Australia's world-first national laws to limit access to social media accounts by children under the age of 16 has been in effect for nearly three months. A brand new data Survey 1,070 Australian adults provide compelling evidence of some positive effects.
A YouGov survey found that many parents have seen quite a lot of positive behavioral changes of their children aged 16 and under because it got here into force on 10 December 2025. However, this was not universal, with some parents also reporting negative changes of their kid's behaviour.
It offers some insight into the impact of the information. Australia's Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act. But it also has some major limitations.
So what exactly do the survey results reveal? And find out how to interpret them?
A primary step
Before we are able to assess any impact of laws in stopping online harm we'd like to know whether age assurance processes are working.
Preliminary data collected by Australia's eSafety Commission shows that social media platforms have 4.7 million accounts removed of kids under the age of 16 last December
This data Allegedly This includes multiple inactive and duplicate accounts. As a result, it might not be an accurate representation of the particular variety of young people affected.
There are also young people. Allegedly Prevent age verification restrictions. And A Report Crikey, based on latest data from parental control company Qustodio, showed that social media use amongst under-16s fell barely in the primary three months of the ban.
Parents see some positive effects.
The YouGov survey took place online on January 12-14 this yr – a month after social media age restrictions got here into force.
Among parents of kids under 16, 61 percent saw between two and 4 positive effects. Some 43% personally noticed more social interactions, while 38% said their children were more present and engaged during conversations and 38% reported improved parent-child relationships.
But these parents also reported negative effects. Some 27% noted a shift towards alternative or less regulated platforms. And 25% observed a decrease in online social interaction, creativity or peer support.
Two-thirds of adults within the survey believed that more parental involvement could make restraint simpler. And 56% agreed that stricter enforcement and age verification would improve its effectiveness.
This suggests that many parents understand the complex challenges surrounding the implementation of effective age assurance practices.
Limitations of the survey
Disappointingly, the proportions of oldsters within the YouGov sample weren't reported nor the precise ages of their children.
Given that the survey was conducted in the midst of the summer holidays, it's difficult to know what contribution this might need made, as social media use generally decreases during this time.
We also do not know if the reported behavior changes were observed amongst youth whose social media accounts were “kicked off.”
Importantly, the voices of young persons are also missing from the YouGov survey.
Work in progress
We belong to at least one. Ongoing studies The purpose of which is to judge the impact of social media age restrictions. The study directly measures how much time young people spend on various social media apps using passive sensing technology, along with more common self-reported questionnaires.
Our primary data from 171 teenagers (collected before the brand new laws got here into effect) counters the prevailing narrative that “all teens are against social media restrictions”.
In fact, 40% of 13-16 yr olds were either in favor of the laws or indifferent to it, suggesting a more nuanced examination is required.
Young people also showed insight into their experiences using social media. Watching short videos was essentially the most commonly reported activity. But only 16% thought it was use of their time.
Australia's eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has also committed to a comprehensive review of the Social Media Minimum Age Act.
Oh Cooperation Between the eSafety Commission, Stanford University's Social Media Lab (lead academic partner) and an 11-member academic advisory group, the evaluation goals to evaluate how the minimum age requirement is being implemented and assess intended and unintended impacts.
A key element of eSafety's evaluation is its longitudinal design over no less than the following two years, with the perspectives of greater than 4,000 young people aged 10-16 and their parents or carers. Participants include enough young people from specific groups, corresponding to those that live within the country, or who're neurodiverse, to fastidiously examine whether restricting access to social media has a disproportionate impact on them.
The eSafety review will even track directly how much time young people spend on different apps and after they achieve this.
Measure success in years, not months
The next few months will undoubtedly be essentially the most difficult for the eSafety Commissioner as she works with each technology platform to make sure they're taking “reasonable steps” to comply with the law.
There shall be much global interest in the general public compliance report that the eSafety Commission will release soon, detailing these measures.
Technology firms face fines of as much as A$49.5 million for failing to comply with the law. For many, the financial cost could also be less of a priority than avoiding damage to their status, as this illustrates. Recent court cases In the United States, Snapchat and TikTok settled out of court.
Rather than expecting immediate advantages amongst youth who have already got access to social media, we might even see stronger effects in the following generation of kids whose parents haven't yet given them access to social media accounts.
In this regard, the true good thing about Australia's laws could also be whether it changes social norms amongst parents concerning the “right” age for kids to own phones and the role social media should play in young people's lives.
Such changes shall be measured in years, not months.