Is it working, or are kids just finding new ways around it?

Australia introduced a world-first law in December 2025 aimed at stopping children under 16 from holding social media accounts. It was sold as a major step toward protecting young people from harm.

On paper, it sounds strong. In reality, it is far more complicated.

This is not a simple success story. It is a live experiment, and early signs show both impact and serious gaps.

What the “ban” actually is

The first thing to understand is this.

It is not a criminal ban on children.

It is a legal obligation on platforms.

Social media companies must take “reasonable steps” to stop under 16s from having accounts.

There are no penalties for kids or parents. The responsibility sits with platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat and others.

The goal is simple:

• Reduce exposure to harmful content
• Reduce screen addiction
• Improve mental health outcomes
• Limit access to things like pornography and predatory behaviour

The intent is solid. The execution is where the problems start.

Has it had any real impact?

Yes. But only partially.

There is clear evidence that usage has dropped.

• Snapchat usage dropped to around 20% among 13–15-year-olds
• TikTok dropped to around 21%
• YouTube remained higher at about 36.9% due to easier access without accounts

Platforms have also removed huge numbers of accounts:

• Hundreds of thousands of underage accounts locked or removed
• Millions removed globally during rollout phases

So the law has done something.

It has reduced easy access.

But it has not stopped access.

The reality: kids are still using social media

This is where the conversation needs to be honest.

A meaningful number of kids are still online.

• Over 20% of under-16s still actively use major platforms after the ban
• Surveys suggest up to 70% of teens still access social media in some form

That tells you something important.

The ban has created friction, not a barrier.

How kids are getting around it

This is the part most adults underestimate.

Young people are highly adaptive with technology.

Here are the main ways they are bypassing the system.

1. VPNs (Virtual Private Networks)

A VPN hides a user’s location and makes it appear they are in another country.

This allows:

• Access to platforms without Australian restrictions
• Bypassing age checks entirely

There has already been a noticeable rise in VPN use linked to these laws.

2. Fake ages and false accounts

This is still one of the simplest methods.

Kids are:

• Entering false birth dates
• Using older sibling or parent details
• Creating multiple accounts

Age verification is inconsistent across platforms, making this easy.

3. Using parents’ or older friends’ accounts

This is extremely common.

• Logging into an adult’s account
• Sharing devices
• Borrowing credentials

There is almost no practical way to stop this at scale.

4. Beating facial age checks

Some platforms use facial recognition or estimation.

These systems are far from perfect.

They can be tricked with:

• Make-up
• Lighting tricks
• Cheap masks
• AI manipulation

In testing, even basic disguises fooled systems.

5. Moving to unregulated or less monitored platforms

This is one of the biggest unintended consequences.

When you restrict mainstream platforms, kids don’t stop.

They move.

To:

• Smaller apps
• Messaging platforms
• Gaming chats
• Discord-style communities

These spaces often have:

• Less moderation
• Fewer safeguards
• Higher exposure to risk

What about pornography and harmful content?

The ban aimed to reduce exposure to harmful material.

There is some movement in this space, but again, it is limited.

Australia is also introducing age checks for search engines and adult content.

But the same problem exists:

If a teenager can bypass one restriction, they can bypass others.

Pornography access is still possible through:

• VPNs
• Non-compliant websites
• Encrypted messaging apps
• File sharing platforms

The internet is too large and too decentralised to fully control through one policy.

The core problem: technology vs behaviour

This is where the debate gets more serious.

The law assumes:

If you block access, behaviour will change.

But in reality:

• Kids are motivated to stay connected
• Social media is part of their social identity
• Peer pressure drives usage

Even teens themselves say these platforms are critical for connection and expression.

When something is seen as essential, people find a way around restrictions.

Was it worth it?

The honest answer is mixed.

What the ban has achieved

• Reduced casual and passive access
• Forced platforms to take responsibility
• Started a global conversation
• Raised awareness among parents

These are not small outcomes.

Where it is falling short

• Easy to bypass with basic tools
• Inconsistent enforcement across platforms
• Pushes kids into less safe environments
• Does not address underlying behaviour
• Creates a false sense of security for parents

The bigger risk most people are missing

The biggest concern is not that the ban failed.

It is that it may shift risk, not reduce it.

When kids move off mainstream platforms, they lose:

• Safety tools
• Reporting systems
• Moderation
• Visibility from parents

And gain:

• Private networks
• Anonymous communities
• Harder-to-track behaviour

That can increase exposure to harm.

What actually works better than a blanket ban

The evidence and expert opinion are starting to align on this.

Bans alone are not enough.

What works better is a combined approach.

1. Strong parental involvement

• Device monitoring
• Open conversations
• Clear boundaries

2. Digital education

• Teaching kids how platforms work
• Helping them recognise manipulation and risk

3. Platform accountability

• Safer design
• Better moderation
• Reduced algorithmic harm

4. Age-appropriate access, not zero access

• Gradual introduction
• Restricted features
• Supervised use

Where this is heading next

Australia’s approach is being watched globally.

Other countries are considering similar laws.

At the same time, pressure is building to:

• Improve age verification technology
• Regulate app stores
• Possibly restrict VPN use

But each of these raises new concerns around:

• Privacy
• Surveillance
• Overreach

This is not a problem with a clean solution.

Final thoughts

Australia took a bold step.

It has reduced access. It has not eliminated it.

Kids are still online. They are just getting smarter about how they do it.

The real takeaway is this.

You cannot regulate your way out of a behavioural issue on its own.

If the goal is to genuinely protect young people, the focus needs to shift from control to capability.

That means helping them navigate the online world, not just trying to block it.