Is Social Media bad for mental health?

[Sher Khan]

I feel like my heart is always racing the moment I wake up to pick up my phone and check social media. I then spend most of my day being unproductive on social media.

I have always felt guilty about it, as my studies are definitely affected by my social media use. But more importantly, my mental health has never been great and I am starting to wonder if my social media use has to do with it.

I feel like my dopamine receptors have become messed up. Social Media also has majority of vulgar content, to be blunt I feel social media is all porn these days. That is not a good thing for me personally, because then upon viewing it I usually feel "weird" especially if I'm in a public place.

As a result, my social media use is making me feel guilty but as I mentioned my dopamine receptors are messed by it and now I feel addicted to social media.

 

[James]

Social media can certainly be terrible for mental health.

Sounds in your situation that you have become addicted to an unhealthy degree, you may need some help and support.

Start by deleting those apps for a while.

 

[Robert]

Yes, quite apart from the hate mill of social media, the constant swiping provides a natural high which over time depletes dopamine in your head.

 

[Sher Khan]

Social media can certainly be terrible for mental health.

Sounds in your situation that you have become addicted to an unhealthy degree, you may need some help and support.

Start by deleting those apps for a while.

Okay brother, I will delete those apps and see how I feel after a while.

My other concern is potential employers, etc. Suggesting young people to have social media connections these days to get a good career and move up in the professional world.

Perhaps, keeping that in mind it has become hard for young people to balance "good" and "bad" social media use.

 

[SpiritOf1903]

Everything's bad if the consumer cannot moderate. People have always eyed and touted so it's just an extension of that?

RSI is definitely a thing, however

 

[Technics 1210]

Social Media is great, but the trick is to filter what you want to read, and when you want to read.

I love synching up in the evenings on my favourite topics (Video Games, Aviation, Gold etc), takes about an hour, and sure beats MSM programmed nonsense.

Plus SM is an effective way to keep in touch with friends and family.

What you want - when you want. You control SM, SM does not control you.

 

[Technics 1210]

Another point, Social Media provides an insight into what the public is thinking. Some people may not be comfortable with personal opinions which disagree with theirs, but it’s great to gauge public opinion. Depp & Heard trial is a great example., newspapers articles comments too.

 

[FearlessRoar]

Your social media a true reflection of who you are?

 

[sweep_shot]

It has both positives and negatives.

If you can filter out unwanted people/information, experience can be quite pleasant.

 

[gani999]

Anything can be bad for your mental health if you get obsessed with it. There should always be a balance.
It is the same with social media. You should be able to control your access to it, and what it does to your mind. You are finished if you allow it to control you.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Australia proposes 'world-leading' ban on social media for children under 16

The Australian government will legislate for a ban on social media for children under 16, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Thursday, in what it calls a world-leading package of measures that could become law late next year.

Australia is trialing an age-verification system to assist in blocking children from accessing social media platforms, as part of a range of measures that include some of the toughest controls imposed by any country to date.

"Social media is doing harm to our kids and I'm calling time on it," Albanese told a news conference.

Albanese cited the risks to physical and mental health of children from excessive social media use, in particular the risks to girls from harmful depictions of body image, and misogynist content aimed at boys.

"If you're a 14-year-old kid getting this stuff, at a time where you're going through life's changes and maturing, it can be a really difficult time and what we're doing is listening and then acting," he said.

A number of countries have already vowed to curb social media use by children through legislation, though Australia's policy is one of the most stringent.

No jurisdiction so far has tried using age verification methods like biometrics or government identification to enforce a social media age cut-off, two of the methods being trialed.

Australia's other world-first proposals are the highest age limit set by any country, no exemption for parental consent and no exemption for pre-existing accounts.

Legislation will be introduced into the Australian parliament this year, with the laws coming into effect 12 months after being ratified by lawmakers, Albanese said.

The opposition Liberal Party has expressed support for a ban.

There will be no exemptions for children who have parental consent, or who already have accounts.

"The onus will be on social media platforms to demonstrate they are taking reasonable steps to prevent access," Albanese said. "The onus won't be on parents or young people."

"What we are announcing here and what we will legislate will be truly world leading," Communications Minister Michelle Rowland said.

Rowland said platforms impacted would include Meta Platforms' Instagram and Facebook, as well as Bytedance's TikTok and Elon Musk's X. Alphabet's YouTube would likely also fall within the scope of the legislation, she added.

TikTok declined to comment, while Meta, Alphabet and X did not respond to requests for comment.

The Digital Industry Group, a representative body which includes Meta, TikTok, X and Alphabet's Google as members, said the measure could encourage young people to explore darker, unregulated parts of the internet while cutting their access to support networks.

"Keeping young people safe online is a top priority ... but the proposed ban for teenagers to access digital platforms is a 20th Century response to 21st Century challenges," said DIGI Managing Director Sunita Bose.

"Rather than blocking access through bans, we need to take a balanced approach to create age-appropriate spaces, build digital literacy and protect young people from online harm," she added.

France last year proposed a ban on social media for those under 15, though users were able to avoid the ban with parental consent.

The United States has for decades required technology companies to seek parental consent to access the data of children under 13, leading to most social media platforms banning those under that age from accessing their services.

REUTERS

 

[BouncerGuy]

Australia wants to ban kids from social media. Will it work?

“I felt really scared to be honest,” says James, describing an incident on Snapchat that left him questioning whether it was safe to go to school.

The Australian boy, 12, had had a disagreement with a friend, and one night before bed the boy added him to a group chat with two older teenagers.

Almost instantly, his phone “started blowing up” with a string of violent messages.

“One of them sounded like he was probably 17,” James tells the BBC. “He sent me videos of him with a machete… he was waving it around. Then there were voice messages saying that they were going to catch me and stab me.”

James - not his real name - first joined Snapchat when he was 10, after a classmate suggested everyone in their friendship group get the app. But after telling his parents about his cyberbullying experience, which was ultimately resolved by his school, James deleted his account.

His experience is a cautionary tale that shows why the Australian government’s proposed social media ban on children under 16 is necessary, says his mother Emma, who is also using a pseudonym.

The laws, which were tabled in parliament's lower house on Thursday, have been billed by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese as “world-leading”.

But while many parents have applauded the move, some experts have questioned whether kids should - or even can - be barred from accessing social media, and what the adverse effects of doing so may be.

What is Australia proposing?

Albanese says the ban - which will cover platforms such as X, TikTok, Facebook and Instagram - is about protecting kids from the “harms” of social media.

"This is a global problem and we want young Australians essentially to have a childhood. We want parents to have peace of mind," he said on Thursday.

The new legislation provides a "framework" for the ban. But the 17-page document, which is expected to head to the Senate next week, is sparse on detail.

Instead, it will be up to the nation’s internet regulator - the eSafety Commissioner - to hash out how to implement and enforce the rules, which will not come into effect for at least 12 months after legislation is passed.

According to the bill, the ban will apply to all children under 16 and that there will be no exemptions for existing users or those with parental consent.

Tech companies will face penalties of up to A$50m ($32.5m; £25.7) if they do not comply, but there will be exemptions for platforms which are able to create “low-risk services" deemed suitable for kids. Criteria for this threshold are yet to be set.

Messaging services and gaming sites, however, will not be restricted, as will some sites that can be accessed without an account like YouTube, which has prompted questions over how regulators will determine what is and isn’t a social media platform in a fast-moving landscape.

A group representing the interests of tech companies such as Meta, Snapchat and X in Australia has dismissed the ban as “a 20th Century response to 21st Century challenges”.

Such legislation could push kids into “dangerous, unregulated parts of the internet”, Digital Industry Group Inc says - a fear also expressed by some experts.

eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has acknowledged the gargantuan task her office will face when enforcing the ban, given “technology change is always going to outpace policy”.

“It will always be fluid, and this is why regulators like eSafety have to be nimble,” she told BBC Radio 5 Live.

But Ms Inman Grant has also raised concerns about the central idea behind the government’s policy, which is that there’s a causal link between social media and declining mental health.

“I would say that the evidence base is not settled at all,” she said, pointing to research from her own office which found that some of the most vulnerable groups, such as LGBTQ+ or First Nations teenagers, “feel more themselves online than they do in the real world”.

This is a sentiment echoed by Lucas Lane, 15, who runs an online business selling nail polish to boys. “This [ban] destroys… my friendships and the ability to make people feel seen,” the Perth teenager tells the BBC.

Ms Inman Grant would rather see tech companies clean up their platforms, as well as more investment in education tools to help young people stay safe online. She uses the analogy of teaching children to swim, rather than banning them from the water.

“We don’t fence the ocean… but we do create protected swimming environments that provide safeguards and teach important lessons from a young age,” she told parliament earlier this year.

But parents like Emma see it differently.

“Should we really be wasting our time trying to help kids navigate these difficult systems when tech companies just want them on them all the time?" she says.

“Or should we just allow them to be kids and learn how to be sociable outside with each other, and then start these discussions later on?”

Amy Friedlander, a mother of three from the Wait Mate movement - which encourages parents to delay giving their kids smartphones - agrees.

“We can’t ignore all the positives that technology has brought into our lives. There are huge upsides, but what we haven’t really considered is the impact it is having on brains which aren’t ready for it.”

'Too blunt an instrument'

Over 100 Australian academics have criticised the ban as "too blunt an instrument" and argued that it goes against UN advice which calls on governments to ensure young people have “safe access” to digital environments.

It has also failed to win the backing of a bipartisan parliamentary committee that’s been examining the impact of social media on adolescents. Instead, the committee recommended that tech giants face tougher regulations.

To address some of those concerns, the government says it will eventually introduce "digital duty of care" laws, which will make it a legal obligation for tech companies to prioritise user safety.

Joanne Orlando, a researcher in digital behaviour, argues that while a ban “could be part of a strategy, it absolutely can’t be the whole strategy”.

She says “the biggest piece of the puzzle” should be educating kids to think critically about the content they see on their feeds and how they use social media.

The government has already spent A$6m since 2022 to develop free “digital literacy tools” to try and do just that. However, research suggests that many young Australians aren’t receiving regular lessons.

Ms Orlando and other experts warn there are also significant hurdles to making the age-verification technology - which is required to enforce the ban - effective and safe, given the “enormous risks” associated with potentially housing the identification documents of every Australian online.

The government has said it is aiming to solve that challenge through age-verification trials, and hopes to table a report by mid-next year. It has promised that privacy concerns will be front and centre, but offered little detail on what kind of technology will actually be tested.

In its advice, the eSafety Commissioner has floated the idea of using a third-party service to anonymise a user’s ID before it is passed on to any age verification sites, to “preserve” their privacy.

However, Ms Orlando remains sceptical. “I can’t think of any technology that exists at this point that can pull this off,” she tells the BBC.

Will Australia succeed?

Australia is by no means the first country to try to restrict how young people access certain websites or platforms online.

In 2011, South Korea passed its “shutdown law” which prevented children under 16 from playing internet games between 22:30 and 6:00, but the rules - which faced backlash - were later scrapped citing the need to “respect the rights of youths”.

More recently France introduced legislation requiring social media platforms to block access to children under 15 without parental consent. Research indicated almost half of users were able to circumvent the ban using a simple VPN.

A law in the US state of Utah - which was similar to Australia’s - ran into a different issue: it was blocked by a federal judge who found it unconstitutional.

Albanese has conceded that Australia's proposal may not be foolproof, and if it passes the parliament, it would be subject to a review.

"We all know technology moves fast and some people will try to find ways around these new laws but that is not a reason to ignore the responsibility that we have," he told lawmakers.

But for parents like Emma and Ms Friedlander - who have lobbied for the changes - it's the message that the ban sends which matters most.

“For too long parents have had this impossible choice between giving in and getting their child an addictive device or seeing their child isolated and feeling left out socially,” Ms Friedlander says.

“We’ve been trapped in a norm that no one wants to be a part of.”

James says that since quitting Snapchat he’s found himself spending more time outside with friends.

And he hopes that the new laws could enable more kids like him to “get out and do the things they love” instead of feeling pressured to be online.

BBC

 

[Bhaijaan]

It is bad for us but we are trapped by it and a complete escape is almost impossible. You can work on minimising exposure to needless media but the thing is even if you narrow down your interests will still concentrate in the media you feel is bringing joy or value to you and eventually your screen time will remain the same. We are doomed and on our way to being completely controlled by A.I. I don’t think our distant generations in future will be running or even doing a lot of walking. Everything will be available to them at fingertips just as we saw in scary sci fi movies.

 

[Ball Blazer]

On this Mental Health Day, we want to remind everyone that PakPassion is more than just a cricket forum, it is a community where every voice matters. Whether you are celebrating a big win, struggling with life off the field, or simply need someone to listen, this space is open for you.

talk cricket, but we also care about the people behind the posts. So, do not hesitate to share what is on your mind, your feelings are valid, and you are never alone here.

 

[Bewal Express]

I have seen many kids go into melt down when they dont likes for their posts or get little traction for their social media activity.

 

[sweep_shot]

I do not get affected by social media.

I grew up with 4Chan, 8Chan, IRC, Yahoo Chat etc. I was exposed to high level of online toxicity.

So, social media doesn't affect me mentally no matter how toxic some of the people are. Even the nastiest troll has very little affect on me.

 

[SherWaqar]

It’s what you make of it

 

[JaDed]

Literally every study suggests so not only social media but continuous distractions are ruining the brain, everyone is amusing themselves to death.

 

[JaDed]

I have seen many kids go into melt down when they dont likes for their posts or get little traction for their social media activity.

Yeah it’s not kids anymore but even adults, there is a reason why cringe videos are getting likes, rage baiting has become common etc..

 

[sweep_shot]

I first started to use social media back in 2006. Since then, I have been to flash chat rooms, IRC chat rooms, online forums, Reddit, Discord, Facebook, WhatsApp, 4Chan, 8Chan, Yahoo Chat etc.

I also used to be a moderator at a chat room and I had my own online forum (which I launched with a friend).

There were times when social media negatively impacted my mental health. But, that no longer happens now as I got used to with social media toxicity.

If you can't tolerate someone's post, you can always block or ignore I guess. That can cushion your mental health a bit.

 

[Bewal Express]

Yeah it’s not kids anymore but even adults, there is a reason why cringe videos are getting likes, rage baiting has become common etc..

For children Social media is a destructive force. Ban all kids from owning smart phones except especially adapted ones whicg alllow them to acces apps for safety etc. We have damaged children for Profit and the only winners are big tech.

 

[Rajdeep]

I first started to use social media back in 2006. Since then, I have been to flash chat rooms, IRC chat rooms, online forums, Reddit, Discord, Facebook, WhatsApp, 4Chan, 8Chan, Yahoo Chat etc.

I also used to be a moderator at a chat room and I had my own online forum (which I launched with a friend).

There were times when social media negatively impacted my mental health. But, that no longer happens now as I got used to with social media toxicity.

If you can't tolerate someone's post, you can always block or ignore I guess. That can cushion your mental health a bit.

Then what is the point of being in social media if you cant digest opposing opinion? Blocking someone in virtual world is a projection of cowardice. You need to face them with head on.

 

[sweep_shot]

Then what is the point of being in social media if you cant digest opposing opinion? Blocking someone in virtual world is a projection of cowardice. You need to face them with head on.

For me, it is all about passing time while feeling good. I am not interested in opposing views.

I am on social media to pass time, make friends, and learn things.

 

[JaDed]

For children Social media is a destructive force. Ban all kids from owning smart phones except especially adapted ones whicg alllow them to acces apps for safety etc. We have damaged children for Profit and the only winners are big tech.

Yes I think some european country has done that and it’s absolutely right.

 

[JaDed]

I first started to use social media back in 2006. Since then, I have been to flash chat rooms, IRC chat rooms, online forums, Reddit, Discord, Facebook, WhatsApp, 4Chan, 8Chan, Yahoo Chat etc.

I also used to be a moderator at a chat room and I had my own online forum (which I launched with a friend).

There were times when social media negatively impacted my mental health. But, that no longer happens now as I got used to with social media toxicity.

If you can't tolerate someone's post, you can always block or ignore I guess. That can cushion your mental health a bit.

It’s more complicated than that, I have been reading about this from last 1 year , and the latest book has been “Upward Spiral”, in my humble opinion the mental health due to emotional agitation from social media is bad yes but giving attention to social media posts etc is also causing issues as the amusement is releasing dopamine, making us form bad habits.

This along with so many other attention eating habits is literally changing our brain’s receptors, we need an easy flow as in neuro connectivity within our brain that happens when we actually focus on one task(could be work), example a hobby , physical exercise etc etc..
having a phone or tv on, video games , , consuming irrelevant information is literally causing our brains to fry, this is leading to depression, anxiety , attention deficiency etc etc

 

[Hitman]

Don't know, don't care either. I have thoroughly loved social media. Although my first love still remains Yahoo! Messenger.

 

[BouncerGuy]

Too much of anything is bad for your health... SOcial media is on top LOL

 

[Suleiman]

It’s more complicated than that, I have been reading about this from last 1 year , and the latest book has been “Upward Spiral”, in my humble opinion the mental health due to emotional agitation from social media is bad yes but giving attention to social media posts etc is also causing issues as the amusement is releasing dopamine, making us form bad habits.

This along with so many other attention eating habits is literally changing our brain’s receptors, we need an easy flow as in neuro connectivity within our brain that happens when we actually focus on one task(could be work), example a hobby , physical exercise etc etc..
having a phone or tv on, video games , , consuming irrelevant information is literally causing our brains to fry, this is leading to depression, anxiety , attention deficiency etc etc

Basically echoes what you wrote and I largely agree. Imo this weakening of attention span via artificial hits of dopamine via social media can also fractures a man’s ability to hold space in a relationship whether it’s with his wife or raising kids because the attention span muscle is weakened to such a large extent… and both wife and kids require attention. Also a lot of marriages and relationships ending these days has social media play a major part for one reason or another.

But big tech wants it that way, they hire scientists and such for apps to keep people hooked and numb their senses.

Social media has its uses, but its unregulated consumption can affect our lifestyles in major ways that we may not even realize because it’s become the norm.

 

[Kianig89]

AI and stress levels are highly correlated.

 

[sweep_shot]

It’s more complicated than that, I have been reading about this from last 1 year , and the latest book has been “Upward Spiral”, in my humble opinion the mental health due to emotional agitation from social media is bad yes but giving attention to social media posts etc is also causing issues as the amusement is releasing dopamine, making us form bad habits.

This along with so many other attention eating habits is literally changing our brain’s receptors, we need an easy flow as in neuro connectivity within our brain that happens when we actually focus on one task(could be work), example a hobby , physical exercise etc etc..
having a phone or tv on, video games , , consuming irrelevant information is literally causing our brains to fry, this is leading to depression, anxiety , attention deficiency etc etc

Good point.

"Information overload" can cause stress and exhaustion.

Human memory only has around 2.5 petabytes of space. So, we have to be careful what we fill up our memories with. It is like how we don't want junk files in our computers.

 

[JaDed]

Basically echoes what you wrote and I largely agree. Imo this weakening of attention span via artificial hits of dopamine via social media can also fractures a man’s ability to hold space in a relationship whether it’s with his wife or raising kids because the attention span muscle is weakened to such a large extent… and both wife and kids require attention. Also a lot of marriages and relationships ending these days has social media play a major part for one reason or another.

But big tech wants it that way, they hire scientists and such for apps to keep people hooked and numb their senses.

Social media has its uses, but its unregulated consumption can affect our lifestyles in major ways that we may not even realize because it’s become the norm.

Yes , Big tech esp meta is notorious for this, its actually a health emergency but no one cares..

 

[topspin]

AI and stress levels are highly correlated.

How? I thought AI was meant to make our life simpler.

 

[Markhor]

I liken social media to a car in that both are immensely useful tools for human advancement but require stringent regulation for the good of society. Imagine driving a car in a world without speed limits, traffic lights, driving tests, seatbelts etc.

This is an unrivalled era in human history as far as access to information is concerned. There are few gatekeepers to knowledge. However equally concerning is the access to misinformation - some of it actively harming public health. One example is the nonsense pseudoscience regarding vaccinations which has meant preventable diseases like measles are making a comeback. Suddenly after watching a few Instagram reels and reading dubiously sourced posts from the University of WhatsApp - some consider themselves more expert than medical professionals who've spent years specialising in their fields.

It's also now easier than ever to scam someone out of their hard earned money, to destroy one's reputation based on falsehoods, to malign entire communities or spread poisonous ideologies.

Nuanced conversations and civil discussions are far easier face-to-face, while much of social media is designed to ragebait, provoke and divide. This platform is an example. I recall some incredibly thoughtful long form debates back in the day which, while spirited, remained generally civil whereas personal attacks are now routine.

You could argue democracy itself is endangered by social media. If one of the prerequisites for a democracy is having a well informed public - how does that square with the fact many believe the weather is controlled by human beings operating machines, climate change is a hoax, JFK Jr didn't die from a plane crash and will return one day, and so on ?

 

[hassan918]

Everyone knows that it is bad for the mental health but still everyone uses it.

 

[hassan918]

The European Parliament close to calling for a ban on social networks for under-16s​

Brussels – The issue of protecting minors online and the possible imposition of a digital age at the EU level is coming to the fore in the European Parliament. The Brussels chamber could be the first—following up on the alarms launched by several member states—to request that the European Commission propose a ban on access to social media for children under 16. The driving force behind this is primarily the centrist “platform” led by the People’s Party (EPP) and the Socialists (S&D).

The data held by MEPs are disturbing: 97 per cent of young people use the Internet daily, 78 per cent of 13 to 17 year olds say they check their devices at least every hour, 16 to 24 year olds spend an average of more than seven hours a day on the Internet, 84 per cent of 11 to 14 year olds play video games regularly. And one in four young people “show problematic or dysfunctional use” of smartphones.

The European Parliament’s Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) took this snapshot as a starting point for drafting a non-legislative resolution prepared by socialist Christel Schaldemose, which was approved on 4 November by a large majority. Next week, the text calling for “the establishment of a harmonised European digital age limit of 16 years as the default threshold below which access to online social media platforms should not be allowed, unless parents or guardians have authorised their children to do so” will go to the plenary session.

Not only that, the text approved in IMCO calls for “the same age limit to apply to video-sharing platforms and artificial intelligence assistants that present risks to minors” and above all “a harmonised European digital age limit of 13 years, below which no minors can access social media platforms.” The European Commission has been working for some time on tighter measures to protect minors from the risks of addiction, abuse, and exposure to harmful content online. The Digital Services Act, in force since 2024, obliges large platforms to assess the risks to youngsters and put in place effective tools to prevent them. In July, Brussels launched a pilot project in five member states (including Italy) to test an online age verification application that would allow platforms to receive only proof that the user is or is not of age, without having to ask for personal data.

What is more, in the pipeline is the European Digital Identity Wallet, with which “you will be able to keep full control of your data, but authenticate and verify your age when using certain services.” But so far, the European Commission has always rejected the possibility of imposing a digital age at the EU level. As stipulated by the Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), “it is up to the member states to establish and set the digital age between 13 and 16 years,” spokesman Thomas Regnier had explained a few months ago, responding to French President Emmanuel Macron’s requests.

The first issue is inevitably that of privacy protection: “Any age verification tool used should guarantee the highest level of accuracy and reliability and meet strict data protection and cybersecurity criteria to ensure its compliance with our fundamental rights,” the Socialists and Democrats (S&D) group emphasised in a
press release ahead of the vote.

In addition to the Socialists, the EPP is also pushing for “social media access for children under the age of 16 to be allowed only with parental consent,” the group’s spokesman Daniel Köster confirmed today. The Renew Liberals and Greens are also expected to be on board. From the right-wing benches, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR)—who had opposed the resolution in the IMCO committee—warned of the risk that the goal of stronger safeguards for children “would become a pretext to turn the Internet into a space of constant identification and surveillance.” The Conservative group’s line is that “parents should remain in charge”: spokesman Michael Strauss stated that “the Commission should strengthen parental control tools rather than monitoring every user.”

On parental control tools, the resolution under consideration by the EU Parliament is more sceptical: it claims that they “remain fragmented across different platforms and devices and are often difficult for parents to use effectively.” And that the latter “often lack the appropriate and effective knowledge, skills and tools to monitor and manage children’s online activities.”

The European Parliament close to calling for a ban on social networks for under-16s

The non-legislative resolution already approved by a large majority in the parliamentary committee goes to the plenary session. Populars and Socialists push for tightening, ECR calls for "strengthening parental control tools rather than monitoring every user"

www.eunews.it

 

[JaDed]

For all its fault Europeans are progressive, issue is the productivity levels vary so much across European countries it’s insane.

Well done to ban social media for developing brains, absolute must.

 

[hassan918]

Australian teenagers ask High Court to block social media ban​

SYDNEY, Nov 26 (Reuters) - A constitutional challenge against Australia’s social media ban on children younger than 16 has been filed in the nation’s highest court, two weeks before the world-first law is set to take effect.

A campaign group called the Digital Freedom Project said on Wednesday it launched proceedings in the High Court of Australia in a bid to block the law, with two 15-year-olds, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, as plaintiffs in the case.

More than one million accounts held by teenagers under 16 are set to be deactivated in Australia when the ban on platforms including YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat (SNAP.N), opens new tab and Meta's (META.O), opens new tab Facebook and Instagram starts on December 10.

In a statement on Wednesday, the Digital Freedom Project said the ban "robs" young Australians of their freedom of political communication, an implied right in the constitution. Australia does not have an express right to free speech.

"The legislation is grossly excessive," the statement said.

Neyland said the law would ban young people from expressing their views online.

"Young people like me are the voters of tomorrow ... we shouldn't be silenced. It's like Orwell's book 1984, and that scares me," she said.

The Digital Freedom Project’s president is John Ruddick, a member of the Libertarian Party in the New South Wales state Parliament.

After news of the legal challenge broke, Communications Minister Anika Wells told Parliament the centre-left government, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, would not be intimidated by threats and legal challenges.

"Despite the fact that we are receiving threats and legal challenges by people with ulterior motives, the Albanese Labor government remains steadfastly on the side of parents, and not of platforms," Wells said.

Australian media has reported that YouTube also threatened to launch a High Court challenge on the grounds the ban burdened political communication.

Governments and tech firms around the world are closely watching Australia's effort to implement the ban, one of the most comprehensive efforts to police minors' social media access.

The ban was passed into law in November 2024 and is supported by the majority of Australians, according to opinion polling.

The government said research showed the over-use of social media was harming young teens, including causing misinformation, enabling bullying and harmful depictions of body image.

Companies that fail to comply with the ban could face penalties of up to A$49.5 million ($32.22 million).

Source: REUTERS

 

[sweep_shot]

I support social media ban till age of 13 maybe. 16 is too much.

They should modify it and make the ban effective till age of 13.

 

[BouncerGuy]

YouTube says it will be less safe for kids under Australia's social media ban

laws to block teens from its platform will mean children will be less safe as its "robust parental controls" will be stripped away.

Parents will "lose their ability to supervise their teen or tween's account" such as content settings or blocking channels from 10 December when a social media ban for under-16s starts. Children will still be able to view videos but without an account.

Communications Minister Anika Wells responded by saying it was "outright weird" that YouTube was highlighting the dangers of its platform for children.

"If YouTube is reminding us all that it is not safe ... that's a problem that YouTube needs to fix," Wells said on Wednesday.

The platform's statement comes as Australia's internet regulator sets her sights on two little-known apps that teens have flocked to in the lead-up to the country's social media ban.

Lemon8, owned by the creators behind TikTok, and Yope are video and photo-sharing apps that have seen a rise in downloads recently, prompting eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant to ask them to self-assess if they fall under the ban.

The government reversed an exemption for YouTube from the ban in July, with the eSafety Commissioner saying it was "the most frequently cited platform" where children aged 10 to 15 years saw "harmful content".

In a statement on Wednesday, the video-sharing platform said it would comply but that the new law undermined more than a decade's work in building "robust protections and parental controls that families rely on for a safer YouTube experience".

"Most importantly, this law will not fulfil its promise to make kids safer online, and will, in fact, make Australian kids less safe on YouTube," wrote Rachel Lord, public policy senior manager at Google and YouTube Australia, adding that parents and educators shared these concerns.

She labelled the ban - which comes under the Social Media Minimum Age Act - as "rushed regulation that misunderstands our platform and the way young Australians use it".

From 10 December, anyone under 16 will be automatically signed out of their YouTube account, meaning they cannot upload content or post comments. YouTube Kids is not part of the ban.

In addition, default wellbeing settings such as reminders to take a break or go to bed will no longer be available to children as they only work for account holders.

Ms Lord said the legislation had "failed to allow for adequate consultation and consideration of the real complexities of online safety regulation."

YouTube's parent company, Google, has reportedly considered launching a legal challenge to the platform's inclusion in the ban. It did not respond to a BBC request for comment.

In a speech on Wednesday, exactly a week before the ban kicks in, Wells said teething problems were expected in the first few days and weeks.

"Regulation, and cultural change, takes time. Takes patience," she said.

Wells said Gen Alpha - anyone under 15 years - were connected to a "dopamine drip" from the moment they got a smartphone and social media accounts.

Previous generations had dealt with bullying or potentially harmful content but it was limited, she said. New technology meant children today had "constant access" with algorithms and notifications "stealing their attention for hours every day".

"With one law, we can protect Generation Alpha from being sucked into purgatory by the predatory algorithms described by the man who created the feature as behavioural cocaine."

Tech companies will have to provide regular six-monthly reports on how many accounts they have for under-16s, she said.

Under the ban, tech companies can be fined up to A$49.5m (US$33m, £25m) if they don't comply with the age restrictions. They will need to deactivate existing accounts and prohibit any new accounts, as well as stopping any work arounds.

The other platforms that fall under the ban are Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, X, Twitch, Threads, Reddit and Kick.

BBC

 

[JaDed]

Categorising youtube with social media is silly as it gets, probably coz youtube shorts

 

[sweep_shot]

Categorising youtube with social media is silly as it gets, probably coz youtube shorts

YouTube has many useful stuff for the kids. Australia banning it for the kids is very silly.

 

[Suleiman]

Categorising youtube with social media is silly as it gets, probably coz youtube shorts

I think it’s appropriate. YouTube is a double edged sword as well. YouTube shorts is one thing but there’s plenty of brain rot content on there as well.

It’s the most productive of all the social media platforms it’s bunched with even if it’s not as social, but can also be just as much of a drag if not more.

 

[JaDed]

YouTube has many useful stuff for the kids. Australia banning it for the kids is very silly.

Youtube kids is not banned.. but youtube normal for anyone under 16 is..

 

[JaDed]

I think it’s appropriate. YouTube is a double edged sword as well. YouTube shorts is one thing but there’s plenty of brain rot content on there as well.

It’s the most productive of all the social media platforms it’s bunched with even if it’s not as social, but can also be just as much of a drag if not more.

I think Youtube has done a lot to manage good content not rage bait engagement even among kids.

I agree it has issues but its the only one that has worked actively to be way safer than any other platform.

 

[JaDed]

They have not included discord lmao… clearly they are targeting big tech lol

How can discord not be included in the ban, clearly they have no idea what kids and teenagers use.

 

[sweep_shot]

Youtube kids is not banned.. but youtube normal for anyone under 16 is..

I see.

I think kids should be exposed to regular YouTube but only with adult supervisions.

YouTube is literally like a university. One can learn many educational things from YouTube. Just have to avoid the nonsense videos.

It is like a knife. You can use it for bad purposes but also good purposes.

 

[JaDed]

I see.

I think kids should be exposed to regular YouTube but only with adult supervisions.

YouTube is literally like a university. One can learn many educational things from YouTube.

Yes.. and that should had been the ask, so many teenagers learn from youtube… youtube has done so much to give parents control.. and it could had done more if they were smart.

Also its stupid because they haven’t banned roblox or discord ..

 

[sweep_shot]

They have not included discord lmao… clearly they are targeting big tech lol

How can discord not be included in the ban, clearly they have no idea what kids and teenagers use.

Yup.

Discord is the Gen Z and Gen Alpha app.

It seems like they are not aware what kids use. They mostly banned the boomer and millennial apps. LOL.

 

[Ball Blazer]

Australia social media ban set to take effect, sparking a global crackdown​

Australia is set to become the first country to implement a minimum age for social media use on Wednesday, with platforms like Instagram, TikTok and YouTube forced to block more than a million accounts, marking the beginning of an expected global wave of regulation.
From midnight (1300 GMT), 10 of the biggest platforms will be required to block Australians aged under 16 or be fined up to A$49.5 million ($33 million). The law received harsh criticism from major technology companies and free speech advocates, but was praised by parents and child advocates.

The rollout closes out a year of speculation about whether a country can block children from using technology that is built into modern life. And it begins a live experiment that will be studied globally by lawmakers who want to intervene directly because they are frustrated by what they say is a tech industry that has been too slow to implement effective harm-minimisation efforts.

Governments from Denmark to Malaysia - and even some states in the U.S., where platforms are rolling back trust and safety features - say they plan similar steps, four years after a leak of internal Meta documents showed the company knew its products contributed to body image problems and suicidal thoughts among teenagers while publicly denying the link existed.

"While Australia is the first to adopt such restrictions, it is unlikely to be the last," said Tama Leaver, a professor of internet studies at Curtin University.
"Governments around the world are watching how the power of Big Tech was successfully taken on. The social media ban in Australia ... is very much the canary in the coal mine."

A spokesperson for the British government, which in July began forcing websites hosting pornographic content to block under-18 users, said it was "closely monitoring Australia's approach to age restrictions."
"When it comes to children's safety, nothing is off the table," they added.

Few will scrutinise the impact as closely as the Australians. The eSafety Commissioner, an Australian regulator tasked with enforcing the ban, hired Stanford University and 11 academics to analyse data on thousands of young Australians covered by the ban for at least two years.

Though the ban covers 10 platforms initially, including Alphabet's YouTube, Meta's Instagram and TikTok, the government has said the list will change as new products appear and young users switch to alternatives.

Of the initial 10, all but Elon Musk's X have said they will comply using age inference - guessing a person's age from their online activity - or age estimation, which is usually based on a selfie. They might also check with uploaded identification documents or linked bank account details.

Musk has said the ban "seems like a backdoor way to control access to the internet by all Australians" and most platforms have complained that it violates people's right to free speech. An Australian High Court challenge overseen by a libertarian state lawmaker is pending.

For the social media businesses, the implementation marks a new era of structural stagnation as user numbers flatline and time spent on platforms shrinks, studies show.

Platforms say they don't make much money showing advertisements to under-16s, but they add that the ban interrupts a pipeline of future users. Just before the ban took effect, 86% of Australians aged 8 to 15 used social media, the government said.

"The days of social media being seen as a platform for unbridled self-expression, I think, are coming to an end," said Terry Flew, the co-director of University of Sydney's Centre for AI, Trust and Governance.

Platforms responded to negative headlines and regulatory threats with measures like a minimum age of 13 and extra privacy features for teenagers, but "if that had been the structure of social media in the boom period, I don't think we'd be having this debate," he added.

Australia social media ban set to take effect, sparking a global crackdown

Australia is set to become the first country to implement a minimum age for social media use on Wednesday, with platforms like Instagram, TikTok and YouTube forced to block more than a million accounts, marking the beginning of an expected global wave of regulation.

www.reuters.com

 

[BouncerGuy]

Reddit launches High Court challenge to Australia's social media ban for kids

Reddit has launched a challenge in Australia's highest court against the nation's landmark social media ban for children.

The online forum is among 10 social media platforms which must bar Australians aged under 16 from having accounts, under a new law which began on Wednesday.

The ban, which is being watched closely around the world, was justified by campaigners and the government as necessary to protect children from harmful content and algorithms.

Reddit is complying with the ban, but in its case will argue that the policy has serious implications for privacy and political rights. It is the second such legal challenge, with two Australian teens also awaiting a High Court hearing.

"Despite the best intentions, this law is missing the mark," Reddit said in an update on its website.

"There are more effective ways for the Australian government to accomplish our shared goal of protecting youth."

Australia's Communications Minister Anika Wells has previously said the government will not be swayed by legal threats.

"We will not be intimidated by big tech. On behalf of Australian parents, we will stand firm," she told parliament after news of the first legal challenge broke last month.

In that case, which the High Court has agreed to consider at an as-yet undecided date next year, two 15-year-olds from New South Wales are claiming the social media ban is unconstitutional as it infringes "the implied freedom of communication on governmental and political matters".

"Democracy doesn't start at 16 as this law says it will," Macey Newland told the BBC after their case was filed.

The ban, which has excited global leaders and worried tech companies, has also been criticised by some who argue blanket prohibition is neither practical nor wise.

Experts fear kids are going to circumvent the ban with relative ease - either by tricking the technology that's performing the age checks, or by finding other, potentially less safe, places on the net to gather.

And backed by some mental health advocates, many children have argued it robs young people of connection - particularly those from LGBTQ+, neurodivergent or rural communities - and will leave them less equipped to tackle the realities of life on the web.

But the policy is wildly popular with parents and has won the support of people like Oprah, and Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex.

In a statement on their website, the pair lauded the "bold" action from Australia but said "it shouldn't have come to this".

"We hope this ban is only the start of a reckoning between society and the tech companies that built these platforms with growth as their first principle instead of safety."

Various governments, from the US state of Florida to the European Union, have been experimenting with limiting children's use of social media. But, along with a higher age limit of 16, Australia is the first jurisdiction to deny an exemption for parental approval in a policy like this - making its laws the world's strictest.

Reddit said the law forces "intrusive and potentially insecure verification processes on adults as well as minors", isolates teens engaging in "age-appropriate community experiences" and creates an "illogical patchwork of which platforms are included and which aren't".

"There are more targeted, privacy-preserving measures to protect young people online without resorting to blanket bans."

The case is not "an attempt to avoid compliance" or "an effort to retain young users for business reasons", it added.

"Unlike other platforms included under this law, the vast majority of Redditors are adults, we don't market or target advertising to children under 18," it said.

The other platforms affected by the ban include Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok.

BBC

 

[Vikram1989]

There was video of addicted kids destroying the stuff in sydney shopping mall after the ban.it will be really interesting how the violent parties and bullies cope up now.

 

[hassan918]

France targets Australia-style social media ban for children next year​

France intends to follow Australia and ban social media platforms for children from the start of the 2026 academic year.

A draft bill preventing under-15s from using social media will be submitted for legal checks and is expected to be debated in parliament early in the new year.

The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has made it clear in recent weeks that he wants France to swiftly follow Australia’s world-first ban on social media platforms for under-16s, which came into force in December. It includes Facebook, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube.

Le Monde and France Info reported on Wednesday that a draft bill was now complete and contained two measures: a ban on social media for under-15s and a ban on mobile phones in high schools, where 15- to 18-year-olds study. Phones have already been banned in primary and middle schools.

The bill will be submitted to France’s Conseil d’État for legal review in the coming days. Education unions will also look at the proposed high-school ban on phones.

The government wants the social media ban to come into force from September 2026.

Le Monde reported the text of the draft bill cited “the risks of excessive screen use by teenagers”, including the dangers of being exposed to inappropriate social media content, online bullying, and altered sleep patterns. The bill states the need to “protect future generations” from dangers that threaten their ability to thrive and live together in a society with shared values.

Earlier this month, Macron confirmed at a public debate in Saint Malo that he wanted a social media ban for young teenagers. He said there was “consensus being shaped” on the issue after Australia introduced its ban. “The more screen time there is, the more school achievement drops … the more screen time there is, the more mental health problems go up,” he said.

He used the analogy of a teenager getting into a Formula One racing car before they had learned to drive. “If a child is in a Formula One car and they turn on the engine, I don’t want them to win the race, I just want them to get out of the car. I want them to learn the highway code first, and to ensure the car works, and to teach them to drive in a different car.”


Several other countries are considering social media bans for under-15s after Australia’s ban including Denmark, whose government hopes to introduce a ban in 2026, and Norway. Malaysia is also planning a social media ban for under-16s from 2026. In the UK, the Labour government has not ruled out a ban, saying “nothing is off the table” but any ban must be “based on robust evidence”.

Anne Le Hénanff, the French minister in charge of digital development and artificial intelligence, told Le Parisien this month that the social media ban for under-15s was a government priority, and that the bill would be “short and compatible with European law”, namely the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) – regulation intended to combat hateful speech, misinformation and disinformation.

The social media ban is part of Macron’s attempt to shape his legacy as he enters his difficult final year as president with a divided parliament.

On 23 December, last-minute legislation was passed to keep the government in business into January after parliament failed to agree a full budget for 2026. Attempts to agree a budget will resume next month.

A French parliamentary inquiry into TikTok’s psychological effects concluded in September that the platform was like a “slow poison” to children. The co-head of the inquiry, the centrist lawmaker Laure Miller, told France Info that TikTok was an “ocean of harmful content” that was very visible to children through algorithms that kept them in a bubble. TikTok responded that it was being unfairly scapegoated for “industry-wide and societal challenges”.

The French parliament report recommended more broadly that children under 15 in France should be banned entirely from using social media, and those between 15 and 18 should face a night-time “digital curfew”, meaning social media would be made unavailable to them between 10pm and 8am.

The inquiry was set up after a 2024 French lawsuit against TikTok by seven families who accused it of exposing their children to content that was pushing them towards ending their lives.

Source: The Guardian