In December 2024, Australia passed the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024, requiring age-restricted social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent children under 16 from having accounts. This policy quickly attracted wideinternational attention. In July 2026, France intended to ban social media for minors under 15 but was stopped by the Constitutional Council. New Zealand, Spain and the United Kingdom have also talked about similar rules. With the rise in public anxiety over mental health and addictive algorithms, more governments are considering bans.
Children’s mental health is worsening, internet addiction is increasing, and platforms use algorithms to keep young users online. If social media is one of the reasons, then prohibiting children’s use of it seems like an easy solution.
In recent years, the problem of social media use by children has been widespread. Some US states have filed lawsuits against Meta, claiming that Instagram and other platforms have introduced addictive functions to keep young people online longer and thus harm their mental health. The UK’s Online Safety Act will also require large platforms to protect children better. Protection of children is now a problem for the public authorities, not only education.
Different countries have chosen different ages. Australia uses 16; France selected 15; and the UK is tightening the rules. All these policies use age as the cut-off. They appear to believe that children are ready for life in the digital world at a particular age. Age alone does not guarantee digital literacy. Without digital literacy education and guided online experience, they will still be at risk of algorithms, cyberbullying and false information.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
The real problem is not at what age children should first use social media, but whether they have the ability to face the digital world before doing so. Children will be online sooner or later. At 16, 17 or 18, they may still face addictive algorithms, false information, online fraud and cyberbullying. If there are no corresponding skills, age limits will only delay these risks rather than eliminate them.
Not that children are using social media, but rather that they have not been taught how to use it properly. Age limits can be set, but they cannot replace digital literacy education or platform responsibility. Finland has added media literacy to compulsory schooling. At the primary school level, students begin to learn about false information and algorithmic recommendations for self-protection. Finland is also one of the top countries in Europe at resisting false information. Education and age limits can be combined for extended protection.
Education alone is not sufficient either. The digital environment for teenagers is backed by billions of dollars in capital, complicated algorithms and professional product teams. A child may know how to recognise false information, but they are unable to tell whether an algorithm has misled them. They know they should be online less often, but they find it difficult to avoid attention-grabbing products.
Children should not bear all the responsibility. Social media companies also need rules. Public discussion often focuses on whether children have good self-discipline; however, it should also consider why the platforms are so popular with children.
If the platform wishes to earn money through users staying longer, then infinite scrolling, personalised recommendations, autoplay and continuous notifications are not mere technical attributes. They can lead children’s behaviour. Platforms use a lot of data to predict what children will watch next. It is not fair to let the children, who are still learning, face all the consequences.
When a new product poses a risk, governments should not first restrict the user, but require the company to redesign its products. The government can require social media companies to use a more restrictive default privacy setting for minors, limit personalised recommendations, and reduce addictive features. Platforms should take clearer responsibility for handling cyberbullying, harmful content and manipulation of minors.
Protecting children requires work at three levels. Children need skills; families and schools should guide them, and platforms and governments need to set limits. If any part is missing, the whole system will be weak.
A ban without education only defers the issue. Education without platform rules will still subject children to an all-powerful commercial system. If the government only focuses on platform responsibility and fails to teach children digital literacy, these children will still struggle in a digital age.
The question is not whether children should use social media, but how and when they should be permitted to use it. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has stated that children have the right to protection and the right to participate in the digital world. The goal is not to keep children out of thedigital world forever. They need to know how to assess information, safeguard their own data and use the internet safely.
Protecting children in the digital age is not to limit their use of the internet. It should mean making the internet safer for them. If society only raises the age limit to protect young people, it may be ignoring a problem: the design of the platforms.
Bans buy time, but they cannot substitute for reform. Children will grow up and enter the digital world. What is more important than the age of someone’s first social media login is whether the online world they enter is safe, fair and trustworthy.
