The timing could not be better for observing how this “world-first” policy is landing among the teenagers it is meant to protect. And based on the conversations circulating through the junior cricket community, Australia’s lawmakers may have overestimated the willingness of adolescents to quietly accept the sudden disappearance of TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat and the rest of the digital ecosystem that forms such a large part of their social world.
The New Zealand boys in this touring group are, to put it mildly, bemused. They cannot quite comprehend why their Australian counterparts have been subjected to such sweeping restrictions. But for the Australians, it has been big news—and not always warmly received.
When I turned on the ABC 24-hour news channel last night, the story led the bulletin. The tone of the reporting was decidedly sympathetic to the government’s intentions, which is hardly surprising given the ABC’s well-known reticence in harshly criticising Labor governments.
Still, the coverage did produce one memorable interview with a Canberra schoolboy who looked as though he had not strayed far from a screen in years. He happily conceded that the ban “would be better for his mental health” and might push him toward “more sport.” That, of course, is the foundational logic behind the policy: reduce exposure to addictive platforms, and adolescents might rediscover real-world activities and healthier social patterns.
The ABC also framed the policy as potentially precedent-setting. Australia, they reminded viewers, was among the first countries to make seatbelts compulsory in the early 1970s, and the rest of the world followed. Perhaps, they suggested, the same thing will happen with social media regulation.
But I decided to conduct some “field research” of my own. My grandson tells me that many of the Australians he has been playing with are rather grumpy about the whole thing and have already begun devising workarounds. In fact, several appear to have been strategically preparing for such a crackdown for years. When they first signed up for Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat or TikTok, they inflated their age by a year or two, meaning the platforms now recognise them as already 16 or older. Their accounts remain untouched.
Even more revealing is the fact that enforcement appears to be wildly inconsistent. Among the boys my grandson has spoken with, those who have been banned from one platform have often retained access to others. A teenager might find his TikTok account deactivated but still operate freely on Instagram or Snapchat, neither of which has yet demanded age verification.
Facebook, as the boys were keen to stress, is strictly for older generations.
The Federal Communications Minister Annika Wells has reported that 200,000 TikTok accounts have already been removed, but even she conceded that the platforms were supposed to have begun their purge days before the ban formally commenced. Ten social media sites fall under the ban: Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, X, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, YouTube, Kick and Reddit. More may follow. Yet the lived reality on the ground suggests that enforcement is, at best, porous.
An even more intriguing trend is emerging: the shift toward WhatsApp. As my grandson explains, the boys are increasingly swapping mobile numbers and communicating via text or WhatsApp messaging, both of which allow easy video sharing within private groups. In other words, even if the regulated platforms clamp down, unrestricted channels remain readily available, and behaviour simply migrates.
This begs the question: is the ban achieving its intended purpose, or is it merely redirecting teenage ingenuity? Governments routinely underestimate adolescents’ capacity to circumvent rules that they consider unreasonable. Moreover, the policy risks widening the gap between parents who can supervise their children’s digital workarounds and those who cannot. The result may be less a reduction in harmful online exposure and more a shift into less visible, less regulated digital spaces.
New Zealand will undoubtedly watch Australia’s experiment with interest. The threat of $50 million fines for companies that fail to take “reasonable steps” to eliminate underage accounts is certainly attention-grabbing. But defining “reasonable steps” in the constantly shifting world of technology will be challenging. And enforcement, as the first week of the ban has shown, may prove patchy at best.
As for future New Zealand policy, my grandson is nonchalant—he will be 16 next year. His younger siblings, aged 12 and 9, might feel differently. Whether Australia’s bold move becomes a global model or a cautionary tale will depend not on its intentions—which are widely acknowledged as sincere—but on its real-world effectiveness. Early signs suggest the battle between regulators and teenagers may be far more complex than policymakers anticipated.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
When I turned on the ABC 24-hour news channel last night, the story led the bulletin. The tone of the reporting was decidedly sympathetic to the government’s intentions, which is hardly surprising given the ABC’s well-known reticence in harshly criticising Labor governments.
Still, the coverage did produce one memorable interview with a Canberra schoolboy who looked as though he had not strayed far from a screen in years. He happily conceded that the ban “would be better for his mental health” and might push him toward “more sport.” That, of course, is the foundational logic behind the policy: reduce exposure to addictive platforms, and adolescents might rediscover real-world activities and healthier social patterns.
The ABC also framed the policy as potentially precedent-setting. Australia, they reminded viewers, was among the first countries to make seatbelts compulsory in the early 1970s, and the rest of the world followed. Perhaps, they suggested, the same thing will happen with social media regulation.
But I decided to conduct some “field research” of my own. My grandson tells me that many of the Australians he has been playing with are rather grumpy about the whole thing and have already begun devising workarounds. In fact, several appear to have been strategically preparing for such a crackdown for years. When they first signed up for Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat or TikTok, they inflated their age by a year or two, meaning the platforms now recognise them as already 16 or older. Their accounts remain untouched.
Even more revealing is the fact that enforcement appears to be wildly inconsistent. Among the boys my grandson has spoken with, those who have been banned from one platform have often retained access to others. A teenager might find his TikTok account deactivated but still operate freely on Instagram or Snapchat, neither of which has yet demanded age verification.
Facebook, as the boys were keen to stress, is strictly for older generations.
The Federal Communications Minister Annika Wells has reported that 200,000 TikTok accounts have already been removed, but even she conceded that the platforms were supposed to have begun their purge days before the ban formally commenced. Ten social media sites fall under the ban: Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, X, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, YouTube, Kick and Reddit. More may follow. Yet the lived reality on the ground suggests that enforcement is, at best, porous.
An even more intriguing trend is emerging: the shift toward WhatsApp. As my grandson explains, the boys are increasingly swapping mobile numbers and communicating via text or WhatsApp messaging, both of which allow easy video sharing within private groups. In other words, even if the regulated platforms clamp down, unrestricted channels remain readily available, and behaviour simply migrates.
This begs the question: is the ban achieving its intended purpose, or is it merely redirecting teenage ingenuity? Governments routinely underestimate adolescents’ capacity to circumvent rules that they consider unreasonable. Moreover, the policy risks widening the gap between parents who can supervise their children’s digital workarounds and those who cannot. The result may be less a reduction in harmful online exposure and more a shift into less visible, less regulated digital spaces.
New Zealand will undoubtedly watch Australia’s experiment with interest. The threat of $50 million fines for companies that fail to take “reasonable steps” to eliminate underage accounts is certainly attention-grabbing. But defining “reasonable steps” in the constantly shifting world of technology will be challenging. And enforcement, as the first week of the ban has shown, may prove patchy at best.
As for future New Zealand policy, my grandson is nonchalant—he will be 16 next year. His younger siblings, aged 12 and 9, might feel differently. Whether Australia’s bold move becomes a global model or a cautionary tale will depend not on its intentions—which are widely acknowledged as sincere—but on its real-world effectiveness. Early signs suggest the battle between regulators and teenagers may be far more complex than policymakers anticipated.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
Education is the answer to this . The people of Silicon Valley , will not allow their children to own phones or ipads but meanwhile Gates and Jobs are making $millions even $billions targeting youth and others with deliberately creating highly addictive elements into their wares.
Just like the food manufacturers who spend money on finding ingredients to put in nutritionally poor junk food to make them highly addictive.
What will happen is an even greater widening socio-economic gap because like the large number of junk food outlets in low decile areas . Children also from these suburbs will be the most affected by lack of parental supervision of screen time . To break the addiction of screens requires a tough love attitude that solo mothers will have difficulty with overcoming . Despite the so called poverty gap these lower decile children have expensive phones . Stroppy teenages will scream and yell and threaten to kill themselves if they don't get their 'fix' on the screen I have heard of this .
There should therefore be warnings of the addictive nature of screens and research has revealed they add to depression , anxiety and lack of concentration.
JUst like the warnings we now have for cigarettes. Everywhere.
Here is a major problem not just applying to social media but all over use of screens in general including schools.
It is not only screens that are extremely addictive there is also nutritionally poor junk food which we have allowed to be sold uncontrolled to children .
The comparison is that both screens and junk food architects / producers do research to deliberately add elements /ingredients that
make their products addictive. Jobs and Gates make $billions selling their addictive produbts but do not allow their own children access to screens. Their children do not own ipads or smart phones.
Meanwhile despite cries of poverty you find low decile children with expensive phones.
Research shows screens regardless of content cause depression , anxiety and low concentration. This should be displayed everywhere as warnings .
Just like tobacco warnings .
All children display addiction withdrawl when their 'fix' is removed . I have heard of screaming ,tantrums and threats of suicide.
This addiction ( food and screens ) is something we are not properly addressing at all and as always it is low decile children who will suffer the most Our already frightful SES gap will widen .
I don’t understand why people cannot see this for what it is a two step problem-reaction-solution.
Problem 1 - kids on social media too much.
Reaction 1 - astroturfed moral panic.
Solution 1 - social media age check.
Problem 2 - social media age check worked around or inconsistent or ineffective.
Reaction 2 - we need a crack down. A system that cannot be avoided.
Solution 2 - digital biometric ID for everyone in case you are under 16.
Thus they get what the wanted in the first place the digital ID. It is as clear as day to me. They could not give a stuff about the kids.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.