Australia’s Under-16 Social Media Ban: What It Means for Digital Health Communication

Australia will implement a world-first national law preventing all under-16s from holding accounts on major social-media platforms. Under the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, platforms like Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, Facebook, and YouTube must verify users’ ages and deny access to younger teenagers or face significant fines.

The decision has prompted global discussion, with several policymakers suggesting that similar restrictions could spread to other countries. Given the role social media plays in public health communication, digital engagement, and the dissemination of evidence-based information, this development raises important questions for the medical communications community.

Why this matters for medical communications

Social media has become one of the most powerful tools for distributing trusted health information. Its reach enables organisations to:

• engage young audiences with evidence-based messaging

• challenge misinformation rapidly

• support health campaigns

• participate in real-time global conversations about public health

  
  

A blanket ban for under-16s raises important questions about equitable access to reliable information:

• How will younger audiences access credible digital health content if mainstream channels are restricted?

• Will alternative, less regulated spaces become more appealing — and potentially more harmful?

• How do we ensure that health-literacy gaps do not widen as social-media restrictions increase?

Arguments for stronger protections

Several members of our team noted valid reasons why policymakers might consider such a measure:

1. Limited digital literacy among younger teens

Many users aged 11–14 lack the experience to reliably distinguish information, misinformation, and disinformation. Exposure to unrealistic beauty standards, harmful trends, bullying, and high-pressure online environments can be damaging at a developmental stage.

2. Increasing difficulty for parents to moderate online activity

Modern working patterns leave limited time for supervision. Even well-intentioned parents may struggle to monitor multiple devices, apps, and online communities.

3. A desire to allow children to remain children for longer

Several colleagues expressed an instinctive desire to protect younger teens from the pressures of online life — pressures that many adults did not experience at the same age.

From this angle, stricter regulation may provide necessary support and protection.

Arguments for caution and careful consideration

Others raised equally valid concerns about potential unintended consequences:

1. Restricting access to reliable information

If social media becomes inaccessible, teens may turn to search engines, private messaging groups, or unregulated platforms — where inaccuracies are harder to challenge.

2. The challenge of enforcement

Teenagers are resourceful. Many will try to bypass restrictions using VPNs, false ages, or alternative apps not covered by the legislation. A blanket ban may inconvenience responsible older teens without effectively protecting younger ones.

3. The risk of broader government overreach

Some team members highlighted concern about the wider pattern of increasing state involvement in digital life. Alongside Australia’s ban, other proposals — such as social-media checks for US visa applicants or the UK’s exploration of digital ID systems — prompt questions about how far such oversight could extend.

4. The opportunity cost of not prioritising digital-literacy education

Rather than removing access, many argue that equipping young people to navigate online environments safely and critically may offer greater long-term value.

Where does this leave the medical communications sector?

As a field grounded in accuracy, public trust, and clear communication, medical communications must remain attentive to how digital regulations evolve.

Key considerations include:

• How do we continue reaching younger audiences with credible health content?

• How can we adapt messaging strategies if social-media demographics shift?

• What responsibilities do platforms have in supporting safer digital engagement?

• How do we maintain trust and transparency in an increasingly regulated digital landscape?

While we may not be policymakers, we are communicators — and therefore part of the ongoing societal conversation about how information is created, shared, and accessed.

A call to thoughtful engagement

Rather than seeking a definitive answer, we encourage ongoing discussion within the medical communications community:

• What forms of protection are proportionate and effective?

• Could targeted age tiers or safer platform designs be more appropriate than blanket bans?

• What role should schools, parents, digital platforms, and healthcare communicators play in supporting young people online?

• How do we ensure health information remains accessible, accurate, and engaging in a changing digital landscape?

We invite colleagues, partners, and stakeholders to share their perspectives. constructive, nuanced dialogue is essential as the world re-evaluates the role of social media in young people’s lives.