Presentation to Policy and Internet Conference, University of Sydney, 30 September 2026
Terry Flew, ARC Laureate Fellow, Professor of Digital Communication & Culture, University of Sydney
Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age laws have become one of the most influential digital policy developments of recent years. While it has often been discussed as a response to concerns about children and social media, I argue that its significance extends well beyond youth protection. The legislation is better understood as part of a broader transformation in internet governance, in which democratic governments are seeking to reassert regulatory authority over global digital platforms.
Australia was the first country to introduce a nationwide social media minimum age requirement, with the legislation taking effect in late 2025. The speed with which similar proposals have emerged internationally demonstrates that governments around the world are confronting common concerns about the social consequences of platform-based communication. What was once regarded as an area best governed through industry self-regulation is increasingly viewed as a domain requiring direct state intervention.
The debate surrounding social media age restrictions should not simply be interpreted as a moral panic about new technologies. Rather, as I argued in Regulating Platforms, reflects a deeper shift in attitudes towards the internet itself. The contemporary internet is increasingly shaped by a small number of highly influential platform companies whose services organise communication, information access, advertising and social interaction on a global scale. At the same time, public anxieties about online harms, misinformation, mental health impacts and the concentration of corporate power have intensified. These developments have encouraged governments to revisit more traditional regulatory approaches.
One of the most striking aspects of this debate is the divergence between public opinion and expert opinion. Public surveys consistently reveal strong support (typically about 70%) for restrictions on younger users’ access to social media platforms. Parents frequently express concerns about cyberbullying, addictive platform design, excessive screen time, social comparison and declining mental wellbeing. By contrast, many academics, civil society organisations and digital rights advocates remain sceptical of blanket restrictions. Their concerns focus on the uncertain state of the evidence, as well as the possibility that age-based restrictions may limit young people’s opportunities for participation, communication and access to information.
The policy discussion is closely connected to research on psychological and neurological development. Critics of platform design point to engagement mechanisms that may encourage habitual or compulsive use. Features such as infinite scrolling, recommendation systems, visible metrics of social approval and ephemeral content can contribute to sustained user engagement. Concerns have been raised about the role these systems may play in encouraging anxiety, fear of missing out, loneliness and social comparison, particularly among younger users.
To understand how the Australian legislation emerged, it is useful to apply a policy cycle framework encompassing agenda setting, policy formulation, decision making, implementation and evaluation. During the agenda-setting phase, concerns about youth wellbeing acquired increased visibility through advocacy by parents, community groups and public commentators. Publications such as Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation helped crystallise broader public concerns into a tangible policy issue.
Policy formulation marked a decisive shift away from industry-led governance approaches. Although alternative regulatory models were proposed, including broader digital duty-of-care frameworks, the political appeal of a simple age threshold proved particularly powerful. Decision making then proceeded with unusual speed. Bipartisan political support and a compressed consultation process helped secure legislative agreement, but they also generated implementation challenges that became apparent later.
Implementation has proven to be one of the most complex aspects of the policy. Effective age assurance remains technologically and politically challenging. Trials have suggested that no single age verification approach is sufficient, and governments are increasingly exploring combinations of methods. Policymakers have also had to determine which services should be included within the regulatory framework. More recently, attention has shifted towards platform features and design characteristics rather than individual platform brands. In this respect, recommender systems, infinite scrolling functions and other engagement-oriented features have become central regulatory targets.
The available evidence regarding effectiveness remains mixed. Early indications suggest that the proportion of children maintaining social media accounts may have declined, but evidence also indicates that many underage users continue to access platforms. As with many regulatory initiatives, outcomes depend upon both the willingness of governments to enforce penalties and the willingness of industry actors to invest in compliance mechanisms.
A particularly important development is the increasing focus on platform design. Both Australian regulatory initiatives and legal actions in the United States are beginning to target allegedly addictive design features rather than user-generated content. This distinction matters because it shifts policy attention away from questions of speech regulation and towards questions of product safety, design responsibility and corporate accountability. The comparison with earlier public health campaigns against tobacco is instructive. Long-term cultural and behavioural change may ultimately prove as significant as formal legal enforcement.
Evaluating success will remain difficult. Youth wellbeing is influenced by a wide range of factors, including family circumstances, educational experiences, economic conditions and the broader social consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Establishing direct causal relationships between regulatory interventions and improvements in mental health therefore presents substantial methodological challenges. Moreover, critics continue to argue that restrictions may disproportionately affect vulnerable young people who depend upon online communities for support and social connection.
Ultimately, the broader significance of Australia’s policy lies in what it reveals about contemporary debates concerning digital sovereignty and democratic accountability. Age-based restrictions are hardly unprecedented; comparable approaches have long existed in areas such as film classification and other forms of regulated media. From this perspective, social media age restrictions represent not a radical break with existing regulatory traditions but an attempt to adapt familiar governance principles to digital environments. Whether the policy ultimately succeeds remains uncertain. Nevertheless, it has fundamentally reshaped international debates about platform responsibility, children’s online experiences and the future governance of the internet.
