MELBOURNE — Australia has officially entered uncharted digital territory. As of January 2026, the nation’s landmark under-16 social media ban has been in effect for over a month, resulting in the deactivation of an estimated 4.7 million accounts. While the Albanese government hails the move as a victory for “reclaiming childhood,” a growing chorus of child development experts and digital rights advocates warns that the ban may be fueling a “curiosity crisis” that puts children at greater risk than the platforms themselves.
The legislation—which targets giants like TikTok, Instagram, and X—carries fines of up to AU$49.5 million for platforms that fail to take reasonable steps to exclude minors. However, early data suggests that instead of going offline, many teenagers are simply going underground, a step which in itself portends more danger than the ban.
The “Forbidden Fruit” and Circumvention
Psychologists warn that blanket bans often trigger “reactance,” a psychological phenomenon where individuals are more strongly drawn to a behavior specifically because it is restricted. In the weeks following the ban’s implementation:
- Search Surge: Google Trends recorded a significant uptick in searches for “VPN for social media” and “how to change birthdate on iPhone” among Australian IP addresses.
- Algorithmic Evasion: Teens have reportedly used “AI-aging” filters and parental Face ID to bypass facial age estimation tools.
- Migration to the Unregulated: There has been a documented shift toward “darker corners” of the web and unmonitored messaging apps that lack the safety moderation found on mainstream platforms.
Extracurricular Learning in the Digital Age
A central criticism of the ban is its potential to create a “digital literacy gap.” In 2026, social media is no longer just for entertainment; it is a primary hub for extracurricular learning, hobbyist communities, and peer support.
- Educational Loss: Many students use platforms like YouTube and Reddit for supplementary science, coding, and language tutorials.
- Community Support: Vulnerable youth, including those in the LGBTQ+ community or those with rare medical conditions, often find their only “safe space” in moderated online groups.
- The Echo Chamber Effect: Critics argue that because feeds are fashioned after immediate connections, removing children from these platforms prevents them from learning how to navigate diverse perspectives under parental supervision.
The Psychological Backlash: Binge-Browsing and the “Rebound Effect”
Beyond the immediate risks of circumvention, developmental psychologists warn of a long-term “rebound effect” that may manifest once children reach the legal age of consent. By treating social media as a “forbidden fruit” during the most critical years of neuroplasticity, policymakers risk stunting the development of self-regulation and digital impulse control. When a child who has been entirely shielded is suddenly granted unrestricted access at age 16, they often lack the “digital immune system” required to navigate addictive algorithms. This sudden exposure can lead to binge-browsing—a compensatory behavior where the individual over-consumes content to make up for lost time—potentially triggering a rapid descent into problematic use or clinical addiction. Without the gradual, supervised “scaffolding” of digital literacy provided by parents and mentors, the transition from total restriction to total freedom often results in a psychological shock that leaves young adults more vulnerable to the very harms the ban intended to prevent.
Supervised Access vs. Total Exclusion
Policy experts from organizations like UNICEF and the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child argue that supervised access is a more resilient strategy than total exclusion. This model focuses on “digital mentorship” rather than “digital policing.”
| Approach | Strategy | Outcome Goal |
| Outright Ban | Legal restriction and account deactivation. | Zero exposure to platforms. |
| Guided Access | Parental monitoring and platform-level “child modes.” | Safe, supervised skill-building. |
| Safety Regulation | Mandating changes to “addictive” algorithms. | Platforms that are safe by design. |
“Curiosity is a fundamental driver of childhood,” says one digital policy researcher. “When we remove the guardrails and the adults from the equation, we don’t stop the curiosity—we just ensure it happens in the dark.”
Parents and guidance presently allocate screen time for their children and wards and this should be sufficient with constant monitoring of what they are up to online.
The Global Outlook
While countries like Denmark and Türkiye are considering following Australia’s lead, others are moving toward “Platform Responsibility” models. The EU’s Digital Services Act, for instance, focuses on forcing companies to redesign their algorithms for minors rather than banning them entirely.
As the Australian “social experiment” continues, the ultimate measure of its success will not be the number of deleted accounts, but the safety and mental well-being of the children it aims to protect. For many, the worry remains that a ban is a 20th-century solution to a 21st-century reality.
