Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- I hate how this is described as a social media ban. It's a social media delay.by dottjt
- Primarily it's social media forced deanonymization, with "think of the children" as an excuse.by amiga386
- Similar to delaying access to alcohol or nicotine because it’s known to be harmful to children. That’s never really framed as a ban.by phoghed
- LOL - I remember saying this would not be something that could be policed, and a bunch of my fellow countrymen tut-tutting at me saying things like “it’s the thought that counts”, etc.
Now it’s gone underground and it’s worse than ever. Meantime, there are kids in high schools across the nation who can’t watch World War II documentaries on Youtube because that’s considered “restricted content”.
You can’t make this shit up.
by chris_wot - Best ban them at the DNS level if you want to get into it.
And not by age.
Edit: any rule/law has ways around it. It’s the intent of the law that matters, and I do not think the sentiment in the community that made it possible is worried about your LOL.
by grebc - The law basically said these companies have to have reasonable measures. They could make a dent if they actually required age verification. But people think it's some civil rights violation like you have some fundamental right to use social media.
Also it's not underground. Kids aren't allowed to create accounts and just lie about their age. Below 13yo did that before as that's the min she already.
by bko - It isnt worse than ever. Read the article, usage is down overall since the ban.by alt227
- While keeping kids away from social media makes sense, legislative ban leads straight to implementing invasive biometric verification for everyone.
Is there a chance to make the dopamine fueling scrolling only a phase, just like e.g. messaging over ICQ is a thing of the past? I mean seriously, people who remember birth of these media are getting old and unattractive, newcomer influencers are thoroughbred professionals, and AI slop is taking over the content.
- The teeth have to apply to the social media companies. Fines for under-16 users.
- Such a thing would require mandatory age verification of every user of the platform, which is obviously a significant privacy complication.by petcat
- Nature finds a way :-p
Also, who allows their 10-12yr old children to use TikTok, Instagram or Snapchat, FFS!
by CrzyLngPwd - spineless parents with a ton of excuses, just ask 'em, you'll be schocked.by lynx97
- Do you think parents have a say in it? Kids find a way.
Kids just don't understand the effects that it has on them
by ramon156 - A proper FF back to you, Sir. We are quite far out on the parental spectrum with regards to controlling their devices and I can attest to ultimately having no control at all. They will find a way. (And that’s natural in a way.) You just hope that next to controls, the talks about keeping your balance in life and being aware of dangers, even when everyone does XYZ, help in the long run.
Social media are a scourge on society and a US hegemonic instrument. Who cares about this opinion…? (Hint: nobody, it’s about parenting the three I want to help grow up in life.)
by wjnc - I never really know what to think about this issue, On the one hand I used the internet unsupervised at around 10 and I think it was positive and I really do wonder if the extreme stuff such even murder videos and such are actually that bad for children in that lots of children would have seen execution's of people in the past. On the other hand I think the most negative thing about the internet today is social media and the sort of socialization it provides, The sort of way even fully grown adults treat influencers and the sort of trite conversations that you will now have with people on various topics and are only capable of holding these positions that youtubers have told them to. All of this has always existed of course but now the internet amplifies this and has connected too many people together and amplified the most stupid qualities of theses people and by extension society at large. Just look at the way are industry of supposed intelligent people have adopted the phrase 'token-maxxing' and other phrases that are just stupid. I think this is what is most damaging to children being exposed to that much stupidity that has been given far too much dignity.by kodoman
- I owe my career on the Internet to my dad thinking he could block it from me when I was 11 years old.by rozenmd
- Banning is the only surefire way to provoke interest among kids. Whatever they're denied, they will inevitably be drawn to (at least a healthy %).by tescreal
- Telegram CEO predicted this the moment countries started to announce that. His idea, that I completely agree with, is: Awareness > Control
- Who would have thought banning something would make it attractive to kids. Radical.by halsafar
- Exactly. During Prohibition, did alcohol consumption decrease, including of course, illegal alcohol consumption? Then…
I also wonder how many Australian teens are using less regulated and lesser-known social networks
- Related: "Australia's social media ban has failed (reuters.com)" 02.aug.2026 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49141877 127 comments
- The number of you who confidently commented something incorrect because you couldn’t be bothered to read the 13 sentence article is as unsurprising as it is disappointing.by phoghed
- Misleading title. Usage dropped after the ban and has risen slightly since the initial drop.
The article does very little besides report this. It speculates that it might be due to vpn or the ban not working. It doesn't even go into how the ban works or and basic journalistic follow up questions.
Does anyone have a better source or info why it's not effective
by bko - Source: Australian, with teenager.
1. It's not a ban on using social media, it's a requirement for age verification to create an account. This only limits usage on the few platforms that force an account to do anything.
2. The technical controls platforms implement are, unsurprisingly, generally quite weak. Kids are crafty enough to circumvent them, and share how freely.
3. Wannabe-influencer parents just create accounts for their kids, making the circumvention trivial.
4. There are no consequences for using a social media account while under 16.
I think the final point is the main one, though. By design there's no mechanism in place for the government to take any action if a kid gets onto social media, only if a platform fails to implement age checks that satisfy the legislation's criteria. So platforms all implemented tokenistic age checks. Platforms don't care, or need to care, if they get bypassed. The government doesn't care.
If I were a more suspicious man I'd say that either the point was never to reduce the use of social media by kids in the first place, or it was well intentioned but railroaded into toothlessness by lobbyists.
by codebje