Australia’s Social Media Ban
Australia became the first country to enforce a nationwide social media ban for children under 16. The passed parliament in November 2024 and took effect in December 2025, targeting platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and Snapchat. Companies face fines up to A$49.5 million for failing to prevent underage access.
The intent is clear: protect children from documented harms including cyberbullying, mental health impacts, and predatory behavior. However, according to Tomislav Vazdar, CEO of , who discussed the law during a recent NovaTV broadcast, the implementation method raises concerns that may undermine both the policy’s effectiveness and fundamental privacy rights.
“While we all agree that protecting children from online harm is urgent, the method matters just as much as the intent,” Vazdar emphasized during the broadcast. “The biggest risks right now aren’t just on the platforms. They’re in the implementation of the solution.”
The Age Verification Dilemma
To comply with Australia’s ban, social media platforms must verify users’ ages. The problem? There’s no privacy-preserving way to do this at scale.
rely on invasive data collection: biometric facial-age estimation through live selfies, government-issued identity documents, verified phone numbers, and AI-based behavioral age inference.
This creates what privacy advocates call “function creep.” Platforms designed for social connection now become identity arbiters, responsible for storing, processing, and securing millions of sensitive documents and biometric signatures. A Curtin University professor described this as , given tech firms’ poor data security track record.
The Australian Senate Standing Committee about requiring Australians to provide sensitive personal data to social media companies. Despite these concerns, implementation proceeded in December 2025.
The Accuracy Problem
Even if we accept the privacy trade-off, age verification systems struggle with accuracy at critical legal thresholds.
perform well in broad age bands but often fail to distinguish between 15 and 16 years old—the exact cutoff the law requires. These systems exhibit bias, underperforming for people with darker skin tones, women, and non-normative features due to limited training datasets.
Reports already show under-16s erroneously verified as adults and minors incorrectly blocked. Failed verification creates two problems: legitimate users denied access and those the law intends to protect slipping through.
The Displacement Effect
Perhaps the most concerning risk is behavioral displacement. When you ban mainstream platforms, you don’t eliminate the behavior. You drive it elsewhere.
Florida offers a recent case study. After the state implemented its for adult content and social media on January 1, 2025, VPN demand surged 1,150% within four hours. Minors didn’t stop seeking access. They simply found ways around the restriction.
that Australia’s ban could produce the same effect. David Inserra, a fellow for free expression and technology at the Cato Institute, noted that children would evade the policy by shifting to new platforms, private apps like Telegram, or VPNs, driving them to “more isolated communities and platforms with fewer protections.”
Dr. Ellese Ferdinands echoed this concern in her : “Teens may now seek out alternatives, which may result in them using less regulated platforms than those facing the ban such as Instagram.”
On regulated platforms like Instagram and TikTok, content moderation exists, reporting mechanisms function, and law enforcement can intervene when necessary. On unregulated platforms, fringe apps, or encrypted channels, those safeguards disappear. The very children the law aims to protect may end up in more dangerous digital spaces.
What a Combination Approach Looks Like
Vazdar emphasized during his NovaTV appearance that effective child protection online requires a combination approach rather than relying solely on restrictive measures.
Three elements form the foundation of this strategy:
Digital literacy for parents. Most parents lack technical knowledge to understand platforms their children use, how algorithms work, or what risks exist. Digital literacy programs help parents recognize warning signs and have informed conversations with their children.
Accountability for tech giants. Rather than age-gating access through invasive verification, platforms should implement age-appropriate design standards, remove manipulative features targeting young users, and build systems that default to safety rather than engagement maximization.
Psychological support systems. Children experiencing cyberbullying, mental health crises, or predatory contact need access to counseling and therapeutic support. Technology restrictions without support infrastructure leave vulnerable children without help when they need it most.
The ban alone addresses none of these.
The Privacy-Safety Balance
Australia’s law forces a conversation the digital policy world has avoided: how do you verify age without sacrificing privacy?
Current implementations fail this test. Biometric collection, identity document uploads, and behavioral tracking represent significant privacy intrusions. Even when platforms claim to delete data after verification, the initial collection creates risk. Data breaches happen. Once biometric templates exist in databases, they become targets.
Privacy-preserving technologies like zero-knowledge proofs exist in early stages but aren’t mature enough for nationwide deployment at Australia’s scale. The platforms must take “reasonable steps” to prevent under-16 access but provides limited technical guidance on what constitutes reasonable.
Looking Forward
Other countries are watching closely. The UK, France, and several U.S. states are considering similar restrictions.
If Australia’s approach succeeds in protecting children without driving them to unregulated platforms or normalizing mass biometric collection, it could provide a model. If it fails, creating a surveillance infrastructure that children easily circumvent while exposing millions to privacy risks, it serves as a warning.
Vazdar’s question to tech policy professionals, mental health experts, and educators remains urgent: “Do you think age verification can be implemented without compromising privacy?”
The answer will shape digital policy for the next generation.
About the Author
Tomislav Vazdar leads Riskoria, an advisory firm for cyber security, risk management, artificial intelligence and data protection. He has worked in the field for more than twenty five years and speaks at conferences and to the media.
Related reading
Want an opinion on your own situation, not a general text?
Half an hour, no obligation. Instead of a general text you get an answer for your organisation.