Australia begins enforcing world-first teen social media ban

by chirau on 12/9/2025, 6:12:29 PM

<a href="https://archive.md/i0VxX" rel="nofollow">https://archive.md/i0VxX</a><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cwy54q80gy9t" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cwy54q80gy9t</a><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/world/asia/australia-social-media-ban-under-16.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/world/asia/australia-soci...</a> (<a href="https://archive.ph/Ba2JR" rel="nofollow">https://archive.ph/Ba2JR</a>)

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/australia-social-media-ban-takes-effect-world-first-2025-12-09/

Comments

by: zmmmmm

A lot of the criticism is based on the concept that it won't be technically watertight. But the key is that it doesn't have to be watertight to work. Social media is all about network effects. Once most kids are on there, everyone has to be on there. If you knock the percentage down far enough, you break the network effect to the point where those who don't want to don't feel pressured to. If that is all it does, it's a benefit.My concerns about this are that it will lead to(a) normalising people uploading identification documents and hence lead to people becoming victims of scams. This won't be just kids - scammers will be challenging all kinds of people including vulnerable elderly people saying "this is why we need your id". People are going to lose their entire life savings because of this law.(b) a small fraction of kids branching off into fringe networks that are off the radar and will take them to very dark places very quickly.Because it's politically unattractive, I don't think enough attention has been given to the harms that will flow from these laws.

12/10/2025, 9:02:51 PM

by: indymike

Father of five here, and founder of a social media marketing company (exited). Our kids are up against problems we didn't have during the great expansion of social. The three big things:1. State level actors and well funded not for profits are fighting an information war to influence our kids. And they are very good at it. Down to having troll farms to talk one on one. Every time something new happens in the world, my younger kids ask me about what they saw on Tik-Tok and their initial understanding is shaped by a well funded actor, and is often completely a false narrative. The solution is be open and talk about it with your kids.2. Criminals are even better at social than state level actors. They are smooth. And they are on platforms you wouldn't expect - like games. And criminals aren't all about fraud. They sell drugs, they try to physically steal in real life from your kids,they'll try to get your kids to do something embarrasing and blackmail them with it, and even can be human traffickers. Again, the solution is be open and talk about it with your kids - and make sure they know it's ok to ask, and it's especially ok if you think I shouldn't share this with Dad or they person is saying not to show your parents.3. Sexual predators are even better at social than the criminals. The difference is that the predators can't hide behind national borders so they are very careful. Same solution as $#2, but this one is really tough because when your kids come to you about it, they may have shared something with the predator that the predator is using to extort them into hooking up. Don't attack or blame your kid, focus on making sure the predator never gets to themI do not believe for a minute that social media was good for my kids as they grew up, but I'm not sure that you can even begin to fix it the way AU is trying to - regulating speech, association using prohibition is dipping a colander in the river to filter the silt.

12/10/2025, 9:04:31 PM

by: feb012025

I feel like everyone in this thread is assuming this is a good faith move by Australia to help kids in school and with socialization.I think phones and social media are harmful, but I get the sense there's a political motive behind this. We've been hearing politicians complain for years that they're losing the youth when it comes to long-standing foreign policy positions, etc... And suddenly they ban social media. Rahm Emanuel is campaigning for the same thing in America.I don't believe they're overly concerned with "helping the kids" unfortunately

12/10/2025, 6:24:07 PM

by: ropable

I fully support this legislation, and government regulation around this topic. Given the current (2025) state of the social media landscape, I believe that the positives of restricting access to them for teenagers well outweighs any potential harms.As the parent of a teenager affected by this ban (plus one who has aged past it): I wish that it had been in place 8-10 years ago, before either of my kids got smartphones. We tried to be reasonably conservative in their introduction to devices and social media, on the rationale that it would do them no harm to delay using those for a couple of years through their early brain development. The real difficulty turned out to be the network effect of their peers having access to social media, which increased the social pressure (and corresponding social exclusion) to be online. Not having access to Snapchat/Discord/etc. at that point meant that they were effectively out-group, which is a Big Deal for a teenager.We ended up allowing them onto social media platforms earlier than we'd have liked but imposed other controls (time and space restrictions, an expectation of parental audits, etc.) These controls were imperfect, and the usual issues occurred. My assessment is that it was a net negative for the mental health of one child and neutral for the other.I realise that HN is primarily a US forum and skews small-government and free-speech-absolutist. I'm not interested in getting in a debate with anyone about this - my view is that most social media is a net negative with a disproportionate harm to the mental health of non-fully-developed teenage brains. This represents a powerful collective-action failure that is unrealistic to expect individuals to manage, so it's up to government to step in. All boundaries are arbitrary, so the age of 16 (plus this set of apps) seems like a reasonable set of restrictions to me. I am unmoved by the various "slippery slope" arguments I've read here: all rules are mutable, and if we see a problem/overreach later - we'll deal with it in the same way, by consensus and change.

12/10/2025, 11:51:33 PM

by: 256_

A lot of the arguments I see in this thread are about whether modern mainstream social media are bad for young people. When the debate becomes about that, it's very easy to defend these types of Orwellian laws. It becomes "This is a problem, therefore the solution is good", without questioning the solution itself. I think this type of thinking is demonstrated, or perhaps exploited, very well by this article (I'm not implying the WEF is secretly behind everything, I'm just using this as an example):<a href="https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/davos-2025-special-address-pedro-sanchez-prime-minister-spain/" rel="nofollow">https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/davos-2025-special-a...</a>The first part of that article is an absolutely scathing, on-point criticism of mainstream social media. I find myself agreeing with everything said, and then, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, the article pivots to "therefore we need completely 24/7 mass surveillance of everyone at all times and we need to eradicate freedom of speech". That article is like a perfect microcosm of this entire international shift in internet privacy.People and their governments seem to agree that modern social media is a problem. The difference is why. The people think it's a problem because it harms people; governments think it's a problem because they don't control it.I think that the root cause of this shift to mass surveillance is that people in democratic countries still have a 20th-century concept of what authoritarianism looks like. Mass surveillance is like a novel disease that democracies don't yet have any immunity to; that's why you see all these "it's just like buying alcohol" style false equivalences, because an alarming number of people genuinely don't understand the difference between normal surveillance and mass surveillance.

12/11/2025, 7:37:51 AM

by: oddrationale

A lot of debate here is debating a social media ban. But what actually being banned is accounts, not access.Australian teens can still scroll TikTok, Instagram, and watch Twitch streams from logged out accounts. They just can't comment, like, or upload their own content.One might argue that this removes the algorithmic feeds. But I would wager that social media companies will just use browser fingerprinting to continue to serve algorithmic content to logged out users, if they aren't doing this already.My take. This ruling seems to impact the content creators (from Australia specifically) more than the content viewers. Which I'm not sure is the intent of the legislation.

12/11/2025, 2:53:01 PM

by: rcMgD2BwE72F

Why ban social media when ad-supported media is the culprit? Remove the incentive (to get users to doom scroll, to polarize, to impulse buy…) and you change the behavior.I remember when social media was sane 15+ years ago. The problem is the business model, not socializing. It's crazy to ban it when being a teen is the beginning of socializing!

12/10/2025, 5:28:26 PM

by: mullingitover

Florida passed a similar law, and a bunch of other states are attempting to but are blocked by federal courts. Will be interesting to see if the tech industry allows it, or decides to break up the federal government before it becomes too powerful.

12/10/2025, 5:27:59 PM

by: gorgoiler

It’s worth calling this by its other name: the taking away of anonymity and pseudonymity.To date, proving you are old enough is almost always (over-)implemented by having to reveal your legal identity and the exact date you were born.If the whole world goes down the route of AV / age-bans then I hope we at least get some kind of escrow service where you visit an official office, prove your age to a disinterested public official, and then pick a random proof-of-age token out of a big bucket. The bucket’s randomness is itself generated when it was filled up with tokens at the Department of Tokens, and maintained by a chain of custody.You could do it on polling day: ballot boxes get sent out to polling stations filled with tokens and get sent back filled with ballot papers, with the whole process watched by election monitors. Now everyone has (a) voted (b) picked up a proof of age/citizenship token. It would improve turnout, though I believe that’s already mandatory in Australia.

12/11/2025, 2:42:27 AM

by: skwee357

The next step is to outlaw social media in general, and maybe the world will become a bit better.Edit: in case someone decides to disagree with me, here is a non-exhaustive list of issues that social media has created: isolation from the real world, unrealistic expectations in terms of looks/status/success, dehumanization by turning people into likes-dislikes, dehumanizations by creating influencers whose sole purpose it to pump cheap crap to their "followers", a vessel for state actors to spread the current flavor of propaganda/racism supported by "the algorithm" that creates echo chambers rather than promoting diversity of opinions, dopamine producing machines that glue us to the screens.There is nothing social in social media, in-fact, it should be called the "anti-social media".

12/10/2025, 9:05:36 PM

by: chrismorgan

A paragraph from an email Reddit sent me presumably because I created my account in Australia:> Users confirmed to be under 16 will have their accounts suspended under the new Australian minimum age law. While we disagree with the Government's assessment of Reddit as being within the scope of the law, we need to take steps to comply. This means anyone in Australia with a Reddit account confirmed to be under 16 will be blocked from accessing their account or creating a new one. Note that as an open platform, Reddit is still available to browse without an account.“Confirmed to be under 16” sounds like they’re not trying very hard to identify them. But maybe I’m just spared any attempt at checking since my account is 12 years old.I wonder if allowing browsing without an account is compliant with the letter or the spirit of the law—an account is not required for at least some forms of damage. But I’ve paid no attention to this law since I live in India now.

12/10/2025, 5:53:25 PM

by: deminature

As an Australian experiencing this first hand and considerably older than 16, absolutely nothing has changed. It seems like all the social networks are doing age estimation of accounts and only taking action on those that fail and are detected as underage. The change is otherwise completely invisible if you're an adult user. Obviously I'm only a sample size of 1, but I've not heard of any other adults being adversely affected by this, so it seems the estimation is accurate.Pretty well executed - I'm impressed. Given how seamlessly this occurred, it will undoubtedly be rolled out in Europe next year, as the EU has expressed an interest in doing so, but was waiting to see how the implementation went in Australia.

12/10/2025, 1:52:19 AM

by: N_Lens

Quite a decisive move by the Australian government. I don't know if it's a move in the right direction or not but the research clearly shows that around the time social media became mainstream, teens' and preteens' mental health took a nosedive (Especially girls).

12/10/2025, 1:00:38 AM

by: didibus

To be honest, I wouldn't mind they'd ban it for adults too, would help me from wasting time on them.In all seriousness though, I'm curious what counts as social media, can they not play MMORPGs anymore for example? Are niche forums included ? What about chat apps like Whatsapp? Phone texting? Email?I'm also curious if say TikTok and YouTubed simply deactivated their social features? No comments, DMs, and so on for example? Would they be allowed again?

12/10/2025, 5:57:57 PM

by: jgilias

Kids being banned from social media is just one side of the coin. _Everyone_ else being forced to KYC with random websites is the other. I can’t help but wonder, which of the two outcomes is the actual goal here.

12/10/2025, 8:52:48 PM

by: justatdotin

I enjoy participating in wildly diverse online communities and I hate censorship.I have seen the way heavy social media use changes some peoples personalities. it's scary. these platforms don't just home communities: they're engines, with tendencies. including numerous ways in which these platforms are implicated in youth suicide.I am absolutely convinced that children should be discouraged from these engines just as they should be discouraged from alcohol.I totally recognise that if that means these platforms demand proof of ID, that changes their privacy profile and some people will choose to stop participating.perhaps this can offer some stimulus for other ways of online community forming. Thanks everyone here: I've participated in a few online conversations about the topic this week, and this is the only interesting one :)

12/10/2025, 9:55:50 PM

by: niemandhier

To ostracise means literally to be outed from society.Most people I know want to keep their kids off social media, but do not want them to be ostracised.Given that law, it might now be possible to keep your kids off the networks.In my experience, at least for younger teens, it’s a small subset of kids enabled by their parents that push everybody else into the mouth of the kraken.Example from my life:Kid A has an Instagram account curated by her mum, who is more than happy to set up all kinds of communities, etc., for the kids in the class to cite: “finally be able to better communicate and stay in touch”.Sure, you can keep your kid out, but social isolation is not easy for teens. Given that law, you could get Insta-mom banned.

12/11/2025, 8:09:09 AM

by: 1vuio0pswjnm7

Alternative to archive.md, archive.phText-only:<a href="https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1S3fVC/" rel="nofollow">https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1S3fVC...</a><a href="https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1S2nVb/" rel="nofollow">https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1S2nVb...</a><pre><code> echo url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/09/world/asia/australia-social-media-ban-under-16.html \ |curl -K/dev/stdin -Agooglebot > 1.htm firefox ./1.htm links -dump 1.htm|sed -n '/Effect/,/region./p' </code></pre> More<a href="https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1S5G8h/" rel="nofollow">https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1S5G8h...</a><a href="https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1S5sYp/" rel="nofollow">https://assets.msn.com/content/view/v2/Detail/en-in/AA1S5sYp...</a>

12/10/2025, 9:38:23 PM

by: Nevermark

I grew up without television. We had a TV until I was 7, but it was never left on, and I was rarely allowed to watch it.When I was 9 we had a cheap TV for about 3 months and it broke. Family decided we didn't need one.At 36 I got a TV for a couple years. My kids watched Blue's Clues, etc.At 38, I again got a TV for a couple years. Then decided dumb late night shows were not helping the insomnia, so cancelled cable, but started streaming HBO.Since then, I have enjoyed high quality streaming series on occasion. But no live TV, no TV "news", and strictly avoid anything with ads.When I see a live TV on, with the strange voices and non-logic of ads, and the bizarre posturing they call "news", I get a little sick. Even "nature" and "history" shows have strange pacing and repetition. The transparent sucking sound of ads needing tamed attention-providers warps everything.I think being sheltered from regular TV, TV ads, and TV news, has been tremendously positive for my mind and life.Not being exposed to "social" media sites, which are often not actually social, and often unhealthy when they are, is a great win. Quality can sometimes survive in rare small social-conversation sites, not driven by ads or agenda.

12/10/2025, 10:29:20 PM

by: Havoc

And the UK is pushing for age checks on VPNs<a href="https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/63901/documents/7465" rel="nofollow">https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/63901/documents/746...</a>>regulations which prohibit the provision to UK children of a Relevant VPN Service (the “child VPN prohibition”).

12/11/2025, 7:07:35 PM

by: firefoxd

I'm all for keeping kids away from social media. My main concern is how we verify that they are under 16 [0].> showing my ID [in person] was a simple, controlled transaction: one person looked at it for three seconds, handed it back, and forgot about it. The information never left that moment. But online, that same verification process transforms into something far more risky. A digital journey through countless servers, databases, and third-party services, each one a potential point of failure.> What appears to be the same simple request "please verify your identity", becomes fundamentally different when mediated by technology. The question isn't whether these digital systems will be compromised, but when. And unlike that movie theater clerk who can't perfectly recall my birthdate minutes after seeing it, computers have perfect memory. They store, copy, backup, and transmit our most sensitive information through networks we don't control, to companies we've never heard of, under policies we'll never read.[0]: <a href="https://idiallo.com/blog/your-id-online-and-offline" rel="nofollow">https://idiallo.com/blog/your-id-online-and-offline</a>

12/11/2025, 5:46:16 AM

by: Bad_Initialism

To all the parents defending this: you are responsible for your children and what they do.Passing laws that affect all of us because you are too lazy and ineffectual to raise your children properly is unacceptable.

12/11/2025, 12:49:38 AM

by: wartywhoa23

The infovacuuming phase of social networks is complete. Training datasets grabbed, social graphs built, biometry compiled.Now it's very logical to spin that expensive infrastructure down, removing free communication channels which can dangerously synchronize people against the state, and leaving only channels of control: digital ID, CDBC and a white list of governmental "services", all else outlawed.People of 2010s uploaded their personal data into the cloud because they thought that was cool, people of 2030s will do because their telescreens demand them so.Everyone who thinks this will stop at "think about the children" is beyond all repair.

12/11/2025, 8:07:43 AM

by: steve_taylor

The real news is that age verification will be required to use a search engine from the 27th. This has flown completely under the radar because of the social media ban.Initially, it will only be required if you're logged in. Obviously that won't be effective, so the next logical step would be to require that everyone logs in to use a search engine.<a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-11/age-verification-search-engines/105516256" rel="nofollow">https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-11/age-verification-sear...</a>

12/10/2025, 11:38:04 PM

by: duxup

I suspect kids just find their way around things.And then they're on platforms with zero protections because nobody knows they're a teen... end result is worse.

12/10/2025, 8:25:32 PM

by: notepad0x90

I support this greatly. But I think instead of debating whether this makes sense or not, or speculating, let's consider that it is already in effect and consider it an experiment. Let's see how Australia is doing in 10 or 15 years, will those kids be resentful or regret the ban when they're 30?Extremes are bad on either end. unrestricted internet access, even to those who can't defend themselves against harmful content is an extreme, some balance is long due. Since most other western countries chose to risk their kids in the name of liberty, let's wait and see whose trade off works out for the best instead of speculating what will or won't happen.I wish more countries would experiment like this, and even more countries would learn.You can't argue for UBI or drug decriminalization because some country experimented and succeeded and then oppose this sort of stuff. In the US, states are supposed to experiment with laws like this, but they don't have enough power to regulate interstate communication or commerce.

12/10/2025, 9:55:41 PM

by: morgengold

I am so glad a country finally took action. Can't wait to see data on its effects. At this point in time I lost interest in nuanced discussions about the details here. We are in one big experiment and it might end in catastrophy. We need counter experiments and hard data fast.

12/10/2025, 9:48:21 PM

by: nephihaha

There is a pattern of government using moral panics to exert greater control. Australia and New Zealand seem to be used as a testbed for projects which are introduced elsewhere.The UK government wishes to police social media more heavily, and has been using internet porn and illegal immigration (two unrelated issues) to push through digital ID. The exact same mentality - controversy, panic, dubious solution...In this case, we have a genuine issue and a dubious solution.The answer: meet in person. Talk to people offline.

12/10/2025, 10:44:49 AM

by: ethin

And, of course, as usual, this law, like all it's others in the rest of the world, will do absolutely nothing in protecting kids. It will instead only create a huge national security hacker paradise because everyone will use these so-called "age verification" services, which aren't exactly known for their security.

12/10/2025, 6:19:03 PM

by: rpmisms

Discord and Roblox exempted. This is a joke.

12/10/2025, 7:09:52 PM

by: ipaddr

These platforms are heavy censored with a direct line to governments. This will push kids to other platforms with less censorship. That's a major benefit.As we go down this road platforms will need to be banned for everyone. For example VK wasn't on the list and they won't implement age checks. They and many other sites will need to be banned until you are left with a white list of acceptance sites. Add in age verification on those sites for everyone.Kids will learn how to overcome the ban. VPNs will become the standard.

12/10/2025, 5:49:54 PM

by: ProllyInfamous

I was in college when this really cool idea came out: a social network database which only college students could join, regulating access to students@*.edu emails, only [obviously: TheFaceBook]. When distant relatives began sending `friend request`s, just a few years later, I left that platform forever.Seems like local school districts could reintroduce such a platform (perhaps one already exists) for class discussions to continue outside of the classroom... but without the temptations of the outside world [which these u16 bans rightfully seek to limit]. Hyper-walled gardens, actual community-based social spaces, sans predation.As always, I imagine with the unlimited timelessness of childhood multiple clever work-arounds will persist, regardless of any law. May the cat-and-mouse be merry.

12/11/2025, 3:03:10 PM

by:

12/11/2025, 12:17:04 PM

by: beached_whale

We really need the age verification standards to catch up. I think there was stuff in the works, but something like OAuth that doesn't require the two third parties to know about each other and the browser/client is in the middle.

12/11/2025, 1:05:51 AM

by: rswail

I'm Australian and just had to age verify on X/Twitter. They used some app called "selfie" and took a pic and said I was verified. That was it.This social media ban is not so much about banning kids from social media.It's more about banning social media apps/companies from accessing kids.The SM apps are entirely about exploitation of their audiences via algorithms to push advertising and political positions. That needs to be stopped.This is a start.It's a bit like the bans on under 18 (Australia) drinking without supervision. We know that the bans aren't "perfect", but they work for the majority of the time for the majority of the kids.

12/11/2025, 7:32:15 AM

by: casey2

I could have sworn china did something like this a decade ago, but sure World first LOL

12/11/2025, 9:35:30 PM

by: about3fitty

Besides this being ineffective for the motivated, it might have a subtle antitrust effect.As kids find alternative platforms, perhaps they will be vendor locked to them instead of the Meta empire.

12/9/2025, 11:46:27 PM

by: macic

Just what we need, even more government censorship.

12/10/2025, 6:28:01 PM

by: ed_mercer

This is great. Even if it doesn’t actually keep teens off, it sends the message that social media is bad for you. Just like smoking and drinking.

12/10/2025, 8:50:51 AM

by: hermannj314

Ban kids, implement identity verification checks, remove ban on kids, keep identity verification checks.

12/10/2025, 7:48:26 PM

by: yason

How are they going to verify it's not some kid telling he's 18 with a fake picture? Demand a photo of driver's license? Got one here, right out borrowed from dad's pocket. The article also mentions inferring age from the usage which sounds as vague as it is.The counter point is that doesn't this basically mean everyone, including adults, now has to identify in order to use social media? Without a national electronic ID where personal data never leaves government's systems (they've already got it) and the social network just receives a yes/no bit when they ask "is this person old enough?" this would mean a huge amounts of identification data would be willingly and voluntarily "leaked" to foreign private services. Scan your passport and send it to China in order to use TikTok?This mass identification process could either make also large groups of adult people leave social media sites or condition people to upload their ID data to whatever site happens to ask for it.

12/11/2025, 6:09:03 AM

by: eimrine

Please explain me anybody, why not to ban any software which is not FOSS? It will lead to the world I want to live in. Banning just social media just for kids makes the Government to do too much for us - D E C I D I N G who is a kid and what is a social media.It is similar to the tax approach - it is not bad that we are paying taxes, what is bad that the Government implies how to count the taxes.

12/11/2025, 5:48:23 AM

by: demarq

If all the kids start pretending to be grownups, they end up escaping all the protections put in place to protect kids in the first place.In football we call this an own goal

12/10/2025, 1:34:50 AM

by: mk89

I like this article more: <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyp9d3ddqyo" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwyp9d3ddqyo</a>It goes through numbers, potential ways it's gonna be implemented, and also which other platforms are affected.For example:> Dating websites are excluded along with gaming platforms, as are AI chatbots, which have recently made headlines for allegedly encouraging children to kill themselves and for having "sensual" conversations with minors.It wasn't enough the online pedo or weirdos trying to get your kids through chats or games.It wasn't enough the instagram meat grinder that leads to depression, social anxiety, etc.Now we even have to worry about chatbots leading kids to suicide.What a hell of a world are we building - no wonder people don't want to make kids anymore.

12/11/2025, 7:30:07 AM

by: kybernetikos

I think a better approach might be to require that any algorithm used to suggest content to users must be made open source so that people whose world views are being shaped by the content you're feeding them can analyse how you're deciding what to show them.I feel like there's definitely a problem here with social media and its effect on society, but our first approach should be to increase transparency and accountability, rather than to start banning things by force of law.

12/11/2025, 12:55:30 AM

by: ljlolel

It's funny because Facebook and these social networks are always testing in Australia and New Zealand because it's a whole English-speaking society but it's a bit isolated and far away.

12/11/2025, 9:48:47 AM

by: pfdietz

This would be a nonstarter in the US. SCOTUS has ruled "minors are entitled to a significant measure of First Amendment protection." (Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205 (1975)) This sort of blanket ban would collide with that.

12/11/2025, 2:17:14 PM

by: shirro

So far from my experience this has been kind of low impact for adult users with existing accounts. Social media companies obviously have extremely good demographic data on their existing users as targeted marketing and influence is their core business.Unfortunately this legislation hasn't addressed any of my real concerns with social media (it's the algorithms and engagement farming) and it is creating new problems.

12/10/2025, 11:13:07 PM

by: lizknope

When I was a teenager I responded to bans by trying to get around them like warning stickers on music.Talking about the dangers of D&D or the Satanic Panic seemed idiotic to me and still do.But when people explained why something was bad I would listen. Did their concerns seem legitimate?I'm 50 and I've never smoked a cigarette. In the movies it looked cool. But I saw older people with horrible health issues and also the smoke smelled horrible and made their breath stink. Those people were not lying to me about the danger of tobacco.So are people lying about the dangers of social media? But if you think it is bad for teenagers then how do you convince them that it is? I would rather have commercials with teenagers talking about how they were depressed or developed eating disorders or whatever from looking at social media. Then they stopped and now they are happier with more real life interactions.I can tell you that I deleted my facebook account in 2016 (didn't use it much) and haven't been on instagram in 5 years. I don't miss it at all. All facebook ever did was annoy and anger me.

12/11/2025, 3:35:29 PM

by: csense

RIP freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of the press.

12/10/2025, 5:28:52 PM

by: protocolture

Its crazy how the AusGov has just tried to turn this into some kind of nationalistic celebration. Passing laws isolating children isnt to be celebrated by lighting up national monuments.

12/10/2025, 3:10:57 AM

by: winddude

I kind of get it, except youtube... which has much more educational, news, and long form content. Also also forcing face/age verification sounds ripe with issues.

12/10/2025, 5:43:16 PM

by: notnullorvoid

Excessive social media is detrimental (to everyone). Age restrictions are not a good solution, it effectively categorises it as an adult activity, and glorifies it further.Kids are very good at identifying hypocritical behaviour and scare tactics. It'll end up counterproductive like the D.A.R.E. program.If the kids are forced out, the adults should be too.

12/10/2025, 8:26:59 PM

by: egorfine

Father of four here.I will do everything in my power to keep my kids' connected to their social networks. I have a strongly opposing view: social media is one of the best inventions and there is no way or need to protect people from participating.With all the negative effects they bring the society has to learn how to live with it instead of pretend fighting.

12/11/2025, 9:08:58 AM

by: cjpartridge

Absolute joke, most Australian parents will just ID for the kids, if the kids don't figure out how to get around it themselves, especially the typical ipad-kids and their parents.The average Australian punter is getting absolutely screwed by our current government and all involved parties.

12/10/2025, 10:48:26 PM

by: fs_software

I wonder how teens who already use social media will be affected compared with kids who won’t have accounts until age 16.

12/11/2025, 3:46:20 PM

by: dkobia

I have kids and I like this but as we know, prohibition only makes the drink stronger and the thirst deeper.

12/10/2025, 8:22:47 PM

by: jl6

Is the mechanism of the ban actually going to work, or is it just going to train more kids how to use fake IDs and VPNs?

12/10/2025, 5:45:11 PM

by: trinsic2

Although I think that social media causes issues with underdeveloped brains, If this is about confirming age at the point of login, then this is really about identifying everyone and not protecting children. If this is the case, you know they are going to use this data to target people for speech related things.

12/10/2025, 5:48:02 PM

by: JSR_FDED

I’m not against teens communicating with each other online, but I’m very much against the algorithm-driven dopamine addiction factories that are social media today.Imagine a whole generation of teens with attention spans longer than 15 seconds…they might actually realize their incredible potential!

12/9/2025, 3:43:59 PM

by: guyomes

Here is an overview of related restrictions in other countries [1]. Actually, in many European countries, Google does not grant access to Gemini for people under 16yo [2,3].[1] <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/articles/clyd1dvrll1o" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/articles/clyd1dvrll1o</a>[2] <a href="https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1350409" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/1350409</a>[3] <a href="https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/16109150" rel="nofollow">https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/16109150</a>

12/10/2025, 8:12:44 PM

by: shevy-java

I don't like censorship.I also don't like antisocial media.Still, I dislike censorship more than that antisocial media.

12/11/2025, 3:49:23 PM

by: koopuluri

i agree there are a lot of concerns with allowing teens / children to use social media as it is today without any sort of way to help them benefit from these tools instead of being harmed by them (which is sadly far too common).but my concern is that will lead to a less educated population. there is positive, life changing learning that can happen on social media. kids finding their tribe by connecting with people like them in other parts of the country / world. kids discovering skills / crafts they become passionate about. heck, even learning how to communicate effectively with others. i think social media is a treasure when it is used correctly.ofc, i agree with the concerns and ofc the right "solution" is one that enables the positives and minimizes (and ideally eliminates) the negatives. and having social media as a closed, proprietary, centralized product that can't be tweaked (e.g, choose your own custom algorithm, or filter out a "type" of content that you don't want to see, etc.) is the core problem here. a decentralized social media would allow even regulators to apply much more fine-grained controls so that they don't have to remove access entirely.but sadly bec. we don't have a good way to apply fine grained controls to how we use social media, it seems blanket banning entirely for an entire group of people is the best approach. like, i get why it may be necessary (it seems like most / many australians are currently on board), but i really hope this inspires people to build better social platforms that give more control to users.

12/11/2025, 1:25:51 AM

by: Californiasober

Look. As gen z person who basically grew up with tech and social media and had it since I was ~12, there is no way that any ban that is not direct id verification will work, this will instead make the forbidden fruit more tasty and teens more tech literate since they will look for ways around the ban. It feels like a lot of older people are more detached to the times when they first got access to Internet and social media and assume that its all dopamine hits and brain rot, while in reality its curiosity for a bigger world beyond school and limited things that you can do while being underage, cheap entertainment, knowledge.

12/10/2025, 8:18:44 PM

by: SunshineTheCat

I actually feel that teens shouldn't be on social media at all. But I also don't think I should be able to lord that opinion over other people via fiat.Sugar is pretty bad for teens as well but I don't think banning that will solve health issues anymore than this will help teens.Personal decisions > a government trying to be momGovernments always end up doing the most damage when their control is "for the good of their constituents."This might seem like a good thing while they're parenting for you on things you agree with, however, there will likely come a time when they do something you don't and by then it will be too late.

12/10/2025, 8:39:12 PM

by: TimByte

This feels like one of those policies that sounds great at a podium but is going to age horribly

12/10/2025, 5:38:12 PM

by: DustinBrett

Future generation of hackers.

12/10/2025, 6:24:35 PM

by: WhyNotHugo

I've not seen any mention of how this affect families.A lot of my family growing up lived in different cities. We kept in touch via social media. PSTN was expensive and impractical. Postal mail was obviously less practical.Does this new ban move kids to using email to keep in touch with friends and family? Are they now completely isolated from the rest of the world?

12/11/2025, 2:36:59 AM

by: jdthedisciple

I "endured" the same simply by virtue of my upbringing: our parents de facto banned not only social media but even just mobile phones until our mid teens.Can't say I mourn it, quite the opposite.So, good move by our Aussie friends.

12/11/2025, 7:08:42 AM

by: reassess_blind

I’m concerned this will drive teens to dodgy apps and services that have lax data security and no oversight.

12/11/2025, 2:13:40 AM

by: chocoboaus3

Including youtube is where it became stupid, even teachers pushed back against that

12/11/2025, 5:27:18 AM

by: hedayet

Controlling access to any substance is a long process, and the motives aren’t always clear at the beginning.I’m not sure why Australian policymakers chose to take this step now, but regardless of the motive, it feels like a meaningful starting point. Social media’s engagement-driven echo chamber model has contributed to a deeply divided world, and governments stepping in can at least make parents’ jobs a little easier.

12/10/2025, 7:13:40 PM

by: reassess_blind

Discord isn’t banned, but Twitch is? Interesting.Surely Discord harbours more bullying than Twitch (where image sharing isn’t even a feature).

12/10/2025, 9:15:59 PM

by: quitit

I have seen a swift uptick in "Australians" negatively posting on social media networks about the new restriction.Notably the central theme presented by these same "Australians" was that there should be no changes, limits or restrictions to the types of information collected by social media companies, or how they handle such personal information, rather that everything should be exactly as it was... how very convenient.Some were even so incensed about their personal privacy that they wrote how much they disagree with having to share their SSN with online platforms.As many of you would already know, mentioning a "SSN" is a give away that the "Australians" are not genuine people. These accounts are perpetuating the lie that Australians must provide a government identity to access these services. While an ID can be used, it's not mandatory and is actually one of the less convenient options, in comparison to 3rd party verification or a face photo.Seems a bit of a disingenuous argument to complain about taking a photo of one's face for verification, but having no qualms about using the social media network to post photos of oneself for public viewing.

12/11/2025, 1:45:30 PM

by: Mikhail_Edoshin

One purpose of laws us that they clearly state: this is good and this is bad. Many such barriers are cultural, but sometimes they do not work or are actively attacked, so they may be backed with a law.

12/11/2025, 4:18:46 AM

by: artur44

Honestly, this feels like another case where the headline sounds bold, but the real impact will be minimal. Any age-based restriction ends up in the same place: platforms are forced to collect more data just to “prove” someone’s age. When the target group is teenagers, that’s basically a privacy disaster waiting to happen.From a technical perspective, this is impossible to enforce cleanly. Anyone with even basic internet literacy can bypass it with a VPN + fresh account + throwaway email. And of course, the teens most determined to get around it will be the ones the policy is supposedly protecting. The bigger issue is the false sense of security. Parents and politicians get to feel like something has been “done,” while the actual online risks don’t disappear — they just move somewhere less visible. If the goal is genuinely improving teen mental health, digital literacy and real support systems work far better than regulations that will inevitably leak.

12/10/2025, 6:44:01 PM

by: metacortexx

This is a good start to protect kids! Let's hope it helps families and makes the internet a better place for everyone.

12/11/2025, 7:46:48 AM

by: gus_massa

Next election is in 2028, so 15 an 16 y.o. will be able to vote. I expect a strong preference in that group, but IIUC Australia has single seat per district, so I'm not sure if that changes the result.

12/11/2025, 12:02:20 AM

by: t1234s

Did they publish a list of what they consider social media sites? If you are 15 and active on GitHub is this now considered against the law?

12/11/2025, 4:07:27 AM

by: ianbutler

This bit a community discord server of mine where I am a mod last night since we have a large oceanic contingent, somehow NZ got swept up in it too and we scrambled a bit to change our onboarding and other general policies.

12/10/2025, 8:21:35 PM

by: roguecoder

I feel like just making kids lie about our age was pretty effective back in the day. Those of us who lied knew we were going into adult spaces, hid our irl identities, and learned how to behave.Then Facebook convinced people social media was supposed to be about your "real" identity, which made us sitting ducks for scammers and propaganda. Now we have governments demanding we provide our identity papers before we are allowed to participate.

12/10/2025, 9:43:07 PM

by: paxys

Putting "teens" in the title is misleading. The ban is for ages 15 and below.

12/10/2025, 5:46:56 PM

by:

12/10/2025, 8:27:02 PM

by: grahar64

Social media is cigarettes. There are lots of studies showing the negative impacts to say that limiting their reach is probably good for society and individuals.Just about all arguments against this are the same arguments that would stop governments limiting booze or tabaco

12/11/2025, 7:26:32 AM

by: whimsicalism

Frankly, I would have been pissed if this were the case when I was a teen and I got a lot of healthy & useful value out of social media.That said, some of the subcommunities I've seen created, particularly among young women, seem obviously unhealthy/toxic and regulation is probably needed there. I'm thinking of things like '#edtwt'.But I also think we need to avoid ruining things for smart, responsible kids by focusing on the worst.

12/10/2025, 6:21:44 PM

by: nromiun

Everyone supporting this in the comments deserves to live under CCP style internet censorship.

12/11/2025, 3:01:25 AM

by: 0x_rs

An absurd decision with dangerous second order effects, many of which lead to VPNs and other privacy tools being next, just look at UK hyping and building that up right now. I hope they will vote accordingly when they're of age, not forgetting what liberties were taken away from them in the name of very dubious benefits, easily circumvented, and prone to exposing them to greater danger going through unofficial channels. Trying to really address the issues younger generations are facing is clearly too difficult for the geriatric, decrepit ruling class that just won't let go, and this helps them further every government's ambitions of increasingly regulating the means of communication between people. Actually, it's not that it's difficult, they simply don't care.

12/10/2025, 9:23:06 PM

by: aussieguy1234

A bunch of people in local LGBT community Discord servers that marked themselves as NSFW have been locked out of those servers and now need to prove their age to get back in.These communities already had active mods that would remove anyone underage that they found, so it doesn't really make sense in this case that Discord is now requiring them to prove their ages.Meanwhile kids are finding ways around the ban. Kids are asking their older looking friends to pass facial scans for them.

12/10/2025, 9:29:19 PM

by: random9749832

It feels like there is more bot activity then ever before. Reddit is now filled with fresh accounts, suspended accounts and bunch of content that suddenly gets deleted. It doesn't even feel like you are interacting with people anymore.The "social" part is severely decaying.

12/11/2025, 1:49:49 PM

by: stackedinserter

So Australian teens will finally learn how they computers and home wifi works.

12/10/2025, 7:47:07 PM

by: macleginn

Makes one wonder if/how quickly they will come for closed WhatsApp groups and Telegram channels next.

12/10/2025, 10:27:11 PM

by: _pdp_

Many of us grew up without social media and turned out to be fine!Anyone arguing against this ban is delusional what social media does to undeveloped brains. There are plenty of studies to support this as well.Social media is harmful to children. We are talking about 10 yo having access to non-stop stream of inappropriate content for their age. You can blame the parents but social media is now fact of life that cannot be so easily escaped.Like buying alcohol, gambling, driving, voting and other similar things which are restricted under particular age, the discussion should be about at what age is safe for children to participate in the public discourse.I really hope similar controls are implemented across EU.

12/11/2025, 10:16:18 AM

by: flipbrad

Hacker News is social media, isn't it?

12/10/2025, 7:41:34 PM

by: mentalgear

Should have been done 20 years ago, all the millions of miseries that could have been prevented, if politicians hadn't fallen for the Zuckerberg/Sandberg narrative.

12/11/2025, 7:53:47 AM

by: kevin061

Awesome. I hope they do the same in Europe. Children should not be addicted to TikTok.

12/9/2025, 11:15:41 PM

by: alexnewman

My wife did a lot of conversations with kids in Australia. They all said they hate social media and regularly get harassed by Asian criminal gangs trying to blackmail them. They support the law cause they were only there cause they felt they had to be. We freed these children . The Australian internet is far more dangerous than the USA

12/11/2025, 11:25:25 AM

by: ares623

I don’t know why they don’t just ban or restrict the hardware. It’ll be easier to enforce.

12/10/2025, 7:46:33 PM

by:

12/10/2025, 2:26:32 AM

by: stevefan1999

That wasn't world first, the world first is China

12/11/2025, 1:32:58 AM

by: fpauser

This is a good thing!

12/11/2025, 10:58:58 AM

by: jjcm

I've said this before, but if countries want to mandate compliance, they should be required to provide the mechanism for compliance.The rollout of this has been pretty rough all things considered, much of it because the mechanism for compliance is flawed. Anthony Albanese's latest instgram posts are full of comments from teens saying things like, "how am i still on instagram if you banned us". The primary reason for this is most providers are leveraging age-estimation techniques, because the law specifically states:<pre><code> > 63DB Use of certain identification material and services > (1) A provider of an age-restricted social media platform must not: > (a) collect government-issued identification material </code></pre> In an effort to prevent identity theft, the bill as originally written(1) was updated(2) to forbid platforms from collecting government IDs as a proof of age. Even if you support the intent of the bill, the design-by-committee approach made the requirements so easy to circumvent that it's effectively security theater.(1) Original bill: <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r7284_first-reps/toc_pdf/24150b01.PDF;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/bills/r7284_first-reps/0000%22" rel="nofollow">https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...</a>(2) Bill that passed after rewrites: <a href="https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/r7284_aspassed/toc_pdf/24150b01.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22legislation/bills/r7284_aspassed/0000%22" rel="nofollow">https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bi...</a>

12/10/2025, 7:53:31 PM

by: maqnius

Regulating dark patterns and recommendation algorithms would benefit everyone. Banning social media until age 16 and then suddenly allowing teenagers into the toxic social media world feels half-baked and somewhat misses the point to me.

12/11/2025, 12:34:35 PM

by: thisisauserid

Been seeing ads all over NYC for a teen edition of Instagram.

12/10/2025, 6:38:27 PM

by: falaki

I really hope other nations, including the United States, copy this. Australia proved that it is possible. I think the results will be so overwhelmingly positive that others will take notice. Good job Australia!Reading "Anxious Generation" is a must for all parents in this day and age.

12/10/2025, 2:10:03 AM

by: Erikun

It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

12/9/2025, 5:30:55 PM

by: nntwozz

Society is like poorly written software with lots of patches, new features are added (social media) and then stuff randomly breaks. A fix is eventually deployed, sometimes the fix works; sometimes the fix causes more bugs.And so we move forward, like Gordon Freeman in unforeseen consequences.Nobody said nothing as social media and the attention economy took over the world."Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” — Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park

12/11/2025, 3:11:28 AM

by: poplarsol

Every concern about "teens" is explicitly mirrored by a concern about low-capacity adults, which is why Australia et al are so concerned about "disinformation" and the need to control speech of all kinds. This effort should be seen in that light.

12/10/2025, 11:13:52 PM

by: pookha

This has nothing to do with protecting kids...This is the classic "OH WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!" meme that governments fall back on to terrorize and coerce the herd. There's an obvious push by neo-liberals to implement a digital application (ID) that they can use to "authorize". What the UK and Australia and the US homeland security really want is the ability to see a troublemaker and to toggle a switch on their digital certificate\token to dissociate them from the internet. No doubt they've got legions of Keycloak systems stood up and ready.

12/11/2025, 6:34:27 PM

by: gverrilla

Full support.

12/10/2025, 11:42:05 PM

by: kledru

unlike me, these young people might even be able to travel to the United States one day...

12/11/2025, 12:05:01 AM

by: miroljub

The only appropriate comment here would be invoking Goodwin Law. Everything else is too mild to describe the journey of former democracies to totalitarian regimes.

12/10/2025, 6:46:55 PM

by: delis-thumbs-7e

So-called social media is proven to be just a huge scam operation and manipulation mechanism for the ultra-rich robber barons at Silicon Valley. Denying it from kids is same as denying tobacco or alcohol companies sell amd advertise to them. Hopefully future generations have spend their childhood reading, studying and socialising with other kids, not living fake lives and being hunted by slimy adult men. Hopefully they take a one look at this shot and go ”nope, not for me” and do something with their lives.Good for you Australia. I hope EU follows suit soon.

12/10/2025, 10:44:06 PM

by: wnevets

The aussies are huge fans of big brother

12/10/2025, 6:59:25 PM

by: 2OEH8eoCRo0

It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I think many in tech are afraid that this will lead to a positive outcome.

12/11/2025, 1:06:56 AM

by: SpaceManNabs

Anything done "for the kids" is always a scam. When you get asked to use KYC to get on hacker news, just remember you fell for it if you supported this.

12/10/2025, 11:30:51 PM

by: fithisux

It is exactly like smoking. They use age verification, instead of banning it.Because they are deeply involved.It is not about protecting. It never was.

12/11/2025, 9:38:09 AM

by: DeathArrow

If they scare teens of Instagram the danger is some of them will go to places like 4Chan.

12/11/2025, 9:26:06 AM

by: gloosx

"It's just kind of pointless, we're just going to create new ways to get on these platforms, so what's the point," said 14-year-old Claire Ni.Claire Ni concluded it best. They are just going to find new ways. Imagine a kid stopping using something because of the law or government ban. Those lawmakers are just delusional if they think they can pass a law and the kids will stop using social media.

12/10/2025, 8:04:00 PM

by: ajsnigrutin

Age verification, digital IDs and no more anonimity... coming soon to your country too!

12/10/2025, 6:39:09 PM

by: waterTanuki

I'm in favor of banning all social media for under 18s.I'm heavily against any form of mandatory form of identification for using non-government online-services.Is it even possible to do the former without doing the later?

12/11/2025, 5:39:35 AM

by: insane_dreamer

I wonder how many of the people who are against it have young teens. It's easy to rail against the ban, or paint it as some plot to get everyone's IDs, when you're not personally affected by it. As a parent of young teens, I 100% support it.

12/11/2025, 5:34:44 AM

by: nexawave-ai

All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.

12/10/2025, 6:49:22 PM

by: nish__

I support it.

12/10/2025, 10:03:25 PM

by: cal_dent

I don't necessarily think this as it is will "work" but I'm all for someone at least trying to do something. Yes, there are a bunch of externalities and potential second order effects that don't sit well with me but, at this stage, I'd rather some attempt at trying to regulate than throwing up hands and saying its all too hard.Also, dont buy the this is the slippery slope to more authoritarianism etc. as an argument against it because if they're going to go down that path they would anyway whether they did this or not franklyAnyway, it might not work 100% of the time, hell maybe even <10% but any additional friction to knock this kind of social media from being so ubiquitous is a small victory in my eyes

12/10/2025, 5:50:50 AM

by: nacozarina

this is an egregious violation of their civil rights.the law of unintended consequences looms large.

12/10/2025, 1:32:59 AM

by: tjpnz

This is what happens when there's a lack of robust options for parents to deal with the issue themselves. As a technical person I can prevent my kids from accessing these apps on any of their devices, regardless of whether they're at home or not. But if you're a parent who is not you're pretty much limited to the flawed offerings from Apple and Google, who are financially incentivized to make it as hard and as full of holes as possible.

12/11/2025, 1:59:44 AM

by: bob_theslob646

How does a country effectively enforce this? Below is how they propose doing this. If you don't have any form of verification of your actual age, it's seems like they are just going on what the user says ( self reports). How can a company be found liable if a used lies about their age?>the days leading to the ban, some teenagers said that they were prompted to verify their ages using a facial analysis feature, but that it gave inaccurate estimates. The law also states that companies cannot ask users to provide government-issued identification as the only way to prove their age because of privacy concerns.

12/10/2025, 1:02:26 AM

by: roschdal

This is a brilliant idea!

12/11/2025, 12:19:12 PM

by: fortran77

While I'm not sure about this ban, _something_ is causing normally nice, peaceful Australia to be somewhere I don't feel safe anymore. My relatives in Melbourne have left, after being physically attacked and had their property vandalized by mostly young "activist" types who, no doubt, get all their news from social media.

12/10/2025, 8:41:03 PM

by:

12/10/2025, 6:42:04 PM

by: exasperaited

Tech people imagining their own preferential boogeyman harms that might flow from any action intended to reduce the harms of their products. Again.

12/11/2025, 11:09:09 AM

by: pharrington

Modern social media is worse for our mental health than cigarettes are for our physical health. This should be a no-brainer.

12/11/2025, 10:43:33 AM

by:

12/10/2025, 8:33:45 PM

by:

12/10/2025, 11:10:19 PM

by: BurningFrog

I'll take on the low status role of not knowing if this is a good idea.I've seen the data showing teen sanity nose diving concurrently with social media penetration. I'm also a borderline kook libertarian.So I appreciate the arguments in both directions, and I think the only way to find out if it works is to try it out. Preferably on a remote isolated island without nuclear weapons, in case things go badly :)

12/10/2025, 6:14:06 PM

by: ChrisArchitect

Australia compliance etc etc.......But then also global measures?> Teen account holders under 18 everywhere will get a version of Reddit with more protective safety features built in, including stricter chat settings, no ads personalization or sensitive ads, and no access to NSFW or mature content.

12/9/2025, 5:51:02 PM

by: taylorius

I sense a great disturbance in the force - millions of teens muttering "for fuck's sake" and tossing their phones onto the sofa.

12/10/2025, 8:46:32 AM

by: jaimex2

HackerNews used to be full of moderately smart people. This is basically Reddit level comments.Think for a moment instead of just accepting whatever the media is telling you to think.How many social networks are there?Are some of those decentralised?Will kids move to unmoderated underground ones in response to this?Will the government expand these laws now that it achieved a foothold?Parenting and teaching your kids to think and understand how the world works is how you really solve the problems. Not building weak fences and encouraging government over-reach. Raising and guiding your kids is YOUR responsibility, not the governments.All this came about because some absolute slog of a parent had their kid kill themselves and blamed social media. Where the hell was he while their kid struggled?!

12/11/2025, 1:35:10 AM

by: tonyhart7

how Corporate/Gov knows who is Teen on these account???? isn't this is just precursor to digital ID ?????

12/10/2025, 8:40:03 PM

by: verisimi

Is this dystopian enough yet?

12/11/2025, 6:56:03 AM

by: macinjosh

Wake me up, when September ends.

12/11/2025, 12:13:27 AM

by: metalman

any kid who cant figure out how to slide right by a government hack is a looser, and while we should feel a little bad for both of them, presumambly someone will take pity and fix there phones up , and let them know that there is sex and everything on the net

12/10/2025, 10:25:00 AM

by: burnt-resistor

Starting Jan 1, 2026, Texas SB2420 is also requiring ID verification for all app stores. It's not about "think of the children", it's lazy parents who chose unAmerican totalitarianism and billionaires weaponizing government to eliminate privacy and make data brokers rich.<a href="https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=btkirlj8" rel="nofollow">https://developer.apple.com/news/?id=btkirlj8</a>

12/10/2025, 5:50:35 PM

by: rarisma

now do the rest of the world

12/10/2025, 9:28:31 PM

by: renewiltord

Now, all we have to do is mandate that you pass a psychiatric test in order to use social media or LLMs. In this way, we can protect the mentally disabled. People are killing themselves after going on sites like Reddit. It's too dangerous to the mentally disabled.

12/10/2025, 5:49:34 PM

by: CommenterPerson

Yay for the Aussie government. Hope the sociopath tech bros take notice and clean up their toxic products. And the little tech bros protesting here.The Aussies passed strict gun control laws in 1996 .. suicides and homicides decreased significantly. Another field where we Leaders of the Free world (or not) can learn from the "World down under"!

12/11/2025, 1:55:42 AM

by: golemiprague

[dead]

12/11/2025, 4:13:48 AM

by: amitchandel07

[dead]

12/11/2025, 12:30:50 PM

by: skanteezxxy

[dead]

12/11/2025, 11:15:09 AM

by: darubedarob

[dead]

12/11/2025, 5:36:59 AM

by: ballpug

[dead]

12/11/2025, 4:54:28 AM

by: amatecha

Saw a screenshot last night of someone who can't get into JIRA (or some other Atlassian product) until they either submit two forms of government ID or record a face scan. Seems like a great and effective initiative /sText of the screen:"Your Atlassian account is not age verified.Laws in your country require us to verify your age before accessing some products, including Jira and Confluence. This process takes 5-10 minutes. This can be done using two pieces of government ID or by performing a face scan."

12/10/2025, 6:36:39 PM

by: timoth3y

I think if we are going to ban people under 16 from social media, we should also ban people over 70 from social media.At least as much mental and societal damage is done by elderly falling for bigoted, scammy, manipulative nonsense online than by teenagers having their self-esteem lowered.As recent holiday gatherings have shown us, the young handle social media far better then the elderly./s

12/10/2025, 10:33:59 PM

by: anthem2025

[dead]

12/10/2025, 5:31:27 PM

by: hollow-moe

Nice! Soon enough they'll be forbidden to be outside during the day too, to avoid taking any risk crossing these "adults" thing probably.

12/10/2025, 5:34:20 PM

by: techterrier

HN: social media is as bad as smokingAUS: we agree, and like smoking, won't be letting our kids do itNH: but freeze peach!

12/11/2025, 12:30:09 PM

Top 20

Australia begins enforcing world-first teen social media ban

Comments

by: zmmmmm

by: indymike

by: feb012025

by: ropable

by: 256_

by: oddrationale

by: rcMgD2BwE72F

by: mullingitover

by: gorgoiler

by: skwee357

by: chrismorgan

by: deminature

by: N_Lens

by: didibus

by: jgilias

by: justatdotin

by: niemandhier

by: 1vuio0pswjnm7

by: Nevermark

by: Havoc

by: firefoxd

by: Bad_Initialism

by: wartywhoa23

by: steve_taylor

by: duxup

by: notepad0x90

by: morgengold

by: nephihaha

by: ethin

by: rpmisms

by: ipaddr

by: ProllyInfamous

by:

by: beached_whale

by: rswail

by: casey2

by: about3fitty

by: macic

by: ed_mercer

by: hermannj314

by: yason

by: eimrine

by: demarq

by: mk89

by: kybernetikos

by: ljlolel

by: pfdietz

by: shirro

by: lizknope

by: csense

by: protocolture

by: winddude

by: notnullorvoid

by: egorfine

by: cjpartridge

by: fs_software

by: dkobia

by: jl6

by: trinsic2

by: JSR_FDED

by: guyomes

by: shevy-java

by: koopuluri

by: Californiasober

by: SunshineTheCat

by: TimByte

by: DustinBrett

by: WhyNotHugo

by: jdthedisciple

by: reassess_blind

by: chocoboaus3

by: hedayet

by: reassess_blind

by: quitit

by: Mikhail_Edoshin

by: artur44

by: metacortexx