Australia stunned the world this week by becoming the first nation to ban social media access for children under 16, a law that came into force on December 10, 2025. The government ordered major platforms to block underage users or face fines, framing the move as a bold step to protect young people from the corrosive effects of endless feeds and online harassment.
Under the new regime, ten of the biggest platforms — from TikTok to Instagram and YouTube — have been told to implement age verification or risk penalties that can reach A$49.5 million. Authorities, led by the eSafety office, are pushing platforms toward biometric checks, ID verification, and other technical measures to enforce the cutoff, promising hefty fines for noncompliance.
Conservatives should cheer the principle of protecting kids from predatory algorithms that monetize attention and insecurity, yet we must remain skeptical about who holds the reins. Big Tech has long profited from young users while promising self-regulation; making them accountable is overdue, but that accountability must not become a blank check for surveillance or state control.
That skepticism deepens when the enforcement toolbox includes intrusive age checks and AI-driven estimation tools that put sensitive data in the hands of private companies and government regulators. Critics warn — with good reason — that heavy-handed verification can trample privacy, create new security risks, and push kids toward less-regulated corners of the web rather than truly protecting them.
The Australian move has other nations watching closely, and already some governments are weighing similar age-based approaches while charities and child advocates in countries like Britain urge caution. This is a global debate about where to draw the line between protecting youth and preserving freedom — and the wrong model could set a dangerous international precedent.
Practical rollout has been messy: reports surfaced of platforms like Snapchat locking out users and families encountering confusion as enforcement kicks in, a reminder that grand policy changes collide with real lives and messy technical realities. The enforcement gap and unintended consequences should make every policymaker pause before embracing sweeping bans as a cure-all for social ills.
A truly conservative response respects family autonomy and local communities while holding tech giants accountable, not giving bureaucrats new powers to monitor children. If the goal is healthier childhoods, the answer lies in empowering parents, restoring civic life outside screens, and reforming corporate incentives — not surrendering freedom to a model that could easily be repurposed for broader digital control.
