Age restrictions bear down on social media platforms

On December 10, Australia will begin enforcing a law that says kids under 16 years of age can’t use social media platforms, specifically Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X and YouTube. Those that want to will have to provide assurance that they’re old enough, using age verification or facial age estimation tech provided by biometrics or digital ID firms.

What began as a unique attempt to address the negative ways social media is affecting youth has turned into a global spectacle, as regulators around the world ponder similar measures, and wait to see if the Australian model is one worth standardizing.

The rhetoric around the law has been particularly fervent, given that it stands to impact millions of users – and some of the richest companies in the world. Meta and Google have made a show of protesting the law, whether by bringing beloved children’s celebrities to Australian Parliament to speak for YouTube or dropping hints that they probably won’t be able to comply, sorry not sorry.

It has become common for observers to refer to Australia’s initiative as a “ban” – a word that carries authoritarian implications, and useful as grist for free speech arguments, particularly in the U.S., where the First Amendment is a favorite golden calf. This week, CNN ran the headline, “What happens when you kick millions of teens off social media? Australia’s about to find out.” (The piece quotes Yoti’s Julie Dawson.) Some in Australia’s Parliament have called for the law to be delayed to June, just in case imposing it prematurely brings down society altogether.

Locally, the immediate fallout from December 10 is likely to be a bunch of grumpy teens and a fresh wave of litigation aimed at the law. But the global ramifications are much larger, as momentum builds around online regulation, and lawmakers start to dig deeper into the online ecosystem to find the rot.

EU report calls for ban on so-called kidfluencers

In the EU, some are looking beyond average social media users to the issue of child influencers, or “kidfluencers.” The European Parliamentary Committee on Culture and Education’s report on the protection of minors online notes that influencers active on social media have gained considerable influence in shaping public discourse.” When the influencers themselves are minors, their sway over kids is that much larger.

The report stresses “the concerning use of minors’ images by ‘parent influencers’ or ‘family influencers’ outside of any legal or ethical framework, often in exchange for financial remuneration, raising serious questions about consent, privacy and the commercial exploitation of minors.”

“Direct exhortation to minors to buy advertised products or persuade their parents or other adults to buy advertised products for them is highly likely to happen via kidfluencer marketing.”

The report “calls on the Commission to protect minors from commercial exploitation, including by prohibiting platforms from monetising or otherwise providing financial or material incentives for kidfluencing.” It notes that “certain Member States have extended their existing national legal regimes protecting child actors to influencers who are minors” and suggests that Member States consider applying a similar regulatory approach.

Policy discussions like this are beginning to address the structures and systems the online world has been locked into for some two decades, and to ask exactly what these platforms have brought us. The EU isn’t just looking at age; it’s also reexamining the “lack of transparency about the paid promotion of products by social media influencers” and how it has become generally harder to know what’s been paid for and what hasn’t.

This, in turn, is connected to the question of recommender algorithms and targeted feeds. Which, these days, are liable to be flooded with deepfakes; the report also “expresses concern about the rapid spread of AI-generated content impersonating famous personalities, online content creators and brands, which exploit users’ trust for commercial gain or for the dissemination of disinformation.”

Indeed, a whole section of the report is devoted to generative AI, and the associated risks to kids.

Thus, as regulations take shape and mature, the holistic nature of the required effort becomes clear, as every point in the digital ecosystem is connected.

First Amendment makes US an outlier in social media legislation

The EU, which tolerates regulation more easily than the U.S., is generally headed in the direction of a bloc-wide digital age of majority, which has the support of European Parliament; some form of age-related prohibition is likely to take hold there. The UK, where Ofcom has been a leader in enforcing age verification laws for adult content sites, is also exploring similar measures for social media. Ditto for Pakistan and Singapore. Canada and New Zealand are watching Australia closely. Malaysia has already followed Australia, with the announcement that it will begin limiting social platforms to users over 15 starting in 2026.

In the U.S., the power of states to make their own laws complicates the matter, as does the outsized influence of Silicon Valley, and the lionization of the First Amendment. Constitutionally, it will be tougher to impose age checks on social platforms, who have had success arguing that laws requiring age assurance choke free speech. The idea has taken root that social media is the new public square, and that losing access to it means losing access to community and to self-expression.

Consider this headline in Newsweek: “America’s Social Media Ban Might Be Closer Than You Think.” The piece that follows notes that supporters of limiting social media to those over 16 “argue such measures could ease mounting mental-health and safety concerns, while critics warn that forcing teens off mainstream platforms may drive them into riskier online spaces.” Here, an argument has been dragged over from the porn debate, wherein age verification for adult content sites has sent users to noncompliant sites that are more extreme. There is ostensibly no such thing as a “riskier” social media platform than Instagram or TikTok, which are dangerous in large part because of their dominance.

The piece notes that the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) prohibits companies from collecting personal data from children under 13 without verifiable parental consent. “COPPA does not ban children under 13 from using social media, but it makes platforms legally responsible if they allow young users to create accounts and then collect data without a parent’s approval.”

But, “importantly, COPPA hasn’t been substantially updated since the early internet era, so it does not address teenagers aged 13-15, does not require age verification, and leaves enforcement largely dependent on whether platforms knowingly host under-13 users.” In other words, it means trusting that platforms aren’t letting kids use their sites anyway – which a recent lawsuit alleges is exactly what Meta is doing.

The suit says Meta “not only fails to keep young children off its platforms but also knowingly avoids adopting available verification tools.” Which, once again, suggests that the “darker, less well-regulated” online spaces kids will supposedly flock to instead of Instagram are probably no less dismissive of compliance than Meta itself.

Feeling twitchy? That’s the social media leaving your system

While the laws look likely to keep accumulating, it could be some time before resistance subsides. Back in Australia, there is hardly consensus among stakeholders that the social media prohibition for kids under 16 is a good thing, and December 10 will be a volatile day in Australian media. But there is also an increasing understanding of what social media has been designed to do to us.

In a release from the University of Sydney, Dr. Christina Anthony, a lecturer in the Business School, has a usefully measured take on the matter. Removing social media from kids; lives, she says, “is a massive behaviour change that could leave them feeling isolated, disrupt routines, and even affect how they’ve learned to express themselves.”

“But even something that seems like a limitation could open the door to learning healthier emotion regulation strategies that can result in improved well-being over time.”

Dr. Anthony is describing symptoms of withdrawal from addiction – and the recovery that’s possible once dependence has subsided.

Article Topics

age verification  |  Australia age verification  |  biometric age estimation  |  children  |  EU age verification  |  facial age estimation (FAE)  |  legislation  |  regulation  |  social media