Australia’s social media ban offers lessons for the Netherlands

Paul Budde writes that Dutch researchers are using Australia’s social media ban as a case study in their own policy decision-making and that good digital policy should be developed in this way.

WHEN I VISITED THE NETHERLANDS, I was impressed by the publication of a publication. University of Amsterdam report Minimum age limit for social media Of particular interest was Australia’s social media ban on under-16s featured prominently in the report.

Dutch researchers did not treat Australia’s policy as a model to be copied. Rather, they used it as a case study for their own policy decision-making process. Their approach is more cautious, more legal, and more focused on platform responsibility.

Australia was the first country to implement such a nationwide ban, so it’s no surprise that other countries are following closely. The Dutch report acknowledges the reasons behind Australia’s approach: addictive algorithms, harmful content, online bullying, privacy risks and growing concerns about young people’s mental health.

But this also points to the limits of the direct age ban approach. Early indications from Australia show that the majority of 14 and 15-year-olds remain active on social media. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Teens are resourceful, and many will find ways around restrictions through misrepresentations, VPNs, or the help of older friends and family members.

But this does not mean that Australian policy has failed.

Readers may recall my previous Independent Australia article: “’Adolescence’ reveals danger of digital dysfunction”; In this article, I argued that the real challenge lies not only in access to social media but also in the design of the platforms. What struck me about the Dutch report was how closely it reflected this view.

Recognizing the value of age restrictions, researchers ultimately focus on the risks posed by algorithms, addictive design features, and weak platform security measures. In this sense, although the discussions in Australia and the Netherlands start from different points, they may be meeting at the same point.

One of the most interesting observations in the Dutch report is that many account closures appear to have occurred voluntarily, with decisions made by parents and teenagers themselves. This shows that the real value of the ban may lie not only in its implementation but also in changing social norms.

The ban gives parents a stronger tool to say no. It helps schools and communities reinforce the message that unlimited social media use is not inevitable for young children. Over time, this may become more important than short-term compatibility statistics.

However, Dutch researchers are pursuing a different policy direction. Their main question is not how to keep children away from social media, but how to make digital platforms safer for children.

This leads them to a risk-based approach. European Union Digital Services Act. Rather than treating all social media services as equally harmful, they argue for stronger regulation of certain high-risk areas: addictive design, harmful recommendation systems, weak content moderation, privacy risks, and unsafe default settings.

They are also cautious about universal age verification. Requiring all users to prove their age introduces privacy risks, implementation costs, and possible exclusion of legitimate users, while still leaving the opportunity for circumvention.

This is where the debate in the Netherlands is also useful for Australia. Banning it is an important first step, but it cannot be the final answer. Platforms themselves should be held responsible for design choices that create harm, especially in cases where harms are known and measurable.

I generally agree with the Dutch conclusions. Ultimately, the main focus should be on platforms based on specific risk areas. Just as the Netherlands learned from the Australian experiment, Australia is learning from its current approach. We should look at the Netherlands’ analysis with interest and take it into account in our future decisions.

This is how good digital policy should be developed: not by one country claiming to have found the perfect answer, but by learning from each other as we face the same global problem.

Paul Budde IA is a columnist and managing director of independent telecommunications research and consultancy. Paul Budde Consulting. You can follow Paul on Twitter @PaulBudde.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.