Australia’s controversial new law barring under-16s from social media is one of the toughest crackdowns yet on platforms including Facebook and TikTok as governments worldwide grasp for ways to protect children from harmful content.

The blanket ban, passed late Thursday night, establishes some of the most stringent internet usage restrictions outside of China and other non-democratic regimes and could provide impetus to other governments to act. From Florida and Texas to France and the UK, authorities have attempted – or are considering – raising social-media age limits or tightening content oversight. 

Lurking behind the debate, and driving the change, are the dark corners of social media that continue to extract a tragic toll. Like the 16-year-old boy, with a social media account filled with videos about hopelessness and death, who stepped in front of a train in Bayport, New York. Or the 15-year-old Australian schoolgirl who hanged herself from a tree at home in February 2022 after suffering years of social-media bullying.

While Australia’s ban is wildly popular with voters – 77% support the move, according to a YouGov survey – it has unleashed a maelstrom of criticism from big tech. Major operators including Meta Platforms Inc. say the rules are ineffective or flawed, while X, owned by self-styled free speech absolutist Elon Musk, questioned whether the ban is lawful, heralding a possible court challenge. Academics worry about the unintended consequences of a blunt ban.

Under the new law, which will take effect in around 12 months, digital platforms including Snapchat, Instagram, and X will be responsible for enforcing the age limit, with penalties of as much as A$50 million ($32 million) for breaches. However, it’s still unclear how the platforms will verify ages, with the government already ruling out the use of official documents, such as a passport, due to privacy concerns. Kids who find a way past verification controls won’t be fined, and nor will their parents.

The law also threatens to upend the business model of some of the world’s most valuable companies as they face a global backlash against problems blamed on their services, such as increasing mental health issues, online scams, lower academic performance and grooming. A successful ban would deprive them of a key user group – millions of teenagers who are coveted by advertisers and who the companies want to lock in at an early age.

In a statement, Meta said while it will respect the law, it was “concerned about the process which rushed the legislation through while failing to properly consider the evidence, what industry already does to ensure age-appropriate experiences, and the voices of young people.” 

The World Health Organization issued one of the clearest warnings in September after studying social-media use among almost 280,000 school-aged children in 44 countries and regions, one of the largest surveys of its kind. The WHO warned of far-reaching consequences for adolescent development and their long-term health stemming from the rise in problematic social-media use. 

The Geneva-based organization called for “immediate and sustained action.” 

This week’s response from Australia, forcing through age thresholds irrespective of whether the child has parental permission, sets a new precedent. 

“We want Australian children to have a childhood,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said as he introduced the legislation last week. Social media platforms usually require account holders to be at least 13 years old.

However, the simplicity of Australia’s solution has instead highlighted the complexity of the problem. 

YouTube, deemed by the Australian government to be a health- and education-related platform, is exempt from the ban, even though the comments section under videos can be as toxic as other corners of the internet. Online gaming and messaging services like WhatsApp and Discord are also exempt, even though they too can be used for bullying and grooming. 

Subscribe to The Bloomberg Australia Podcast on Apple, Spotify, on YouTube, or wherever you listen.

One of the biggest weaknesses of a ban on young people is that it doesn’t curb the production of harmful content, said Lisa Given, a professor of information sciences at RMIT University in Melbourne. She said platform owners should focus on disabling negative algorithms, which can overwhelm social-media users with content whether they like it or not. At the same time, there should be more investment in digital literacy for children and parents, Given said.

“This legislation is really ill-conceived,” she said. “It’s a simple proposed fix for something that’s actually really complicated. And where did 16 come from? It seems like it was pulled out of the air.”

Perhaps inevitably, almost all of the largest social-media companies including TikTok, X and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, expressed concerns about the law in submissions to a truncated Senate inquiry before the bill passed.

TikTok, owned by China’s ByteDance Ltd., said the legislation was “rushed” and “unworkable,” and riddled with “unanswered questions and unresolved concerns.” 

Snapchat-owner Snap Inc. said previous international attempts at broad and mandatory age verification had failed. X, known as Twitter before it was bought by Musk, said it had “serious concerns as to the lawfulness of the bill.”

Unicef, the United Nations agency for children, said Australia’s ban would push young people into darker, unregulated places online. The law also risks compromising children’s rights and severing their access to information that’s vital to their welfare, Unicef said.

“Instead of banning children, we should hold social media companies accountable for providing age-appropriate, secure, and supportive online environments,” Katie Maskiell, head of child rights policy and advocacy at Unicef Australia, said in a submission to the parliament.

Elected officials across the world tasked with overseeing social media find themselves in an uncomfortable squeeze. Many parents feel helpless and angry, and want children spending less time online. Their demands that governments step in are amplified by tragedies of youth suicides caused by social media bullying or sextortion. But it’s difficult to isolate the obvious dangers of social media without destroying its benefits.

“It is impossible to be a teen in most parts of the world without social media,” Stephen Scheeler, the former head of Facebook in Australia and New Zealand, said in an interview with Bloomberg Television. “Controlling that access from a parental point of view or government point of view is not as easy as it sounds.” 

A number of other nations and US states have attempted to curb children’s access to social media, with limited success. 

A Florida bill prohibiting children under 14 from having social media accounts has faced legal challenges, as have moves from states such as Arkansas and Ohio that would require minors to secure parental approval to use social media.

Norway wants to impose a minimum age of 15 on social media use after data showed many children under 13, the current age limit, still use popular platforms, the Guardian and other publications reported last month. 

Even if Australia’s ban proves hard or impossible to enforce, more countries are likely to take similar steps as concerns grow about the impact of social media on children, said Simon Kemp, founder of Singapore-based digital consulting firm Kepios Pte., which specializes in analyzing online behaviors.

“I would be very surprised if we don’t see more of this,” Kemp said.

France has renewed a push to keep under-15s off social media, Politico reported this week. French Education Minister Anne Genetet, a medical doctor by training, told Politico at a meeting of European Union education and youth ministers that the EU should follow Australia’s example.

The UK’s secretary of state for science and technology, Peter Kyle, has been in contact with the Australian government to learn more about its ban and its reasoning, according to the Guardian. Kyle has said he’s not ruling out a ban in future, but any measures must be founded on evidence.   

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)