Why Meta shut down more than half a million social media accounts as Australia enforces one of the world’s toughest online safety laws.
 |
| Experts question whether Australia’s under-16 social media ban can work without harming vulnerable youth. Image: CH |
Sydney, Australia — January 14, 2026:
Why Meta moved so quickly to suspend more than 550,000 Facebook, Instagram and Threads accounts in Australia goes beyond simple compliance—it reflects the immense pressure created by one of the world’s most restrictive social media laws and the unresolved challenges of enforcing age limits online.
The mass removals came just days after Australia’s ban on social media use by children under 16 took effect. According to Meta, Instagram accounted for the largest share of suspensions, followed by Facebook and Threads, underscoring how deeply embedded teenagers were across the company’s platforms. For regulators, the figures signal early enforcement success. For critics, they highlight the blunt force of a policy that leaves little room for nuance.
Australia’s law stands apart globally. Unlike regulations in the European Union or U.S. states such as Florida, it allows no parental-consent exception. Platforms that fail to comply face fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars, creating strong incentives to remove suspected underage users even when age verification is imperfect. This enforcement dynamic helps explain why Meta acted at such scale and speed.
Yet Meta’s response has also laid bare a deeper structural conflict. The company argues that responsibility for age verification should sit with app stores operated by Apple and Google, not individual platforms. From Meta’s perspective, centralized age checks would reduce duplication and prevent children from being pushed from mainstream platforms with established safeguards into less regulated digital spaces.
Support for the ban remains strong among parents and policymakers who see social media as a driver of anxiety, cyberbullying and addictive behavior. The scale of Meta’s takedowns, they argue, confirms how widespread underage usage had become—and how voluntary protections failed to stem it.
At the same time, concern is growing about unintended consequences. Advocacy groups warn that LGBTQ and neurodivergent teens often rely on social media for identity affirmation, peer connection and emotional support unavailable offline. A total ban, they say, risks isolating already vulnerable groups rather than protecting them.
Questions of effectiveness also loom large. Technology analysts caution that many young users may evade restrictions through VPNs, false birthdates or borrowed accounts. If circumvention becomes widespread, enforcement may disproportionately impact compliant users while doing little to reduce actual harm.
Meta’s removal of more than half a million accounts thus marks the beginning of a high-stakes experiment. Australia is testing whether strict, age-based social media regulation can meaningfully improve child safety without eroding digital inclusion or rights. The outcome will be closely watched worldwide, as governments weigh whether to follow Australia’s lead—or learn from its growing pains.