7NEWS Spotlight: Majority of teens still using social media despite Federal Government ban, Spotlight reveals
Australia’s under-16 social media ban was intended to exclude children. Five months later, most are still getting in.
The law, which came into effect on December 10, requires platforms to impose strict age checks or face fines of up to $50 million for failing to take “reasonable steps.”
Now, the first major test of the ban shows that little has changed.
7NEWS Spotlight/YouGov’s survey of 1,500 Australians aged 13 to 15 – the largest since the law was introduced – shows 85 per cent still use social media on a daily basis.
More than half (52 percent) say the platforms are still easy to access, and many lie about their age.
“I just opened the account… put in my name, faked my age – boom. It just says welcome to Facebook,” said 14-year-old Oliver, one of the teens interviewed for the social media ban special.
There was no change in 51 percent. 22 percent say their use has increased.
“I think it’s no surprise that young people want to be on social media,” YouGov’s Paul Smith said.
“But it is clear that social media companies are not doing enough to pull young people away from social media.”
The top platforms remain unchanged: YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook.
But there are small signs of progress beneath the headline figures.
Online bullying decreased by nine percent, while exposure to inappropriate and violent content decreased by 18 percent.
Habits are also changing away from screens; 30 percent of young people say they spend more time on sports and activities, and 27 percent say they sleep better.
“Now these are modest improvements,” Mr. Smith said.
“But it shows that in just six months the ban has had a real impact on improving the lives of our young people.
“Good progress has been made, but there is still a long way to go.”
Jeffrey, 14, said he felt “more connected” with his family since the ban came into effect, having better conversations without the distraction of social media.
Significantly, parents appear to be stepping into places where platforms do not interfere.
Sixty-seven percent now monitor their children’s social media use, and 87 percent of teens discuss the ban at home.
“Parents felt empowered by the ban,” Mr. Smith said.
“And 67 per cent of Australian parents who watch their children clearly make a difference in driving that improvement in life experience saying, okay, you’ve been in this situation long enough, now it’s time to get out and do something else.”
For Oliver, this can only be a positive.
“I have concerns that some parents don’t really know what they’re doing, what their kids are doing online,” she said.
“Maybe some (parents) need to step up their game… I think it should mainly be the responsibility of the parents (rather than the tech giants).”
Mother’s mission
For Emma Mason, this issue is deeply personal. Her daughter Tilly died by suicide in 2022 after relentless bullying. Now he’s campaigning for stronger protections.
He wants tech giants to do more to eliminate under-16s, but said the path to success starts with bringing this to the public eye.
“Success is when parents, teachers and schools talk about it. Children talk about it. And children aged 10 and under will live a life in Australia where this is not the norm,” Ms Mason said.
He also believes that the implementation is delayed, but he is confident that it will come.
“The government wasn’t going to wait to use technology properly because technology is constantly changing,” he said.
“This is like putting a fence around a hurricane, trying to get everything done in time to make this law work perfectly.
“So I think there is important work to be done, but the work needs to be done by the social media companies that continue to allow this to happen.”
Internal documents exposed
Internal documents revealed in US lawsuits now fuel this claim.
The lawsuit, filed in a Los Angeles courtroom by a young woman known only as “Kayley,” claimed social media platforms were created to deceive users, fueling addiction and a mental health crisis.
He claimed the algorithms didn’t just keep him scrolling, they got him addicted, causing anxiety, depression and even suicidal thoughts.
Kayley has battled the tech giants (Instagram, owned by Meta, and YouTube, owned by Google).
After a six-week trial and nine days of deliberation, a California jury found Meta Platforms and Google liable.
During the discovery process in this and other cases, internal documents revealed long-standing concerns at tech companies.
In a 2017 email, an employee wrote: “Oh good, now we’re going after kids under 13?”
A colleague responded: “zuck (Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg) has been talking about this for a while”, prompting the response: “yeah the last time he mentioned it it was disgusting”.
Another internal document says: “Instagram is an inevitable and inevitable component of young people’s (sic) lives. Young people cannot leave Instagram even if they want to.”
And in one exchange in 2020, one employee wrote: “OMG Y’all IG (Instagram) is a drug.”
A colleague responded: “Hahaha, I mean all social media. We’re basically unattractive.”
“It’s the disconnect between these documents that shows the reality of what’s going on in these companies,” Ms. Mason said.
“And then the face of Antigone Davis, Meta’s head of security, standing in front of our government and saying, ‘I don’t think social media is harming our children.’
“I mean, it makes me so angry because I think, how can you, as a company with that face, say things like that in an environment where you know very well the reality of how you operate as a company?
“I think it’s a huge disconnect. It’s like a slap in the face to parents.”
It is stated that there are some gains in the decision reached so far, but there is a long way to go and there is a growing question about whether not only the laws but also the platforms will be forced to change.
