Is a social media ban for minors the correct move?

MANILA, Philippines – In December 2025, Australia became the first country in the world to ban social media access to individuals 16 years old or under, citing the addictive “design features” of social media apps that hook users, and serve potentially harmful content. 

The Australian government, BBC reported, found through a 2025 study that 96% of kids aged 10 to 15 used social media, with 70% experiencing exposure to harmful content, sexual grooming from adults, while more than half experienced cyberbullying. 

The Association of Heads of Independent Schools in Australia (AHISA), in a letter to parliament, had acknowledged that factors such as a teen’s “pre-existing vulnerabilities; and their cultural and socio-economic context” are also determinants of their mental health. 

But it also made clear that social media, specifically its design features, have been shown to have risks. 

The AHISA said, “Schools see how this exposure to harmful content online is fuelled by the algorithms designed by social media platforms to increase engagement. These algorithms exacerbate the risk that young people will be exposed to harmful content and make it easier for children to stumble across harmful content and inappropriate marketing messages.” 

Despite social media companies proclaiming their efforts to reduce harm on their platforms — Australia found enough risks that it believes that an outright ban was the way to go. 

A ‘blunt instrument,’ critics say

As with any landmark bill, critics have followed. 

Among them is Amnesty International, which called the sweeping ban “an ineffective quick fix.” 

It said that the ban doesn’t strike what it considers the core of the problem: social media companies’ “relentless pursuit of user engagement and their exploitation of people’s personal data.”

It explained that the ban is ineffective because when individuals go past the age of 16, they will still be exposed to the same harmful content, same harmful algorithm, and addictive qualities — features that are “pervasive and require stronger technical and regulatory measures to adequately protect users.”

“A ban simply lets platforms off the hook whilst failing to address the issues that young people will continue to face later on… The most effective way to protect children and young people online is by protecting all social media users with stronger data protection laws. Tech can’t be the only sector that cannot be regulated,” it said. 

Australia intends to release its findings on bans in the future. 

BBC interviewed a few children and their families about the ban’s effects, and results have been mixed. One 14-year-old said that she has decreased her screen time, now grabbing for her phone only when necessary, while another teen was becoming a little less social and more moody, according to their family. 

It’s still early for the new law. A consumer psychologist told the news site that moodiness may be par for the course early on as the teens’ usual phone behaviors are disrupted, but they may eventually adjust and cope by talking to “trusted adults.” 

Considering that, banning social media may have the potential effect of preventing young, impressionable minds from falling into a cycle of online addiction, and an over-dependence on online communication early on — hopefully leading to stronger, offline, real-world connections, and building habits that may prevent online addiction as an adult.

As anticipated by some experts, some are circumventing the ban by faking their age, or by using virtual private networks (VPNs). 

Downloads of alternative social apps also spiked as the Australia ban only specifically covers these apps: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, X, YouTube, Reddit and streaming platforms Kick and Twitch.

At last count, 4.7 million accounts have been removed across all platforms because of the ban.

Could the Philippines follow?

The Philippine government is looking to tread the same path — towards a ban. 

In June 2025, Senator Panfilo Lacson filed a bill looking to ban social media for those 18 years old and under, specifically citing the Australian legislation as inspiration. 

It looks to impose a fine of P1 million to P20 million on the social media platform for violations.

Fines on internet service providers of up to P3 million, and on age verification service providers of up to P5 million are also part of the bill. 

The proposed fine on social media companies is small relative to the Australia’s which can slap up to AUS$49 million (about P2 billion) for serious violations. 

Meta earned revenues of US$201 billion (about P11.8 trillion) for the entirety of 2025.

While the fines appear small relative to the revenues that the biggest social media companies make, collectively, the fines could pile up, especially as other countries such as Malaysia, Denmark, New Zealand, Norway, France, the UK have also been favoring a similar ban over the past year.

Spain and Greece, just this week, also mulls over a similar move. It led owner Elon Musk to call the Spanish prime minister a “tyrant” as X could possibly lose millions of users with further bans, especially if a domino effect for such a regulation continues around the globe.

To surmise, a smaller number of potentially addicted young individuals, may translate to a smaller number of addicted adults in the next generation. Think about what that would mean for the money-making metrics of these companies that rely on ads and eyeballs, and one would understand why bans have the effect of upsetting social media company owners.

The EU, which is also looking to become digitally independent from US tech products, may also be looking at a similar measure. 

Regulating the systems themselves

Again, it’s still early to see the full effects of the ban. 

But what can be seen already is that there is eagerness from other countries to follow suit. A ban has been described as a “blunt” weapon, but with social media giants remaining untouched, perhaps a ban’s symbolic power as a show of force also holds value in this case. 

While banning may be a “quick fix,” it could be argued that protecting young minds is an urgent enough issue that concerns on internet liberties could be sidelined for the time being. 

Adults too can be negatively impacted by social media, and the effects of disinformation have been well-documented so bans for young users would eventually have to evolve towards legislation that addresses the very systems underlying these social platforms.

One is actually underway: a “landmark trial” in the US is taking aim at allegedly addictive designs such as infinite scrolling and algorithm-based feeds, instead of looking at user-generated content that pins the blame on the user and allows platforms to avoid accountability.

As seen in Australia, the ban has also seemingly allowed alternative social media apps to emerge, potentially lessening the next generation’s dependence on the social media giants that have dominated the space. 

Starting with minors, bans may put a crack on social media giants’ stranglehold on the population, allowing newer, more decentralized, and potentially less harmful alternative social media apps to emerge. 

Audrey Tang, Taiwan’s former digital minister, spoke about this as well at Social Good Summit 2025, saying that to change, there has to be alternatives from the current centralized systems held by Big Tech, and venues aside from Facebook where we can build communities without having our digital selves held hostage. 

Alternatives that do not rely on the predatory data exfiltration that is a hallmark of surveillance capitalism, and prioritize community-building more than just the bottomline.

Beyond potentially protecting kids, the real test of social media bans, at this point, is whether governments are willing to go further — toward regulating the systems that profit from harm.

A ban may buy time, but without holding platforms accountable for how they design, optimize, and extract value from users, it risks becoming a pause button rather than a solution. – Rappler.com