'Insulting' or 'necessary?' – Australia's social media ban sparks passionate debate and divides a nation

Australia's "world-first" social media ban came into effect on Wednesday, December 10, 2025. Hundreds of thousands of under-16s have been barred from having accounts on certain social media platforms, and interest in the best VPNs has spiked.

10 social media platforms, including Instagram, Snapchat, and X, are required to take "reasonable steps" to stop children from having accounts on their apps.

Supporters welcome the measures taken to protect children from experiencing harmful content and the dangers associated with social media use. Critics argue the law creates cybersecurity risks and negatively impacts online privacy – most notably due to the introduction of age verification checks.

Both sides make passionate arguments – here, we'll examine what cases are being made.

Protecting children at a critical stage

The Australian government has said its "world-first social media age restrictions" will protect Australian children "at a critical stage of their development."

It cited the "pressures and risks" users can be exposed to when logged into social media accounts. This includes "content that can harm their health and wellbeing," and features that encourage more screen time.

At a press conference taking place on the morning of the ban's implementation, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said he was proud of the law, and called those who had championed it "heroes."

The ban has been supported by both parents and children. Speaking to BBC News, parents in Sydney called the ban "fantastic," and despite potential workarounds, they'd "rather have something than nothing."

The law has been described as "government protection" rather than "government control," and support has been strong from parents whose children have suffered from online bullying, and those whose children have died by suicide as a result of their experiences on social media.

Australian children have also come out in support of the ban. Teenagers have called social media "dangerous and addictive," and said the ban is "necessary" to stop cyberbullying.

Australians aged 18 to 20, who grew up with social media, have also expressed their opinion on the ban. Some think the ban is a good thing, and feel they'd have been better off without social media growing up. Implementing age restrictions up to 14 years old, with 15 and 16 year olds free to use social media, was also suggested.

Mistakes, privacy concerns, and community

As well as vocal supporters, Australia's social media ban has vocal critics. Privacy advocates have highlighted the cybersecurity risks of age verification. Users may need to verify their age to continue using some social media platforms and this requires them to submit various forms of personal information.

Although the Australian government has said the legislation "builds on the existing privacy protections contained in the Privacy Act," experts are still concerned. UK-based age verification company Yoti is playing a leading role in the process, and some are worried that the overseas tech companies involved may not comply with Australian data privacy laws.

Reddit users have cited potential data breaches as their reason for opposing the law. Concerning personal data, one user asked "can I be confident it's secure?" Yoti's age verification privacy policy says it deletes age check data "as soon as the check is complete," but in some cases – depending on the needs of the client – data will be processed for 28 days.

This data has the potential to be a gold mine for hackers. When discussing the UK's age verification implementation, experts called potential hacks "a disaster waiting to happen."

Children who are against the ban have said it's "insulting" and believe they can tell right from wrong. Children – especially those living in remote parts of Australia – have said they would lose their "communities." They say social media plays an important role in their social lives and is how they communicate with friends.

Some have also said that the ban could have a negative impact on LGBTQ+ and disabled children. Online communities can have an incredibly positive effect on the lives of these children. A 15-year old quadriplegic told BBC News that banning social media would make his world "smaller."

Two teenagers are challenging the law in court. They argue social media companies should use their resources "to get rid of the predators and harmful content out there."

Parents have reported errors with age verification checks, and gave examples of under 16s passing age checks when uploading selfies.

There is a concern that children will be pushed towards more harmful or less regulated platforms. The use of VPNs has been discussed as a potential way of bypassing the ban and/or age verification checks, and children may seek out suspicious or risky free VPNs to attempt this.

Only the best free VPNs are safe, and dodgy free VPNs may collect and monetise your data. Tom Sulston, Head of Policy at Australia-based Digital Rights Watch, warned about this possibility. He said suspicious free VPNs would open children up to "more harms than if they didn't need to use a VPN in the first place."

What happens next?

The law is still in its infancy and more social media platforms could join the current 10. It's clear that strong opinions exist on both sides of this debate and these won't disappear anytime soon.

Top10vpn.com reported VPN demand peaking at 103% above the baseline in the days leading up to the ban's implementation. Google Trends data shows the search term "VPN" peaked on December 9 and, despite a slight drop, remains fairly high.

We will continue to monitor the law's developments and expect supporters and critics to remain vocal.