Following Australia's recent law restricting social media access to users 16 and older, Europe is now considering similar legislation. This signals a potential worldwide regulatory shift towards stricter age-gating, which could fundamentally alter user acquisition and marketing strategies for platforms and teen-focused brands.

Despite widespread public and political support for banning under-16s from social media, many child protection groups are against such measures. They argue that blanket bans don't eliminate risks but instead push harmful activities to less-regulated platforms, making children harder to protect and draining focus from more effective safety solutions.

A US Diplomat argues that laws like the EU's DSA and the UK's Online Safety Act create a chilling effect. By imposing vague obligations with massive fines, they push risk-averse corporations to censor content excessively, leading to ridiculous outcomes like parliamentary speeches being blocked.

A proposed UK law requiring device-level scanning of all personal content is framed as a safety measure but constitutes a massive step towards an authoritarian surveillance state. This follows a historical pattern where populations trade essential liberty for temporary safety, ultimately losing both.

The ban on social media for under-16s in Australia, intended to protect mental health, is reportedly causing increased feelings of isolation among some teens. They argue that these platforms are integral to their social lives, and being cut off from peers is more harmful than the risks the ban aims to prevent.

Banning teens from social media cannot be an effective strategy for individual parents because it leads to social isolation and depression. The only viable solution is a collective, government-mandated ban, which protects all children's mental health without punishing them for their parents' choices.

When direct censorship is unconstitutional, governments pressure intermediaries like tech companies, banks, or funded NGOs to suppress speech. These risk-averse middlemen comply to stay in the government's good graces, effectively doing the state's dirty work.

In China, the domestic version of TikTok (Douyin) limits users under 18 to 60 minutes of screen time per day, enforced via mandatory real-name ID registration. This represents a form of authoritarian social engineering that many Western parents might paradoxically welcome.

Social media companies often claim it's technically difficult to remove underage users. However, when Australia passed a law requiring it, platforms immediately deactivated 5 million teen accounts, proving the capability exists but is deliberately withheld in unregulated markets like the U.S.