More than 80% of under-16s in Australia said they were still using social media three months after legislation banning them from it came into force. research shows.
But an observational study of 408 12- to 17-year-olds by the country’s University of Newcastle has concluded that Australia’s social media minimum age legislation has resulted in “limited implementation, incomplete compliance,. substantial circumvention of social media restrictions”.
“Overall. we found insufficient evidence to conclude that exposure to the act [of parliament] had any early substantial effects on social media use among adolescents aged under 16 years,” the authors added.
, Instagram, X and Facebook and from livestreaming or communicating with strangers on gaming sites such as Roblox.
But experts. campaigners say the research, published in the BMJ, shows that banning social media is not enough to stop children accessing harmful content online and that a more “convincing strategy is required”.
The Australian study found a minimal reduction in daily social media usage three months after the ban. A major factor in teenagers’ continued use of banned social platforms was inadequate age verification checks. About 85% of teenagers said they were still using social media three months after the ban. with more than half using their own accounts.
Although two-thirds of teenagers in the study said they had to complete age verification checks, only 5% of 12- to 13-year-olds. 11% of 14- to 15-year-olds had to provide a photo of official ID. The two most common checks were asking teens their age and uploading a selfie.
A significant minority of participants said they actively bypassed the age restrictions. About 15% of the 12- to 13-year-olds. 19% of the 14- to 15-year-olds surveyed said they used a fake account, while about 3% said they used a VPN.
The study concluded that the Australian social media ban might be more effective in preventing or delaying access to social media in children under eight. rather than restricting access to adolescents who already use it.
Andy Burrows. the chief executive of the Molly Rose Foundation in the UK, said the findings showed that social media bans alone do not keep under-16s off restricted platforms or cut the time teenagers spend using high-risk sites. “Unless ministers have a coherent plan to urgently learn lessons, the UK’s ban will similarly unravel. Parents will be left with false hope and a misplaced sense of their children’s safety.
“The next prime minister must enter Downing Street with a convincing strategy that properly protects children from online harm, rather than relying on a performative ban which, as this research suggests, is unlikely to improve our teens’ mental health. wellbeing.”
Sign up to First Edition
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters
after newsletter promotion
Rachel de Souza, the children’s commissioner for England, said: “A ban should not be seen as a silver bullet. We have to go further so that all online services – not just social media platforms – that use harmful features. functionalities should be banned from access to all children, not just those under 16.”
Prof Dennis Ougrin, consultant child. adolescent psychiatrist at Queen Mary University of London, said the study should serve as an “important early reality check for policymakers” but that it was “too early to conclude that the policy has failed”. “The key question is not simply whether use falls, but whether restrictions improve outcomes such as mental health, sleep, exposure to harmful content,. self-harm.”
A UK government spokesperson said: “Our approach goes further than the Australia model. will be underpinned by stronger, more effective age verification checks to make it far harder for children to get round safeguards.
“As the technology secretary has made clear, this ban is as much about helping future generations,. resetting social norms in future, as it is about young people today.”
Discussion
Sign in to join the thread, react, and share images.