News

Australia has banned children under 16 from social media in a world-first, as other countries consider similar age-based measures amid rising concerns over its effects on children’s health and safety.

Under the new law, which came into effect at midnight local time on Wednesday (13:00 GMT on Tuesday), 10 of the biggest platforms face $33m in fines if they fail to purge Australia-based users younger than 16.

The law has been criticised by major technology companies and free speech campaigners, but praised by parents and child advocates.

The Australian government says unprecedented measures are needed to protect children from “predatory algorithms” filling phone screens with bullying, sex and violence.

“Too often, social media isn’t social at all,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in advance of the ban.

“Instead, it’s used as a weapon for bullies, a platform for peer pressure, a driver of anxiety, a vehicle for scammers and, worst of all, a tool for online predators.”

The law states that Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat and Reddit are forbidden from creating or keeping accounts belonging to users in Australia under 16.

Streaming platforms Kick and Twitch are also on the government’s blacklist, as are message boards Threads and X. Popular apps and websites such as Roblox, Pinterest and WhatsApp are currently exempt – but the government has stressed that the list remains under review.

Meta, YouTube and other social media giants have already condemned the ban.

YouTube, in particular, has attacked the law, describing it as “rushed” and saying it would only push children into deeper, darker corners of the internet.

While most platforms have begrudgingly agreed to comply, for now, legal challenges are in the wind.

Online discussion site Reddit said Tuesday it could not confirm local media reports that said it would seek to overturn the ban in Australia’s High Court.

The Sydney-based internet rights group Digital Freedom Project has already launched its own bid to have teenagers reinstated to social media.

Some parents, tired of seeing children stuck to their phones, see the ban as a relief.

Father-of-five Dany Elachi said the restrictions were a long-overdue “line in the sand”.

“We need to err on the side of caution before putting anything addictive in the hands of children,” he told the AFP news agency.

The Australian government concedes the ban will be far from perfect at the outset, and canny teenagers will find ways to circumvent it.

Social media companies bear the sole responsibility for checking users are 16 or older.

Some platforms say they will use AI tools to estimate ages based on photos, while young users may also choose to prove their age by uploading a government ID.

There is keen interest in whether Australia’s sweeping restrictions can work as regulators around the globe wrestle with the potential dangers of social media.

Malaysia indicated it was planning to introduce a similar ban next year.

Rights watchdog groups in the United States have filed a lawsuit seeking greater clarification on the legal rationale being used to justify the Trump administration’s targeting of alleged drug trafficking vessels off Latin America.

The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the group’s New York state affiliate, and the Center for Constitutional Rights, seeks the release of an opinion from the internal Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), which advises the executive branch on legal matters.

“The public deserves to know how our government is justifying the cold-blooded murder of civilians as lawful and why it believes it can hand out get-out-of-jail-free cards to people committing these crimes,” Jeffrey Stein, staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project, said in a press release. “The Trump administration must stop these illegal and immoral strikes, and officials who have carried them out must be held accountable.”

At least 86 people have been killed since the Trump administration announced the first strike in early September, in what the president has depicted as a counter-narcotics effort. A total of 22 declared strikes have been carried out in the Caribbean, even though they are widely considered illegal under both international and US law, since drug trafficking is a criminal activity.

The press statement by the groups says that they hope to force a disclosure from an OLC that “apparently blesses the ongoing strikes as lawful acts in an alleged ‘armed conflict’ with unspecified ‘drug cartels’”.

Legal experts roundly reject the administration’s claim that drug trafficking constitutes an attack on the US and that alleged traffickers are therefore unlawful combatants who can be killed with military force. But despite their likely illegality, the Trump administration has pressed forward with more strikes and has stated that they will continue, sharing videos of small boats exploding after being struck on social media.

“If the OLC opinion seeks to dress up legalese in order to provide cover for the obvious illegality of these serial homicides, the public needs to see this analysis and ultimately hold accountable all those who facilitate murder in the United States’ name,” said Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Some have also cast doubt on the administration’s stated aim of combating drug trafficking, noting that the strikes have a minuscule impact on drug flows.

The campaign also comes during a period of heightened US threats against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who the Trump administration has accused of coordinating the activities of criminal groups despite internal US intelligence assessments that undercut that claim.