Australia did it!
The continent-sized country has made a historic decision: starting from December 10, 2025, a world-first law will take effect that bans children under the age of 16 from using social media platforms.
The regulation was prompted by concerns for the mental health and safety of young Australians and has sparked serious global reactions and debate. Although YouTube was initially exempt due to its educational value, this decision was later reversed, and the platform is now included in the ban alongside Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and X.
The inclusion of YouTube caused the biggest uproar. In today’s article, we explore the background of the ban, its effects, and the controversies surrounding YouTube, with special focus on Communications Minister Anika Wells’s role — and, of course, what this means for us moms.
The Aim and Scope of the Social Media Ban
The Australian government, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of social media with the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act. These effects include cyberbullying, harmful content, and algorithm-based addiction.
The law requires platforms to take „reasonable steps” to ensure that under-16s cannot create accounts, thereby protecting them from these effects. Platforms that fail to comply can face fines of up to AUD 49.5 million (approximately USD 32 million), emphasizing the seriousness of the issue — our children’s mental health.
It is important to note that the new regulation uniquely emphasizes the responsibility of the platforms themselves. The regulation does not penalize children or their families but places the onus on platforms to enforce age restrictions.
The ban primarily affects socially driven platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, X, and now YouTube. Exceptions apply to services focused on gaming, messaging, education, or healthcare, such as Google Classroom, WhatsApp, and Messenger Kids. YouTube Kids — which features filtered content and does not allow video uploads or comments — remains an exception due to its low risk of harmful interactions.
YouTube’s Inclusion – In or Out?
When the law was passed in November 2024, YouTube was granted an exemption for its educational significance, aided by lobbying from the platform’s global CEO and support from former Communications Minister Michelle Rowland. However, as reported by CNN, based on advice from eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, new Communications Minister Anika Wells announced on July 30, 2025, that YouTube would also be included in the ban.
It seems exceptions don’t reinforce the rule after all. This decision sparked political and industry tensions that continue to stir public opinion. Moreover, professional and civil responses have since reframed the conversation around online regulation.
But let’s start at the beginning.
The decision was backed by a survey involving 2,600 children aged 10–15, revealing that 37% had encountered harmful content on YouTube — the highest rate among all platforms.
According to the survey, harmful content includes:
– Misogynistic or hate-inducing material,
– Violent videos,
– Dangerous challenges,
– Content promoting eating disorders.
YouTube defended itself by claiming it is not a social media platform but a video-sharing service, highlighting its educational role and child-friendly features like YouTube Kids.
With reason.
An August survey showed that 84% of Australian teachers use YouTube monthly for educational purposes. Nevertheless, the government — following Inman Grant’s recommendation — categorized the platform as similarly addictive and harmful as TikTok and Instagram, mainly due to features like infinite scrolling, autoplay, and algorithmic recommendations.
Under the ban, those under 16 cannot create YouTube accounts, upload videos, post comments, or subscribe to channels. However, they can still watch videos without logging in or under parental supervision, maintaining access to educational content.
Fair.
But is it fair?
Anika Wells’s Role and the Government’s Position
Communications Minister Anika Wells firmly supported the ban, stressing that the government stands with parents over platforms. She compared online child protection to supervised swim lessons — as opposed to throwing kids into a shark-filled ocean.
She dismissed legal threats from Google, stating that the regulation is a real fight for the wellbeing of Australian children. She also rejected YouTube’s lobbying tactics, such as using the popularity of The Wiggles children’s music group — clarifying that it was the band’s management, not the performers themselves, behind the campaign.
Prime Minister Albanese supported Wells’s stance, declaring: “Social media causes societal harm to our children, and I want Australian parents to know: we stand with you.” He added that Norway and the UK are considering similar steps and that he will share Australia’s approach with political leaders in New York this September.
YouTube’s Reaction and Lobbying
YouTube strongly opposes the decision, arguing that it is not a traditional social media platform but a video-sharing site with less focus on social interaction. The company launched an intense lobbying campaign with newspaper ads, billboards, and the “Google at Parliament House” event on July 30, 2025, featuring popular YouTubers.
The platform threatens legal action, claiming the ban could infringe on constitution-level freedom of political communication. At the same time, they emphasized that in the first quarter of 2025 alone, they removed 192,856 videos for hate speech or harassment. They criticized the eSafety Commissioner for allegedly ignoring community feedback and the platform’s educational value.
The Role of the eSafety Commissioner
Julie Inman Grant played a key role in including YouTube in the ban. In her 16-page report to Minister Wells, she highlighted that YouTube is the most used platform among 10–15-year-olds — with 76% using it regularly. She pointed out that its design (infinite scroll, autoplay) encourages overconsumption and frequent exposure to harmful content.
In a National Press Club speech, Inman Grant emphasized that this is not a ban but a delay — children can still access YouTube content without an account. Age verification will rely on AI-based tools, what she called a “tool avalanche,” although a June government test showed these tools are currently unreliable.
YouTube Kids Remains an Exception
YouTube Kids remains exempt because it doesn’t allow video uploads or comments, reducing the risk of harmful interactions. This could inspire other platforms to develop similar “safe versions” to comply with the law.
A Style and Byte Magazin strongly supports the creation of TikTok Kids and other child-compatible platforms.
Public and Industry Reactions
The ban has received mixed reactions. Euronews encountered a wide range of opinions. Advocacy groups like 36 Months and Let Them Be Kids welcomed the decision. Others, like X user @ausvstheagenda, criticized YouTube’s inclusion and accused the eSafety Commissioner of bias.
Meta, TikTok, and Snapchat representatives also opposed YouTube’s previous exemption, claiming it distorted the competition since their platforms have similar algorithmic features.
On the educational side, Angela Falkenberg, representing the Australian Primary Principals Association, welcomed the move but emphasized that educators have always chosen content responsibly — and can continue to use YouTube without accounts for teaching purposes.
Who’s right?
Many debates have emerged on Reddit.
Challenges and Open Questions
Enforcing the regulation presents serious challenges for the government. Work is underway to finalize the report on age verification technologies to define what constitutes a “reasonable step.”
Preliminary findings suggest that no single solution is entirely secure, raising the risk of circumvention.
Wells admitted: “Kids — bless them — will always find a way.” Still, she emphasized that the regulation is flexible and obliges platforms to delete existing accounts, prevent new ones, and correct any violations.
Some fear excessive government intervention — for example, @FranMooMoo warned about the eSafety Commissioner’s expanding powers, especially concerning search engine codes.
Others question whether the ban will actually reduce harm or simply push children toward unregulated platforms. UNICEF Australia emphasized the need to balance safety and access, as social media offers important connection opportunities for many kids.
Global Impact
Australia’s example is being closely watched by other countries: Norway has announced similar regulations, and the UK is considering following suit. The law’s success or failure may shape the future global approach to regulating social media use among minors.
What does this mean for moms?
For mom, this decision brings not only legal but also everyday challenges. While the regulation aims to protect children, the consequences often fall on families—especially mothers.
– How can parents explain to their children that YouTube content they were used to—even for learning—is now banned?
– What alternatives can they offer, and who decides what truly counts as helpful or harmful content?
– Wouldn’t it be more effective to teach kids how to use platforms mindfully instead of banning them?
Many feel that the ban is not accompanied by real educational support. There are no comprehensive, easily accessible digital parenting programs to help parents navigate the rapidly changing online world. Children will remain online—just on other platforms. The burden of supervision, explanation, and guidance often falls solely on mothers’ shoulders, while meaningful societal support is lacking.
The intention may be good, but the question remains:
Does banning really lead the way—or is awareness the key?
As controversial as the decision may be, many feel that someone has finally spoken out against the kind of online content that, for years, has shaped, distorted, or even endangered children. This ban may not solve everything, but it might mark the end of an era—one in which young people died because of senseless challenges, or where social media algorithms indiscriminately pushed the most harmful messages toward the most vulnerable users.
Anyone who has watched the show „Adolescence” knows just how devastating the consequences of online bullying, body-image issues, or the desperate search for validation through the internet can be. Platforms like YouTube have long been more than just entertainment—they’ve become central to identity formation. But sometimes, children pay too high a price for that.
The message of this regulation is clear: the online space cannot be a lawless zone—especially not when it comes to children. Perhaps this is the first real step toward regaining control, and ensuring the digital world no longer dominates reality.
Conclusion
Australia’s social media ban for under-16s is a bold attempt to protect youth online. The inclusion of YouTube marks a major political shift. Backed by clear data and strong conviction, Anika Wells and Julie Inman Grant are putting children’s interests ahead of corporate ones.While the measure faces legal and technical challenges, the world is now watching Australia — will it strike the right balance between safety and digital access?
Does the new law help parents, especially mothers, who often bear the primary responsibility for guiding their children online? Or does it add extra burdens to their already full plates, without providing sufficient support?
And ultimately, does this regulation help families raise digitally conscious kids, or does it risk taking away valuable opportunities from our youth?
FAQ
1. What is Australia’s new social media law for children?
As of December 10, 2025, Australia will enforce a law banning children under 16 from creating or maintaining accounts on most social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, X, and YouTube
2. Why did the government introduce this ban?
The ban is meant to protect young people’s mental health and wellbeing by reducing exposure to harmful online content, cyberbullying, and the risk of addiction from algorithm-driven platforms
3. Which platforms are affected by the ban?
The law applies to social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, X (Twitter), Reddit, and YouTube. Some services focused on messaging, gaming, education, or healthcare — like WhatsApp, Messenger Kids, and Google Classroom — are exempt. YouTube Kids remains an allowed exception
4. Was YouTube originally included in the ban?
YouTube was initially exempt due to its educational value, but this decision was reversed in July 2025 after further review. YouTube now falls under the ban alongside other major platforms
5. How will platforms enforce the age restriction?
Platforms are required to take “reasonable steps” to ensure under-16s cannot create or maintain accounts. Methods may include AI-based age verification, flagging underage sign-ups, and deleting existing accounts identified as belonging to users under 16
6. Will children or parents face penalties?
No. The responsibility lies with social media companies, not with children or families. Companies who do not comply may face fines up to AUD 49.5 million (about USD 32 million)
7. Can parents give permission for their child under 16 to use social media?
No. Parental consent cannot override the ban: children under 16 may not use these social media platforms, even with their parents’ approval
8. What about existing accounts held by under-16s?
All existing accounts used by those under 16 must be deactivated or removed by the affected platforms when the law takes effect
9. Will children still be able to access content on YouTube?
Yes, children can still watch YouTube videos without logging in, or use YouTube Kids, but they cannot create accounts, upload videos, comment, or subscribe to channels under the main YouTube platform
10. How might this affect families, especially moms?
While the law aims to protect kids, many parents — particularly mothers — may face extra challenges managing their children’s online experiences, explaining changes, and seeking safe alternatives, since societal support and digital parenting resources are still limited
Sources:
Unicef: https://www.unicef.org.au/unicef-youth/staying-safe-online/social-media-ban-explainer
Deutsche Welle: https://www.dw.com/en/australia-adds-youtube-to-social-media-ban-for-under-16s/a-73459548
AP News: https://apnews.com/article/australia-x-corp-esafety-elon-musk-court-5aa19124570ed84823909c4dee7b72ca
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2025/jul/31/australia-teen-social-media-ban-young-people-leo-puglisi-6news.