Australia has just launched its first major global ban on the use of social media for under 16 yearsThis regulatory experiment is being scrutinized in detail across Europe, and particularly in Spain. The measure, which affects millions of teenagers, aims to curb the risks associated with the intensive use of these platforms, from cyberbullying to the effects on mental health.
At the same time, this decision opens up an uncomfortable but necessary debate: How far should governments go to protect minors? online without infringing fundamental rights such as freedom of expression or privacy. What happens in Australia in the coming months will serve as a reference point—for better or for worse—for European regulators who are already working on similar regulations.
What does the Australian ban for those under 16 entail?
Since December 10th, Australian children and teenagers under 16 years of age They cannot have accounts on a specific list of platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Threads, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, X (formerly Twitter), Reddit, Twitch, and Kick. Companies are required to delete user accounts Below that age, it is already prohibited to create new ones, under penalty of fines that can reach 49,5 million Australian dollars (around 30 million euros) in the most serious cases.
The regulation shifts the focus from the minor to the provider: Neither the young people nor their parents are punished.but rather to companies that do not adopt “reasonable measures” to verify the age of those who use their services. For now, services such as Roblox, Pinterest, WhatsApp, Google Classroom, YouTube Kids, and LinkedIn are excluded from this blacklist, although the government has made it clear that The list of affected platforms is dynamic. and it may be expanded if they detect that adolescents are migrating en masse to other environments, as happened in Denmark.
In practice, many networks had already started making moves days before the law came into effect: Facebook and Instagram began the gradual closure or blocking of accounts. identified as belonging to minors, and other platforms activated more visible age verification processes. In some cases, the accounts of boys and girls under 16 are not deleted entirely, but rather “frozen”: they are allowed download or archive the content and recover the profile when the minimum age is reached.
For Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, this is a “historic” reform, which he has described as “one of the biggest social and cultural changes of recent decades”The stated goal is to reduce digital pressure on young people, limit early exposure to violent, sexual, or misogynistic content, and cut, as far as possible, dependence on algorithms designed to maximize screen time.
Age verification: AI, documents, and a global testing ground
The major sticking point is how to determine who is actually under 16. The social media platforms involved have opted for a combination of official documents, financial data, and age estimation using artificial intelligenceThe idea is to cross-reference signals to detect users who circumvent age rules by entering a false birth year when registering.
The Australian government funded a large-scale trial to test these methods: More than 60 verification tools were analyzed in tens of thousands of tests of facial recognition and other systems. The conclusions were ambiguous: all methods are “technically possible,” but none are infallible. Verification with an ID card or passport proved to be the most accurate, although it raises a clear problem of trust and privacy for users who have to hand over copies of highly sensitive documents to companies that, according to surveys, most Australians do not fully trust.
Systems age estimation by facial features And inference techniques based on online activity showed significant limitations right in the key age range: teenagers aged 14, 15, 16, or 17. A margin of error of two or three years is enough to block legitimate users or allow those who, in theory, should be excluded to pass through. Furthermore, several tests detected worse results with girls and with non-Caucasian faceswhich opens another can of worms: algorithmic bias.
Although the proponents of the measure insist that age verification can be done in a “private, robust and effective” way if several layers of control are combined, Doubts about the cost in terms of privacy have not disappearedFor millions of people, the price to pay to continue using social media is accepting that an AI can scan their face or uploading official documents to a large technology platform.
The fears are not theoretical: when YouTube announced in other countries that it would use AI to guess users' ages, many adults protested the possibility of to be mistakenly identified as minors and be forced to provide a facial scan or a copy of their ID to avoid losing access to the platform's features. The debate has now moved to Australia, where critics are questioning the normalization of this type of biometric check for everyday online interactions.
Teenagers are already looking for shortcuts: VPNs, gray platforms, and creativity
One of the first scenes to circulate in Australian media perfectly illustrates the practical challenge of the law. Thirteen-year-old Isobel received a notification from Snapchat: either prove that you were at least 16 years old or your account would be blockedIt took him less than five minutes to bypass the filter. Simply putting his mother's face in front of the camera was enough for the system to validate the account. Other boys report using photos of celebrities or video game characters with the same result.
The anecdotes multiply: a cheap Halloween mask It was used in a university experiment to fool facial recognition technology; in the UK, teenagers have already tried using computer-generated faces or avatars to bypass similar controls; and social media is full of impromptu tutorials on how to circumvent the restrictions. The Australian regulator itself acknowledges that “There are going to be a lot of mistakes” in the early stages of implementation and that it is a "constant battle" to close the gaps.
Beyond camera tricks, experts assume that the use of VPNs and services that obfuscate real location from the user. Something similar already happened in other countries when age controls for accessing adult content websites were tightened: for weeks, VPN app downloads skyrocketed and then stabilized at higher figures than before the regulation.
Another option is displacement towards platforms not included in the banLifestyle apps, "alternative" video services, and live streaming apps have climbed the Australian download charts since the beginning of December. There has also been a surge in the use of messaging apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, and Signal, which for the time being They are not subject to the same restrictions although in practice they allow conversations, content exchange and the creation of massive groups among teenagers.
Several specialists also point to a likely diversion of young people towards video game platforms and online communities like Discord or Roblox. They aren't on the official list of restricted social media platforms, but they offer text and voice chat, link sharing, and exposure to sensitive content. If many teenagers abandon Instagram or TikTok to take refuge in these less controlled environments, the net effect of the ban could be very different from what was expected.
Parents in favor, experts divided, and tech giants on the defensive
On a social level, the norm is born with remarkable support. Recent surveys They place citizen support around the 75-80% of the Australian populationWith parents highly mobilized following cases of extreme cyberbullying and child suicides, some parents have publicly recounted how online harassment ultimately led their children to a tragic end, becoming the face of a campaign calling for stricter digital regulations.
This climate has outweighed the reservations of some members of the expert community. Digital security researchers and former child protection officers They warned that a blanket age ban could be too crude a tool: they fear it would isolate vulnerable teenagers who find support in online communities, create a false sense of security among families, and simply shift problems to less regulated spaces without solving them.
Civil rights groups and several privacy advocacy organizations have gone a step further. They allege that the law It puts a strain on the right to freedom of expression.especially regarding minors' political communication. Two 15-year-olds have filed a lawsuit in the Australian High Court, supported by digital activists, arguing that their ability to access information, express opinions, and participate in public debate through social media is being unconstitutionally restricted.
The tech companies themselves have escalated their rhetoric. Meta, YouTube, Snapchat, and the other affected firms claim they already have [mechanisms/mechanisms in place]. specific settings for children's accountsThese features filter harmful content, limit personalized advertising, disable autoplay, and block unwanted contact. In their view, the Australian ban jeopardizes some of these protections because many young people will be able to bypass them. Continue accessing platforms without logging inthus exposing themselves to less moderated content and less filtered ads.
The sector also points out that the economic sanctions contemplated, although high in absolute terms, represent a minimal fraction of global revenue from giants like Meta or Alphabet. For some analysts, this reduces the real incentive for companies to take the implementation of robust age controls seriously, beyond formally complying with the minimum requirements.
Safer or more exposed? Doubts about the real impact on mental health
The underlying issue of the entire debate is the relationship between the use of social networks and the physical and mental health of minorsThe Australian government maintains that the correlation between intensive use of these platforms and problems such as anxiety, low self-esteem, sleep disorders, and school withdrawal is sufficient to warrant decisive intervention. It argues that algorithms that encourage compulsive content consumption, the dynamics of constant "likes" and notifications, and the omnipresence of mobile phones are undermining the well-being of an entire generation.
There is no shortage of studies that point in that direction. Recent research has confirmed that It takes less than half an hour So that a new, supposedly teenage, account on services like YouTube or TikTok receives recommendations for misogynistic, violent videos, or videos linked to self-harm and suicide. Foundations and specialized organizations have shown how, in a matter of minutes, algorithms lead young people toward “tunnels” of extreme content The kind that are hard to get out of.
However, the scientific literature also emphasizes that the cause-and-effect relationship is complex. There are studies that show that certain online communities are a A true lifeline for LGBTQ+, neurodivergent, or rural teenagersallowing them to find support, reliable information, and a sense of belonging that they don't always have offline. Some former child policy officials in Australia are uncomfortable with the primary response being closing the door to social media instead of strengthening digital education, content moderation, and algorithm transparency.
The government itself admits that this is not a complete solution, but rathera treatment plan that will have to evolveTheir roadmap already includes the next step: establishing a “digital duty of care,” a legal obligation for platforms to anticipate and prevent foreseeable harm to their users, especially minors. The question is whether, by the time this second phase arrives, teenagers will have already moved en masse to ecosystems that are currently off the regulatory radar.
Meanwhile, Australian research centers have announced they will be closely monitoring the situation. how indicators of well-being and mental health vary of young people after the ban came into effect. The first data will not arrive for at least one or two years, so any categorical assessment—for or against—risks being premature.
Europe takes note: the EU is preparing its own framework for minors
The echo of the Australian decision is being heard strongly in Brussels. The European Parliament recently approved a resolution that, while not yet a final law, points the way forward: to set 16 years as the reference age for access to social networks and significantly strengthen safeguards for children in the digital environment. According to the 2025 Eurobarometer, more than 90% of EU citizens consider action urgent.
The European proposal outlines a somewhat different model. The general idea is that Children under 13 years of age may not use social media under any circumstancesWhile the 13-16 age group would only have access with explicit parental or guardian consent. Platforms that violate the future rules would face fines and possible bans on certain practices, such as recommendation algorithms that exploit continuous interaction or reward mechanics common in many online games.
Brussels wants to accompany these obligations with two key technical pieces: one European age verification application and a digital identity document (eID) that allows verification of whether a user exceeds a certain age threshold without revealing further account information. The official premise is that these tools must be designed “with privacy by default,” so as not to create a massive database of minors' digital lives.
Meanwhile, community institutions are scrutinizing the situation closely. the functions considered most addictiveInfinite scrolling, autoplay, continuous reward systems, some forms of extreme gamification, and the use of generative AI to create hyper-personalized content or deepfakes aimed at teenagers are all contributing factors. The idea is that these dynamics, if left unchecked, end up pushing young people into a much greater exposure than they would consciously choose.
Recent reports from the European Parliament indicate that 97% of minors connect daily And that almost eight out of ten young people between the ages of 13 and 17 check their devices at least once an hour. One in four exhibits what is considered "dysfunctional" mobile phone use. MEPs warn of digital environments that prioritize monetization and user retention over the best interests of minors, relying on dark patterns, addictive designs, and algorithmic systems that reward the most extreme or emotional content.
Spain, aligned with Brussels and awaiting age verification
In Spain, the regulatory movement is already underway. Congress began processing the bill in September. Organic law for the protection of minors in digital environmentsThis follows European recommendations. The text proposes prohibiting access to social media for children under 13 and requiring express consent of the parents so that teenagers aged 13 to 16 can open accounts on these platforms.
The Minister for Digital Transformation, Óscar López, has directly linked the Spanish timeline to what is happening in Australia. The government wants to have the new protection architecture operational around 2026But he insists that setting a legal minimum age “isn’t very useful if there isn’t a reliable verification system.” In his words, “the tool is as important as the legislation.”
That tool is Beta Digital WalletThis electronic credential allows users to prove they are over a certain age without revealing additional personal data. The mobile device generates cryptographic proof that platforms can verify, but without accessing the user's ID or storing sensitive information. The government's ambition is to use it both to limit minors' access to social media and to control access to pornographic websites or other particularly sensitive content.
The Spanish solution is being tested alongside other European proposals in a joint pilot project. According to the Ministry itself, It would be the most technically advanced at the momentIts design aims to ensure that adults don't have to provide more information than necessary to continue browsing normally. The challenge is twofold: to make the system user-friendly and privacy-respecting, while also making it robust enough to prevent easy circumvention.
In parallel, the future Spanish law foresees additional obligations for the platforms, such as strengthen parental control toolsThese measures include enabling clear reporting channels, improving content moderation, and establishing age verification procedures integrated into their own services. Also under consideration is the possibility of imposing direct sanctions on managers who fail to ensure compliance, following the lead of other European digital regulations.
Australia's move to ban social media for those under 16 has held up an uncomfortable mirror to Europe and Spain: it reflects both the public's weariness with the negative effects of these platforms and the enormous technical, ethical, and legal difficulties of imposing effective limits. Among those applauding the move for finally offering a "brake" on the power of algorithms are those warning of its collateral risks. The debate is no longer whether to act or not, but how to do so without creating new problems.What happens in the coming years in the antipodes will largely determine the tone and ambition of the rules that will ultimately be applied to European minors when they connect to the internet.
