A government ban on social media for under-16s is a controversial measure: while it aims to protect children from digital harm, evidence suggests it risks being a sweeping approach that ignores the diverse needs of young people and their families.

This week, as we mark National Child Protection Week under the theme “Every Conversation Matters”, the National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (NAPCAN) has urged us to move beyond words and take meaningful action. “Real change begins with everyday conversations in families, workplaces, schools, and communities,” says Greg Antcliff, COO.

 

The question is, what kind of action?

Nooria Ahmadi a member of NAPCAN’s Youth Speak Out (NYSO), argues that “protecting children starts with prioritising their views and raising them in every conversation“. Yet the government’s proposed blanket ban ignores those voices and charges ahead with a “one size fits all” policy.

It also disregards clear international advice. The United Nations warns that digital access is a right, not a privilege – and that bans risk deepening inequality by excluding young people from vital opportunities for connection and learning

 

Policy Context

The ban follows a pattern in Australian child protection policy: school internet filters, the National Filter Scheme, and recent eSafety regulations.

These tech-first interventions were easy to circumvent and saw limited uptake, showing that child protection requires multi-layered strategies, not blunt instruments.

 

The Case for Social Media Ban

There’s no question children face online risks: cyberbullying, sextortion, scams, and predatory contact. Between 2022 and 2023, the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation (ACCCE) logged more than 40,000 cases of child sexual exploitation. The government argues a ban will reduce exposure to harm and give parents more control over children’s digital interactions.

Even platforms acknowledge the problem. Instagram has introduced “Teen Accounts” with added safeguards, messaging restrictions, and content controls.

 

The Illusion of Protection: Why Banning Social Media Won’t Keep Kids Safe

A year ago, I argued against a blanket ban and my position has only strengthened. The government’s proposal is a classic example of a policy that doesn’t listen to children or prioritise their diverse needs.

A ban risks being little more than political theatre. It treats every child the same, ignoring the fact that, like in classrooms, each learns and develops differently. Worse, it threatens to deepen the youth mental health crisis.

This is a generation whose formative years were spent online during COVID. For many, digital platforms became not just entertainment but a lifeline for community, learning, and self-expression. To legislate them out of these spaces is to deny reality: online life is here to stay.

For the broader communities, Telehealth is a normal avenue to get help and support. There are amazing new services such as Betterhelp who are acknowledging that online is a preferred means of communication for many: be it voice, video or even instant messaging and message board based therapy.

 

Trusting the Untrustworthy

The government also proposes age verification, not just for social media but also for search engines from 27 December 2025.

It is a perplexing contradiction, that the very platforms the government vocally condemn as unsafe are being entrusted to enforce the ban with undefined age-assurance technology. Alarm bells should be ringing everywhere.

The Government may be preaching about protecting our children. But it raises serious questions about privacy, security and human rights.

Handing over IDs to profit-driven platforms is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse.

Never forget that these companies have a long history of weak moderation and profit-driven engagement models, benefitted by gathering and using our personal information.

 

There Must Be a Better, More Nuanced Way

History shows bans don’t eliminate problems, they drive them underground. The vaping ban, for example, didn’t stop use; it fueled the black market.

While the government pursues a flawed and reductive approach, more viable and nuanced solutions have emerged.

Real change comes from equipping families with tools that make online safety an ongoing conversation, not a one-off legislative decree.

 

HMD Fuse and Pinwheel: Tangible Solutions for Digital Safety

Devices like the HMD Fuse and Pinwheel phones offer a glimpse of what better approaches can look like. Co-designed with parents and children, they include safeguards like contact whitelisting, curated app stores, and on-device AI that blocks harmful content before it reaches the screen. These tools adapt as children grow, giving parents and kids shared responsibility over digital life.

No single device is a silver bullet, but solutions like these put control back in the hands of families where it belongs.

 

The Path to Real Change

HMD’s research found that 21% of Australian children have had a stranger attempt to move them into an encrypted chat, while 43% report being regularly contacted by someone they don’t know in real life. The risks are real but bans will just push them into darker corners of the internet.

Protecting children is our shared responsibility. Real change comes from smart, practical solutions that empower families and respect the diverse needs of young people. This National Child Protection Week, we need to stop chasing headlines and start building better tools.

Behind the rhetoric, the noble goal of child protection appears to be a pretext for something more dangerous and insidious – an expansive assault on digital privacy.