new law, anyone under 16 will be barred from holding accounts with major platforms including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, YouTube, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, Kick and Twitch. Companies that fail to take “reasonable steps” to remove underage accounts could face penalties of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars.

Government Defends Broad Restrictions as Tech Firms Begin Enforcement

The legislation—promoted by the federal government as the first of its kind globally—reflects rising political pressure to curb online harms, including exposure to disturbing content, cyberbullying and addictive engagement loops. Over the past year, lawmakers from both major parties have emphasized risks to mental health, citing long-running concerns raised by parents, teachers and child-safety advocates.

Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, began removing suspected under-16 accounts last week. Other companies are expected to follow as enforcement ramps up. Riley said several platforms asked him to confirm his age, but none had removed him by Monday.

His mother, schoolteacher Sonia Allen, supports clearer safeguards for young people but believes parents should retain some role in supervising online use. “If the rule is there, the rule is there,” she said. Still, she expects many families will try to find workarounds.

A year earlier, she had banned Riley from social media for several weeks after noticing he was online past midnight and falling behind on schoolwork. “From that, he’s learned to use it more responsibly,” she said. She thinks restrictions can help, but sees room for more targeted solutions, such as curfews or mandatory parental controls.

Riley agrees the aim of the law is understandable, but feels the approach is too sweeping. He suggested time-based limits could curb harmful behavior without removing teenagers entirely from platforms that play a major role in modern communication.

Legal Challenge Heads to Australia’s High Court

In Sydney, 15-year-old student Noah Jones is preparing to test the law in the High Court. He and fellow teenager Macy Neyland have joined a constitutional challenge filed by the Digital Freedom Project, a rights organization arguing the ban effectively strips more than 2.6 million young Australians of their ability to participate in political and social debate.

Australia’s constitution does not contain a U.S.-style bill of rights, but the High Court has long recognized an implied freedom of political communication. Past rulings have limited how far governments can restrict access to public discourse. Noah and Macy argue that cutting young people off from nearly all major platforms amounts to shutting them out of spaces where civic discussion now routinely occurs.

The government has vowed to defend the law, saying most Australian parents want action against the compounding effects of algorithm-driven feeds, predatory design and mental health risks. Public concern has grown in recent years, echoing international debates over the speed and scale of content that reaches young users.

Advocacy group Heaps Up Alliance, which campaigned for a national age limit, argues the ban levels the playing field. Their view is that universal exclusion prevents some children from being “the only ones missing out” when peers stay online.

Yet the policy remains contested. Before parliament approved the measure, more than 140 technology and child-welfare experts signed an open letter warning the ban was “too blunt an instrument.” They argued that more nuanced regulation—stricter data protections, transparency on algorithms, and strengthened parental oversight—would address risks more effectively.

Concerns Grow Over a Shift to Riskier Online Spaces

Opponents warn the law could push teenagers toward less regulated platforms and underground communities beyond parental or government oversight. Noah fears the shift could do more harm than good. “We’ll be completely silenced and cut off from our country and the rest of the world,” he said.

His mother, Renee Jones, is acting as his litigation guardian during the court process. While she maintains tight household rules around devices, she supports his challenge. She believes today’s teenagers appreciate both the usefulness and the dangers of social media. “It’s not all sunshine and lollypops,” she said, but insists young people should not be locked out of the digital spaces that shape modern public life.

Digital Freedom Project president and minor-party lawmaker John Ruddick said the court challenge has no backing from tech giants, though he would welcome contributions. He expects many children will use virtual private networks to mask their locations and continue accessing their accounts. “They’re going to get around it,” he said, “so then they’re going to be on an underground social media… without parental supervision.”

A directions hearing is scheduled for late February, with the full High Court expected to hear the matter later in 2025. Until then, Australian families, schools and tech companies must adjust to a new digital boundary.

For Riley, the timing feels especially difficult. As the summer holidays begin, he wonders whether the new rules will leave rural teenagers more isolated. “I’m not sure how we’re going to keep in touch,” he said, hoping that staying connected will not become an unexpected casualty of national policy.