Stevenson Responds to Australia’s Ban on Social Media Use

In a controversial move, Australia has passed legislation banning children under the age of 16 from using social media. This unexpected decision reignited an international debate over mental health, personal freedom, and the role of governments in protecting young people online.

Supporters of the ban have argued that scientific research indicates the harms of social media. Numerous studies have linked excessive social media use to worsening mental health among teenagers as they continue to develop physically and mentally. As an article in The Guardian states, “Those who reported higher social media use also reported worse mental health and wellbeing, such as feeling negative about the future, no control over their lives and feeling lonely.” The same survey analyzed in their report included 17,480 teenagers in Australia with ages varying from 15 to 19, to further the debate on social media’s effects on teenagers’ mental health. The survey found that “97% of young people reported using social media every day, with 38% spending three or more hours per day, and 53% spending one to three hours per day.” The research argues that contemporary teenagers' excessive reliance on social media may not only cause harm to their own bodies and mental health, but also influence their relationships with others, especially their families.

Citing concerns about teenagers’ mental health, the Australian government enacted a ban on social media for children under the age of 16. In an interview with the BBC, Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese demanded the goal of this legislation “ to protect young people from the ‘harms’ of social media.” Albanese further states that “We want our kids to have a childhood and parents to know we have their backs.” To enforce this legislation, the Australian government will rely on “some form of age-verification technology” across platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, and X.

As one of the most restrictive pieces of legislation regarding social media use to exist globally, Australia’s action has been controversial. Interviewing both students and parents from our campus adds diverse perspectives to Australia’s action. Phillip Koshi, both the Dean of Students of the upper division at Stevenson and a father, believes the “science is clear”: social media can have significant negative effects when used incorrectly. The Guardian’s article states that social media often triggers teenagers to dislike their bodies. The surveys conducted by Stem4 state that “97% of children as young as 12 are now on social media. Despite almost 70% saying that social media makes them feel stressed, anxious and depressed – with two-thirds saying they were worried by the amount of time they spend on social media – the average daily time spent on apps was 3.65 hours.” Koshi says social media also affects teenage boys and girls differently. For instance, Koshi thinks those online “unrealistic bodybuilders” will influence teenage boys because young boys might hope to have physiques like the bodybuilders. They might tend to buy what the bodybuilders sell, creating a “commercial effect.” Similarly, an interviewee in The Guardian’s article on the harms of social media supported Koshi’s point: the person states that “Social media is definitely negatively affecting me. As young people, we constantly compare ourselves to good-looking people online. On sites like TikTok, the only people you see are gorgeous due to the algorithms and that makes us feel really bad about ourselves.” Koshi also states that “excess of access” can be harmful to young people. He further mentions that his daughter is 11 years old and still doesn’t own a phone. As a parent, he hopes to “delay” social media use until the use becomes “unavoidable.” However, Koshi believes it is necessary to discuss the potential harms of social media with his daughter, even when its use is inevitable.

On the other hand, senior Kaden Lin believes that social media has brought both benefits and harms to our society. Lin believes that social media has made access to information “easier and more convenient.” Lin says, “I can learn more about global events through my phone, including this social media legislation by Australia.” The Guardian’s article analyzed and stated that “54% of Americans said they received news from social media.” This analysis reflects a significant shift in how Americans gather information from television to social media. Lin also agrees with Koshi that social media can be “dangerous for people” because people can get easily addicted, serving as a “double-edged sword.” 

When asked directly about Australia’s policy, Koshi comments, “It was a brave and unpopular decision.” He views this decision as the country taking responsibility away from parents and schools, reducing the likelihood of conflict between adults and children. From a parent’s perspective, Koshi isn’t against this strict law banning social media for kids under certain ages. However, he thinks the ban will not be implemented in the United States. Koshi believes that the idea of personal freedom and the economic impact will prevent the ban. Koshi points out that the big technology companies hold “significant political power” and the “economic loss will be dramatic.” From a student’s perspective, Lin also thinks the policy in Australia was “too strict and limits certain access for teenagers in this tech-savvy era.” He proposes limiting content for teenagers rather than fully banning their access to social media. Similarly, Lin also doesn’t think the law will be suitable for the United States. Lin believes that personal freedom is a crucial reason why the law will not pass.

In conclusion, while many parents and scientific researchers support protecting teenagers by limiting technology use, students argue that restrictive policies limit personal freedom and access to information. The difference in thinking shows that multiple perspectives should be considered to make the right decision for everyone. Australia’s decision highlights the complexity of protecting teenagers’ mental health while balancing personal freedom in an increasingly digital world.