I understand why parents like the sound of a social media ban.
It gives us something simple to point to: no TikTok, no Snap, no Instagram. Problem solved.
Except I do not think it is.
If you have a 12 or 13 year old, the first phone already feels like a lot. Then social media sits on top of it: group chats, algorithms, disappearing messages, random accounts, kids they know, adults they do not.
So yes, a ban sounds attractive. It feels like someone finally taking the problem seriously.
But I think parents need to be careful about the promise being made here.
A ban may delay access. That can be useful. It may give parents more confidence to say no. That matters too.
But a ban is not the same thing as keeping kids safe.
The UK is now looking at Australia
The UK government has announced plans to ban social media platforms from offering services to under-16s, with protections expected to come into force in spring 2027. The UK says it plans to use the same basic model as Australia, covering platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X, while not intending to include messaging services like WhatsApp and Signal. The UK also says it wants to go further by restricting livestreaming and stranger communication with children across a wider range of services, including gaming sites. Source: UK government announcement.
I understand why that sounds good to parents.
I also think the UK should slow down and look very carefully at what is actually happening in Australia.
Because Australia is not a clean success story.
It is a warning.
What Australia actually did
Australia's social media minimum age law came into effect on 10 December 2025. Age-restricted platforms must take reasonable steps to stop Australians under 16 from having accounts. The onus is on the platforms, not children or parents. Source: Australian Government, social media minimum age.
This is important. It means the government has not really built a wall around kids. It has told platforms to take reasonable steps.
Messaging apps, online gaming, education, health support and other services are not covered in the same way. Source: Australian Government, services not covered.
So even if the ban works perfectly, which it does not appear to be doing, kids can still be exposed to many of the same risks elsewhere.
Bullying can still happen in iMessage.
Predatory contact can still happen in messaging apps.
Pressure, exclusion, screenshots, money asks, explicit content, and group chat cruelty can still move around.
That is why I think the ban is a false comfort if parents treat it as the whole safety plan.
The wrong scoreboard
The government keeps pointing to millions of accounts removed or restricted.
That sounds impressive. I get why politicians like saying it. eSafety reported that about 4.7 million age-restricted accounts had been removed or restricted as at mid-December 2025. The government has since pointed to more than 5 million accounts removed, deactivated or restricted. Source: eSafety March compliance update, Source: The Guardian.
But I think that is the wrong scoreboard.
If the ban was sold as a child-safety measure, then show us the child-safety numbers.
Did cyberbullying complaints go down.
Did image-based abuse complaints go down.
Did unwanted adult contact go down.
Are fewer children being pushed toward self-harm content.
Are fewer parents reporting that platforms ignored underage accounts.
If the answer is "we do not know yet," then say that.
Do not give parents a headline number about accounts and ask us to treat that as safety.
The number parents should be looking at
eSafety's March compliance update is where the story gets uncomfortable.
Among parents whose child had an account before the restrictions, around 7 in 10 reported that their child still had an account on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok after the rules came in. The platform-level numbers were Facebook 63.6%, Instagram 69.1%, Snapchat 69.4% and TikTok 69.3%. Source: eSafety March compliance update.
That is the number.
Not 5 million accounts.
Around 7 in 10 kids who already had accounts were still there on the major platforms.
The most common reason those children still had social media accounts was simple: the platform had not asked them to verify their age. eSafety put that number at 66.8% of parents whose child still had any social media account. Source: eSafety March compliance update.
If I am a UK parent, that is the part I would be asking about.
If Australia's own regulator is reporting that around 7 in 10 children with existing accounts stayed on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat or TikTok, why would the UK copy the model before it knows how to fix that.
Activity is not outcome
To be fair, eSafety has not done nothing.
By March, it had held 16 meetings with key platforms, issued 23 legally enforceable information-gathering notices, received more than 760 public submissions and enquiries, surveyed 898 parents, and opened a public form for people to report how platforms are complying with the age rules. Source: eSafety March compliance update.
That is activity.
But activity is not outcome.
The same March update says children under 16 continued to report harm to eSafety, with no discernible drop in overall numbers. It also says eSafety had not observed a notable change in cyberbullying and image-based abuse complaints involving age-restricted accounts. Source: eSafety March compliance update.
That is the sentence I cannot get past.
No discernible drop.
No notable change.
If the policy is about child wellbeing, then that matters more than a press release about account removals.
Where are the enforcement outcomes
By March, eSafety had identified concerns. It said some platforms appeared not to have done enough to prevent children under 16 from having accounts. It also said reporting pathways were generally not accessible or effective, particularly for parents. Source: eSafety March compliance update.
That is exactly what parents are worried about.
So what happened next.
How many investigations were finalised.
How many platforms were found non-compliant.
How many penalties were issued.
How many parent reports led to action.
How many underage accounts were removed after a parent reported them.
By late June, ABC reported that no social media company had been fined, even though early research suggested many Australian teens had found ways around the restrictions. The government was instead moving to double penalties to $99 million and give eSafety stronger powers to compel documents in investigations, including internal emails and board minutes. Source: ABC News.
Reuters reported the same basic point: the government introduced new legislation to strengthen enforcement, give eSafety more power to pursue non-compliance, and investigate five platforms: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube. Source: Reuters.
I am glad the government wants stronger powers.
But that is not a victory lap.
That feels like an admission that the first version was not strong enough.
The evaluation sounds useful, but it is not a live scoreboard
eSafety has launched a proper evaluation of the law. It will follow more than 4,000 children and families for more than two years. It includes surveys, interviews, group discussions, opt-in smartphone-use tracking, and linked population-level data such as education and health outcomes. It will look at wellbeing and mental health, exposure to online risks and harms, digital habits, help-seeking behaviour, family relationships, parenting experiences, and how well the minimum age obligation is being followed. Source: eSafety evaluation.
That is useful research.
But it is not the same as a public accountability scoreboard.
It will take time. Findings are expected to be released progressively from later in 2026, with deeper analysis continuing over time. The legislative review is scheduled to begin in 2027. Source: eSafety evaluation.
That timeline matters.
Australia is already selling the policy as a global model. The UK is already pointing to the Australian approach. Other countries are watching.
But the real wellbeing evaluation has not landed yet.
So my question is simple.
Why the rush.
The early research is not reassuring
A University of Newcastle study reported in The Guardian followed 408 Australian adolescents and found that more than 80% of under-16s were still using social media three months after the law came into force. The study concluded there was limited implementation, incomplete compliance and substantial circumvention of the restrictions. Source: The Guardian report on the BMJ study.
That study is not perfect. No single study is.
But it lines up with the eSafety data and with what any parent of teenagers probably expects.
Kids find ways around rules.
Platforms move slowly unless forced.
And a big law does not automatically become a working safety system.
The Guardian opinion piece on Australia's ban made a stronger criticism, saying many experts were ignored before the law passed, including people working in digital wellbeing, digital rights, youth mental health, and more than 140 academics and civil society organisations. Source: The Guardian opinion.
That is the policy mistake I worry about.
Parents want action because the problem is real. But action that does not work can still make parents feel safer than they are.
What parents should do with this
I am not saying parents should give kids social media early.
I am not saying the platforms are doing enough. They are not.
I am not saying government has no role. It does.
I am saying a ban is not a parenting strategy.
If the ban helps you delay social media, use it. If it gives you cultural backup to say "not yet," great. I like that part.
But do not stop there.
Your child still needs judgement. They still need scripts. They still need to know what to do when someone sends a creepy message, asks for a photo, starts a pile-on, or moves a conversation somewhere private.
And you still need ways to notice when something changes.
Not every message.
Not a full-time surveillance operation.
Just enough signal to ask better questions.
Who is this new person.
Why has that group chat suddenly exploded.
Why did a close friendship go quiet.
Why are there safety flags around someone who looks like a normal school friend.
That is the part a ban does not solve.
My take
I understand why parents cheer for the ban.
I probably would have too, before I spent so much time looking at how kids actually use phones.
But Australia's early experience should make the UK pause.
The government can say millions of accounts were removed. Fine.
eSafety's own data still says around 7 in 10 children who already had accounts on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok still had them after the restrictions came in.
The most common reason was that platforms had not even asked them to verify their age.
eSafety says there has not yet been a discernible drop in children reporting harm, and no notable change in cyberbullying or image-based abuse complaints involving age-restricted accounts.
No company had been fined by late June, and the government was already moving to double penalties and give eSafety stronger powers.
That is not a settled success story.
That is a warning.
A social media ban may delay access. It may help some families. It may shift the culture a bit.
But it is not the same as keeping kids safe.
Parents still need to talk. We still need to ask better questions. We still need to understand who our kids are messaging. We still need to notice bullying, pressure, risky contacts and emotional stress before they become bigger problems.
The ban might be one part of the picture.
It is not the picture.
Learn more: /features/smart-alerts
Learn more: /features/hows-my-child-report
