Since 11 December 2025, the under-16 social media ban has been in effect at least nominally. This article from SBS News pretty much defines what’s working and what isn’t.To be strictly fair, the psychology of the ban was an issue that’s just too big to fit on the radar, and that seems to be the main problem.
There are ways of dodging the “age recognition” issue. 4.7 million accounts were closed in two days, but that didn’t last too long as people found evasion techniques. Using someone else’s face is one of them. Fake moustaches also apparently work. This was predicted and expected.
Notifications and lockouts don’t work. Simply ignoring them seems to be enough in some cases. This isn’t a lack of compliance by the social media platforms; it’s inadequate safeguards. This is a technically literate generation, and they know enough to find the flaws with ease.
The disconnect is psychologically rough. Despite the many issues with social media, these younger users feel left out. That’s quite enough of an incentive to try to get reconnected.
These are obviously just the basics. Anything online has a few workarounds: it’s really just finding them. The social media ban was controversial enough before it happened. Many people, including me, were skeptical.
There’s nothing specifically “wrong” about the safety-first approach to social media and social media bans in general worldwide. Quite the opposite; it’s necessary in so many ways.
It’s also purely protective in the face of real, proven risks. The long and infuriating epic tales of social media disasters, suicides, and risks shouldn’t need explaining. The mental health issues alone, without the crime, are bad enough.
The psychology of social media, however, is another, far more complex issue. “Social” media reflects society. It’s as natural as talking. Imagine if you were suddenly unable to communicate normally. It’s a fair perspective in terms of social development. In a very real sense, it’s your connection to the world.
That social development is also an educational process. It’s the same argument as “socializing” kids. You’re in the earlier stages of puberty. Your youth culture, however stressful, ignorant, and intolerant, is part of growing up.
It’s also part of your physical environment and physical reality. This is part of the dynamics of growing up. You’re connected to the world, then you’re not. So how does this affect your development as a social being?
Most people have gaps in their social skills. An unfamiliar social environment is disorienting, sure, but it’s also a learning process. Just walking into a room full of people you don’t know is unsettling for most people. You may not get the references, the slang, and particularly the unspoken behavioral norms for that group. Your ability to develop any sort of rapport is more than a bit hamstrung. You simply can’t socialize on the same level as the “natives”.
That seems to be at the heart of the main resistance to the social media ban. The ban is too different. Also, be aware that the under-16s would also be the last to deny that there are risks on social media. It’s not as though they’re not fully aware of the bullying, the cruel exclusions, and the general pushiness of social media.
They’re clearly not “defending their right to be bullied”. They may or may not acknowledge the very real dangers of serious grief generated online. They know about grooming. They are probably the first to hear about someone getting in trouble online. They just don’t want to dwell on these risks. Like driving a car, you can’t spend all your time worrying about accidents.
As a matter of fact, you’d be considered to be a pretty dumb teen if you didn’t know these things. Maybe that’s the workaround?
It looks like they’re also standing up for their grown-up status as individuals. They just don’t want to be treated like infants.
The big hole in the ban is clarifying what the ban is supposed to achieve.
_______________________________________________________________
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the Digital Journal or its members.
