Australia Tried to Keep Under-16s Off Social Media. What Happened Next?

For parents, few questions about modern childhood are more difficult than this one: how much social media is too much for a child?

The answer has become even harder to find as governments around the world begin moving beyond advice and parental controls and towards regulation.

Australia made the most dramatic move so far.

Since 10 December 2025, major social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, Reddit and X have been required to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from holding accounts. Importantly, Australia's regulator, the eSafety Commissioner, describes the measure as an age restriction or a delay, rather than a punishment for children or their parents.

The policy was introduced with a simple proposition: children should have more time before entering an online environment designed around recommendation algorithms, engagement, endless scrolling and social pressure.

Now, several months into the experiment, the first evidence is beginning to emerge.

And it tells a more complicated story than either supporters or critics of social media restrictions might have expected.

Australia's policy does not mean that children under 16 have been completely removed from the internet. They can still use the internet for education, gaming and many forms of communication. They can also view some publicly available social media content without having an account. Standalone messaging services and many gaming services are also outside the restrictions.

The important change is that the platforms themselves are responsible for taking reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from creating or keeping accounts. There is no fine for a child who gets around the restriction. Parents are not fined either. The potential penalties fall on platforms that fail to take the required steps, with eSafety stating that penalties can reach A$54.6 million.

That distinction matters. This is not Australia telling parents that their children must never see a TikTok video or a YouTube page. It is a regulatory attempt to make the platforms responsible for determining who can hold an account.

In July 2026, Australia's eSafety Commissioner published the first findings from a two-year study following more than 4,000 children and families.

The proportion of under-16s holding social media accounts fell from 52.4% to 42.1% in the first three months after the restrictions came into effect.

That is a real reduction.

But it is not the disappearance of social media from children's lives.

In other words, the policy appears to have changed behaviour, but it has not completely changed the reality of children's online lives. That is perhaps the most important lesson for parents.

A rule can make something harder to access. It cannot automatically teach a child what to do when they encounter something harmful. It cannot teach them how to recognise manipulation. It cannot teach them how to respond when somebody they do not know sends them a message. And it cannot guarantee that a child will tell an adult when something has gone wrong.

Those are skills. And skills take time to develop.

This is where the Australian experience becomes particularly interesting. Age restrictions depend on platforms being able to establish whether someone is under 16. Australia's system allows platforms to use a range of signals when assessing age, including account activity, language, visual or audio information and patterns of behaviour.

But no age-assurance system is perfect.

Children are also highly adaptable. They share information with friends. They discover workarounds. They move between platforms. They may use services their parents have never heard of.

And sometimes the biggest risk is not the platform parents are worrying about.

A child may leave one social network and spend more time gaming. They may move into private group chats. They may use another service. They may continue watching publicly available content without having an account.

This does not mean the Australian restrictions have failed. It means something much more important: children's digital lives do not exist inside one app. For parents, that distinction is crucial. Online safety cannot simply mean checking whether a particular application is installed on a child's phone.

No. That would be too simple.

Australia's early evidence suggests the restrictions have reduced the proportion of under-16s holding social media accounts. That matters. There may also be longer-term benefits that cannot be measured after only a few months. The Australian government and eSafety are continuing to evaluate the policy, and the current study is designed to follow children and families over two years.

The more useful question is therefore not: do social media restrictions work? It is: what can social media restrictions achieve, and what still needs to happen alongside them?

A restriction may create breathing space. It may reduce exposure to certain platform features. It may delay the age at which a child enters an environment that they are not emotionally or developmentally ready to navigate. But the child will still eventually enter the digital world. And when that happens, they will need more than a password and a parental-control setting. They will need judgement.

Imagine two children.

The first has never been allowed to use social media. At 16, they suddenly receive their first unrestricted smartphone and open several accounts.

The second has gradually been taught how algorithms work, how to recognise manipulation, how to respond to unwanted contact, how to protect personal information, how to report harmful behaviour and, perhaps most importantly, how to ask an adult for help.

Which child is better prepared?

The answer is not necessarily the child who had the most restrictions. It is the child who has developed the skills to navigate the environment. That is why online safety education matters.

Parents do not need to wait for a government regulation to tell them when to have conversations with their children. In fact, waiting may make the conversation harder.

A good starting point is to stop thinking about online safety as one big conversation. Instead, make it part of ordinary family life.

Ask your child what they are watching. Ask what games they are playing. Ask which creators they like. Ask what happens when somebody they do not know sends them a message. Ask what they would do if a friend shared an embarrassing photograph. Ask what they think an algorithm is trying to make them do.

And ask the most important question of all: if something happened online that made you frightened, embarrassed or uncomfortable, would you tell me?

The goal is not to create fear. It is to make sure that when something goes wrong, the child knows where to turn.

The answer is not necessarily to confiscate the phone immediately. Start with a conversation. Find out which platforms your child uses, who they communicate with, what information they share and whether there are accounts or online communities you do not know about. Then look at privacy and safety settings together.

The Australian experience is a useful reminder that simply removing an application does not necessarily remove a child's desire to connect, communicate or explore. The safer approach is to combine boundaries with education.

A child who believes that breaking a rule will automatically result in losing their phone may become very good at hiding what they are doing. A child who understands why a boundary exists is more likely to develop their own judgement.

That does not mean parents should have no rules. Children need boundaries. But boundaries work best when they are accompanied by knowledge. Parents can explain why an age restriction exists, what risks it is intended to reduce and what their child should do if they encounter something unsafe.

Parental controls can be extremely useful. They can help parents manage screen time, restrict certain content, control purchases and create safer settings. But they are not a substitute for parenting or education.

A parental-control setting cannot sit beside a child at school. It cannot make a decision when somebody sends them a sexual message. It cannot recognise every form of manipulation. And it cannot replace a child knowing that they can come to an adult without immediately being blamed or having their entire digital life taken away.

Technology can support safer parenting. It cannot do the parenting for us.

This question is now particularly relevant for British families because the UK government has announced plans to restrict social media services from offering their services to under-16s. The government expects the first regulations to be laid before Parliament by the end of 2026, with the restrictions expected to come into force in spring 2027. The exact services covered will be set out through the regulatory process.

The UK government has also proposed additional protections for young people, including restrictions around livestreaming and strangers contacting children, while maintaining access to messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal.

For parents, therefore, this is not something that requires panic or immediate action. The government itself says families do not need to do anything right now in preparation for the new restrictions. But parents can start preparing their children. And that preparation should involve considerably more than deleting apps.

Australia has effectively given other countries a live case study. It has shown that governments can make platforms take greater responsibility. It has shown that restrictions can reduce children's account ownership.

But it is also demonstrating something that parents have understood for years: children do not live their digital lives according to policy boundaries. They move between platforms. They communicate privately. They watch content without accounts. They play games. They follow influencers. They experiment. They make mistakes. And sometimes they keep things from the adults who care about them.

That is why the next stage of online safety cannot simply be about keeping children out. It has to be about preparing them for when they are in.

THE BIGGER ISSUE IS NOT THE PHONE. IT IS THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DIGITAL WORLD.

There is a temptation, whenever a new online risk emerges, to look for a technological solution. A new parental-control tool. A new age check. A new restriction. A new button. Some of these tools are valuable. But the deeper challenge is educational.

Children need to understand privacy. They need to understand consent. They need to understand manipulation. They need to understand digital footprints. They need to know what healthy screen use looks like. They need to recognise when an online interaction feels wrong. They need to understand that an adult asking them to keep an online relationship secret is a warning sign. And they need to know that asking for help is not getting themselves into trouble.

These are not settings. They are life skills.

1. Is my child old enough for social media? Age is important, but readiness matters too. Consider your child's maturity, emotional wellbeing, ability to handle conflict and understanding of online boundaries.

2. Will a social media restriction automatically make my child safe? No. It may reduce exposure to certain risks, but children still need education and support.

3. What if my child gets around an age restriction? Focus first on understanding what happened and why. Use the opportunity to discuss the risks rather than relying solely on punishment.

4. Should I check my child's phone? Parents have a responsibility to keep children safe. But monitoring works best when expectations about privacy and safety are discussed openly rather than secretly whenever possible.

5. What if all my child's friends are online? This is one of the most difficult parts of setting boundaries. Talk about how your child can maintain friendships safely and what alternatives are available.

6. Are parental controls enough? No. They are one layer of protection, not the whole solution.

7. Should I wait until the UK rules come into force? No. You do not need to wait for legislation before teaching your child about online safety.

You do not need a complicated family technology policy. Start with five things.

Look at your child's main apps together. Check the privacy and safety settings. Ask your child what they would do if a stranger contacted them. Agree on what happens if they see disturbing, sexual or threatening content. And make one family rule very clear: if something goes wrong online, tell an adult.

The child should know that coming forward will not automatically mean losing everything. That one principle can be more powerful than another technical setting.

AUSTRALIA HAS NOT PROVIDED A FINAL ANSWER. IT HAS PROVIDED AN IMPORTANT EXPERIMENT.

It is too early to declare Australia's policy a complete success or failure. The first evidence shows a meaningful reduction in the proportion of under-16s holding social media accounts, but a substantial number of children still have accounts or remain exposed to social media content. The full effects will take longer to understand.

What Australia has provided is something potentially more valuable than a simple verdict. It has given policymakers, schools and parents evidence to work with. It has shown what regulation can change. It has also highlighted what regulation cannot do by itself.

For parents in Britain, that may be the most useful lesson of all. The coming UK restrictions will matter. Platform accountability matters. Age assurance matters. Safer design matters. But none of those things removes the need for children to learn how to navigate the digital world.

Because eventually, children grow up. The restrictions change. The platforms change. The technology changes. What stays with a child is what they have learned.

And perhaps that is the conversation parents should be having now, long before the next law comes into force.

How do we raise children who are not simply protected from the digital world, but prepared to live in it?

That is the question worth asking.

At Parentive, we believe online safety is a skill, not just a setting. Parents should have access to practical information that helps them understand the digital environments their children are growing up in, without creating unnecessary fear. That means looking beyond individual apps and thinking about the bigger picture: social media, gaming, smartphones, artificial intelligence, digital wellbeing, online relationships, privacy and the everyday conversations that help children make safer decisions. The aim is not to raise children who are afraid of technology. It is to help raise children who understand it.