����Vlog

As England pushes ahead with plans to ban social media for under-16s, Australia is beginning to evaluate how well its own age restrictions are working.

A offers an early snapshot of the evidence. The research was commissioned and led by Australia’s eSafety commissioner, working with Stanford University’s Social Media Lab and an independent academic advisory group, to assess whether the new requirement for social media platforms to prevent under-16s from holding accounts is changing children’s online behaviour and family life.

This report compares a baseline survey conducted before the restrictions came into force in December 2025 with a follow-up three months later (further follow-ups will be completed at six, 12 and 24 months). The original sample included more than 4,000 children aged 10 to 16 as well as one of the parents of each of them.

So, what did the report find? The overall picture is of measurable but modest change, rather than transformation. Several findings were statistically significant, including falls in account ownership and shifts in what children and parents regarded as “normal” social media use.

However, the effect sizes were generally small, most children continued to use age-restricted platforms, and there was little evidence of substantial change in wellbeing, family life or the amount of time children felt they spent on social media.

In other words, the restrictions have begun to move some of the numbers, but they have not yet fundamentally changed children’s lives.

The key question is whether these early movements are the first stage of a slower cultural shift or simply limited effects that will fade unless platform enforcement becomes much stronger.

Here are five of the key findings in more detail.

What impact has the social media ban in Australia had?

1. Account ownership has fallen, but social media use remains widespread

Fewer children now hold accounts on age-restricted platforms, but this has not translated into an equivalent fall in their social media use. The proportion holding at least one account on an age-restricted platform dropped from 52.4 per cent to 42.1 per cent. However, the proportion using those platforms fell much less, from 85.9 per cent to 81.5 per cent. The restrictions have, therefore, reduced account ownership, but they have not yet fundamentally changed children’s access to social media.

2. Weak implementation by platforms is limiting the effect of the restrictions

Patchy implementation of age restrictions by social media companies appears to be a key weakness of the ban. Among children who still held accounts, 50.2 per cent said that the platform had not asked them to verify their age, while 18.2 per cent said that the platform had estimated their age incorrectly.

Some children had entered an age of 16 or older, but the use of VPNs and more elaborate workarounds was much less common. The message for the UK is that while regulation can change the framework around children, it will achieve little unless platforms implement it consistently.

3. Online activity may be redistributed rather than removed

There are also signs that children’s online activity is being moved rather than significantly reduced. Children reported increased use of messaging platforms and online games, while use of certain other platforms, including Reddit, Pinterest and BeReal also rose.

This suggests that restricting one group of platforms may simply move communication, entertainment and potential risk into messaging services, gaming spaces, group chats or different apps.

Schools, therefore, still need to deliver broad digital education covering the full range of places where children communicate online, rather than focusing only on the most familiar social media brands.

4. Parental awareness may actually be declining

One of the most concerning findings is that parents appear to have become less aware of their children’s social media use. The proportion of parents who did not know that their child had used social media during the previous four weeks rose from 23.3 per cent to 33.3 per cent.

Parents may assume that because their child should no longer have an account, they do not have one. However, children may also be more secretive if they know that their access is prohibited.

Schools, therefore, need to continue talking to parents about what children are actually doing online.

5. The most important early change may be in social norms

A particularly interesting finding concerns changing attitudes towards what is considered normal. The proportion of children agreeing that “most kids my age use social media” fell from 85.1 per cent to 74 per cent. This shift is not dramatic, but it may ultimately prove more important than immediate account closures.

Parents often allow smartphones or particular apps because they believe everyone else has already done so, while children join in because they fear exclusion. A ban, even one that is imperfectly implemented, may give families permission to say “no” and make non-use feel more socially acceptable.

This first evaluation must be read for what it is: an early snapshot, not a definitive verdict.

After three months, Australia’s policy has produced some statistically significant but modest changes.

The most promising early development may be cultural rather than technical, but it will take the six-, 12- and 24-month findings to show whether attitudes are genuinely shifting or whether the policy is failing to stick.

For now, the sensible conclusion for UK schools is neither that age restrictions do not work nor that they solve all the perceived problems with young people accessing social media.

The best advice is perhaps, therefore, that schools should continue to invest in digital literacy, safeguarding and parent education, and set clear expectations around the use of phones and social media.

Luke Ramsden is head elect at St John’s College Cardiff

��