As social media platforms increasingly penetrate into everyday life, especially children and adolescents, the question of limits and responsibilities for managing digital space becomes more urgent than ever. Australia has chosen a strong and unprecedented approach when issuing a ban on children under 16 from using popular social networks.
This decision immediately created a strong reaction. Many parents expressed their support, considering this a "safe bet" in an uncontrollable digital environment. On the contrary, many technology experts, privacy protection organizations and teenagers themselves question the feasibility and long-term consequences. The ban is likened to a large-scale social experiment, where Australia accepted to go first to test an unprecedented management model. Therefore, the global technology world, from platform companies to policymakers in Europe, Asia and the US, is monitoring the gradual implementation of this law.
In Vietnam, the situation of children using social networks and being affected by negative information is not new. Many heartbreaking cases have occurred due to disagreements in cyberspace not being handled properly and thoroughly.
Sharing with Lao Dong Newspaper about the negative impact of social networks on children, Ms. Thu An, a young teacher in Hanoi, said: "For me, this ban has two aspects. The ban is to protect children from the risks of participating in cyberspace, helping them focus more on learning and real life. However, such a ban still has many limitations due to lack of control of the actual situation. Children will do it even more when banned, because curiosity stimulates their desire to learn much higher than those of children after 16 years old".
Banning order and mixed reactions
The ban on social media for people under 16 in Australia is built with the clear goal of minimizing the risks that children may face when exposed too early and too deeply to the digital space. According to the regulations, 10 major platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Threads, X, Snapchat, Twitch, Kick, Reddit and YouTube must prevent underage users from accessing accounts. The responsibility for implementation is placed on technology companies, requiring them to implement age verification measures and report the results to the eSafety management agency. If they violate, the fine can be up to tens of millions of AUD, enough to create significant pressure.
The Australian government stressed that this was not a punishment for children but a protective measure. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has repeatedly affirmed the ban to help children stay away from invisible pressures from social networks, from comparing appearances to the appeal of design algorithms to retain users as long as possible. He also said that the fact that some teenagers openly show off their accounts is just a matter of time, because those actions unintentionally help the platform identify and handle them faster.
However, social reactions show that the picture is not simple. Immediately after the law took effect, social networks in Australia saw a series of comments from people claiming to be under 16 years old, even leaving a mocking message on the Prime Minister's account that they were still there until they were old enough to vote. This reflects the natural resistance psychology of young people when they are restricted access to a space that they consider an indispensable part of life.
On the other hand, many parents and major parties in Australia see the ban as a signal that the Government is ready to put the interests of children above the economic interests of platforms. They believe that delaying social media exposure until the age of 16 can bring long-term benefits in terms of learning, behavior and mental health. Some initial figures show that TikTok has disabled about 200,000 accounts since the ban took effect, while many content creators in Australia recorded a sharp decline in followers. These figures are both seen as evidence of the original effectiveness of the law and have raised concerns about its economic and cultural impacts.
However, there are also opinions that applying a ban can be counterproductive. As a teacher, Ms. An said that she often has to connect with students through some social networks. A complete ban on use can make children resist and seek to circumvent the law.
"The ban may create negative and opposing thinking in children, so the best way for children under 16 years old, parents and teachers can do it is to be friends with children. For children under 16 years old, the most important thing is to teach them life skills, accompany them and help them equip themselves with the necessary skills to behave and communicate in real life and have a second life on social networks to be safe, optimal, effective and have the right orientation for using social networks," said Ms. An.
Wind waves encountered as a pioneer
Becoming the first country to implement a comprehensive ban on children under 16 has put Australia in a position to both be admired and face countless challenges. One of the biggest advantages is that Australia creates a clear precedent, forcing technology companies to take child protection more seriously. This law also sends a strong message that the Government is ready to intervene in the digital space, which has long been considered uncontrollable.
However, the biggest challenge lies in the implementation stage. Age verification requires platforms to collect additional user data, from identification documents to forms of behavior analysis. This raises concerns about privacy and data security, as companies have relied heavily on data to serve advertising. Some experts warn that the ban could unintentionally create a new sensitive data warehouse, becoming an attractive target for leaks or overuses.
The response of young people is also a big challenge. Many teenagers seek to circumvent the law by using VPNs or switching to platforms that are not on the prohibited list. Search data shows that demand for IP change services in Australia skyrocketed right before the law took effect. Meanwhile, some less famous apps are rapidly increasing their download ratings, showing the risk of children being pushed into less controlled spaces, as UNICEF warned.
In addition to domestic debate, Australia has also become the focus of world observation. Many countries and regions are closely monitoring to learn from experience. The European Union, Malaysia and some US states are mentioned as having a special interest in this model. Some countries consider applying similar age limits, while others choose a softer approach, focusing on content control rather than a complete ban. The fact that foreign governments publicly expressed their intention to learn shows that Australia's decision has gone beyond the scope of a national policy, becoming a test for how the world manages social networks in the digital age.
