Australians back under-16 social media ban but doubt efficacy

Most Australians support a proposed ban on social media access for children under 16 but doubt it will be effective in protecting young users, according to new research.

The findings show a divergence between public sentiment, policy, and views within the education community, as well as a preference for a hybrid approach that blends restrictions with education.

Support and scepticism

Research conducted with over 800 parents, teachers, and young people found that 73% favour an under-16 ban. However, 74% express doubts about whether such a ban can be enforced effectively, with 68% believing that children will find ways to bypass any restrictions.

Teachers demonstrate the highest level of support, with 84% backing the ban. Among high school teachers, that figure rises to 91%. Only 20% of teachers believe the ban will work, and just 13% of high school teachers are confident in its effectiveness, with almost 80% expecting children to circumvent it. Parents also support the ban, with 75% in favour, but just 31% believe it will succeed, and two-thirds anticipate workarounds.

One teacher participating in the study said, "Bullying is rife in schools... the ban will hopefully stop children under 16 accessing inappropriate sites."

Responsibility split

When it comes to who should enforce and monitor restrictions, the majority (42%) of Australians identify parents as the primary line of defence. Another 23% believe it should be a government responsibility and 21% place the onus on social media companies. This reveals a mismatch, as current policy statements indicate the government does not expect enforcement to rest with parents, but the public clearly expects a shared approach, involving families, platforms, and authorities.

Preference for education

Australians showed a strong preference for combining technical restrictions with educational initiatives to empower children. Nearly half (46%) of respondents support a hybrid solution, rather than just banning access. This reflects a call for practical and empowering methods, as opposed to simply relying on punitive measures.

Martin Filz, Chief Executive Officer of Pureprofile, said:

"While every group in the study shares the same core intention of protecting children's wellbeing, their definitions of what safety looks like - and how freedom should coexist with it - diverge. Parents define safety as supervision and boundaries, equating protection with limiting exposure and setting clear rules. Their priority is control that feels achievable, whereas adolescents want to be taught how to self-manage, not simply be restricted, and younger children want to connect with peers and creators in spaces that feel friendly and secure. Teachers see their role as guiding rather than policing. Despite different routes, every group agrees that the end goal is emotional, social and mental wellbeing. That moral alignment is the 'common ground' uniting them."

Defining harm

Content is seen as the main risk for young users, more so than time spent online. Half the sample identified harmful algorithms, toxic interactions, and inappropriate material as the biggest threats. This concern about digital content quality is most acute among young adults (16-24), with 57% stating content is more influential to those under 16, versus 24% referencing screen time.

Mixed consequences

While a majority of Australians believe the ban will have positive effects-including encouraging more in-person interaction and reducing bullying-significant proportions also fear negative unintended impacts. These include less support for mental health and diversity groups (42%), possible increased isolation for children with disabilities (44%), and potential disadvantages for those in rural or remote communities (47%). Over half (51%) are concerned that children could find it harder to keep in contact with family overseas, and a third (33%) worry about missing out on educational opportunities.

Substitution effect

Many children say they will shift their time to other digital activities if the ban is implemented. Of children aged 8-15, 37% say they would spend more time with friends or outdoors, but 32% would simply switch to video games or television. Some indicated they might use VPNs or move to gaming platforms to continue online interaction.