As Australia adds YouTube to its under-16 social media ban, global attention turns to whether online platforms are doing enough to protect young users.
 |
| Australia’s inclusion of YouTube in its teen social media ban marks a sharp escalation in global efforts to regulate tech giants over child online safety. Image: CH |
CANBERRA, Australia — July 30, 2025:
Australia’s decision to include YouTube in its under-16 social media ban signals a new phase in global tech regulation—one that prioritizes child safety over corporate influence, legal threats, or platform classifications. The move, announced Wednesday by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, reverses an earlier exemption for the Google-owned platform and positions Australia as a global leader in tackling online harm.
The updated legislation, which comes into effect this December, will now apply to YouTube alongside TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, and X. Children under 16 will no longer be able to create accounts or engage with content on these platforms—though they will still be allowed to watch videos passively on YouTube without logging in.
What prompted this policy pivot? According to eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant, YouTube emerged as the most frequently cited source of harmful content among 10- to 15-year-olds. This statistic challenged Google’s argument that YouTube is primarily a video-sharing platform, not a social network. The government wasn’t convinced.
“Social media is doing social harm to our children,” said Prime Minister Albanese, defending the expanded ban. “We know this won’t solve everything, but it will make a difference.” Communications Minister Anika Wells went further, saying the government would not bow to corporate pressure: “We will not be intimidated by legal threats. This is a genuine fight for the wellbeing of Australian kids.”
Behind the scenes, tensions were already mounting. Reports emerged last week that Google was considering legal action to block YouTube’s inclusion. But public sentiment—and growing international scrutiny over tech companies’ handling of youth mental health—left little room for compromise.
Critics of Big Tech argue that YouTube’s business model, fueled by engagement-driven algorithms, makes it indistinguishable from traditional social platforms when it comes to exposure risks. Supporters of the government’s approach say the decision shows leadership in an era where social media platforms are no longer treated as neutral tech tools but as powerful social environments requiring oversight.
The political framing was stark. Minister Wells likened parenting in the digital age to teaching children to swim in “an open ocean filled with rips and sharks.” While tech companies claim they offer safeguards and educational tools, governments are increasingly skeptical that voluntary compliance is enough.
Under the ban, platforms will need to deactivate all underage accounts, block new ones, and prevent workarounds. Non-compliance could cost them up to A$50 million (US$32.5 million) in fines. Educational, messaging, health, and gaming platforms are exempt—seen as posing fewer social harms to youth.
Google, in a measured response, said it will “consider next steps” and “continue to engage” with the Australian government. But the inclusion of YouTube raises a much larger question: is this the beginning of a global regulatory trend?
Already, Norway has announced similar plans, and the UK is evaluating comparable legislation. With children’s mental health increasingly tied to digital exposure, and with AI-driven content targeting amplifying risks, governments are under pressure to act.
Australia’s move is more than a national policy—it’s a test case. If it succeeds, more countries may follow suit. If it stumbles, it could energize tech lobbies and reshape the global debate.
In either case, the question lingers: is this ban a bold stand for child safety, or the start of a new digital divide between platform power and public interest?