Australia’s social-media age ban — and what it could mean for South Africa

In late 2024 and throughout 2025, governments worldwide have increased efforts to limit children's exposure to social media. Australia has introduced a landmark law that requires major social platforms to take “reasonable steps” to prevent children under 16 from creating accounts. This law sets a compliance deadline for companies and has become a prominent example for other nations. It is already influencing how platforms plan to operate and has sparked a renewed debate about whether other countries, including South Africa, should implement similar measures.

What Australia did (and how platforms are reacting)

Australia’s Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act establishes a national minimum age for accounts on designated social media platforms. It places obligations on service providers to verify users' ages and prevent individuals under 16 from creating accounts. This law was passed by Parliament in November 2024 and outlines compliance timelines that extend into 2025, during which platforms must take action. Companies that fail to implement "reasonable steps" could face substantial fines.

The practical implementation of this legislation has been challenging and fast-paced. In November 2025, Meta (the owner of Facebook and Instagram) began notifying Australian teenagers that accounts belonging to users under 16 would soon be deactivated unless they could meet age verification and compliance requirements. Meta indicated that, if necessary, it would require identification or biometric verification through third-party tools to confirm users' ages. Other platforms, including TikTok and Snapchat, have also stated their intention to comply. However, some companies, such as X and certain video platforms, have resisted or sought exemptions for specific services. Legal challenges concerning free speech, privacy, and technical feasibility are anticipated.

Social-media bans and restrictions elsewhere

Australia is not the only country to impose limits on access to online platforms or to apply selective bans. Several nations, such as China, Iran, and North Korea, maintain long-standing, comprehensive restrictions on these platforms for political or security reasons. Additionally, many governments have implemented temporary or partial blocks during periods of unrest; for instance, countries like Pakistan, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, and Turkey have occasionally suspended access to these platforms. Meanwhile, certain regions in the U.S. and Europe have been exploring measures such as age verification, parental consent, and children’s privacy laws, which aim to restrict exposure to certain content rather than enforce a total ban. Overall, the global landscape consists of a mix of permanent restrictions, short-term bans, and regulatory experiments focused on ensuring children’s safety. 

Could South Africa follow Australia?

There is an increasing public discussion in South Africa about the feasibility and desirability of implementing an approach similar to Australia’s regarding social media. Digital law commentators and industry experts have openly debated the legality of age-based restrictions, and some local reports indicate that advisors and lawyers are even drafting potential legislative models. However, experts warn that enforcement could be a significant challenge in South Africa. This includes issues related to technological capacity, legal obstacles, and social implications. 

In the following analysis, I will explore the potential benefits and trade-offs of implementing age-based social media restrictions for young people in South Africa.

Pros of introducing age-based social media restrictions in South Africa

1. Reduced exposure to online harms

Supporters of the policy argue that limiting access for younger teens can help reduce their exposure to cyberbullying, predatory behavior, harmful content, and body-image pressures during a vulnerable stage of development. Early studies and advocacy groups have identified clear correlations between extensive social media use and issues such as anxiety, sleep disruption, and other negative effects among some adolescents. The goal of this policy action is to decrease these harms on a large scale across the population, which is the primary objective behind Australia’s law.

2. Social norming and parenting support

Establishing a legal minimum age for app usage could change social norms, reducing the pressure on parents to let their children join apps simply because "everyone else" is doing it. Advocates argue that by making access for those under 16 an exception rather than the standard, it would help families and schools promote healthy digital habits.

3. Incentive for safer platform design

Mandating that platforms verify users' ages and take reasonable steps to protect young people could lead to necessary changes in their products. These changes might include implementing stronger default privacy settings for younger users, reducing the use of recommendation algorithms, limiting specific ad targeting, and improving reporting and moderation tools. All of these adjustments would ultimately benefit minors.

Cons and major challenges for South Africa

1. Enforcement and verification problems

Verifying ages effectively at scale is technically challenging and costly. Available solutions include document checks, biometric verification, and third-party services, all of which raise concerns about privacy and inclusivity. In South Africa, many young people do not possess formal identity documents or have reliable access to identification. Requiring IDs could exclude marginalized youth or lead them to falsify information or use VPNs and unregulated applications. Additionally, the enforcement burden on both the government and online platforms would be significant.

2. Privacy risks and data protection trade-offs

Robust age verification often necessitates the collection of sensitive personal information, such as IDs, selfies, and biometric samples. This data itself can become a liability unless it is managed according to the highest security and legal standards. South Africa's Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) offers a regulatory framework, but using identity checks for children introduces complex issues related to privacy and consent. Implementing such verification systems may shift the risks, potentially replacing one set of harms with another.

3. Access inequality and the digital divide

Bans on social media could increase inequality. These platforms are not just for leisure; they serve vital purposes such as education, civic participation, news dissemination, and community support. A strict ban could disconnect marginalized youth from valuable resources they depend on for learning, pursuing creative careers, or engaging in civic activities, especially in areas where official services are inadequate.

4. Legal and constitutional hurdles

Any broad restriction will face legal scrutiny in South Africa’s constitutional framework, which strongly protects freedom of expression and privacy. A law that disproportionately limits minors’ access to information, participation and communication could be challenged on constitutional grounds. Policymakers would need to craft narrowly tailored, evidence-based measures that pass proportionality tests in court.

Australia's decision to establish a minimum age for social media users has ignited a global conversation about children, technology, and public policy. In South Africa, this issue involves significant trade-offs: while stricter regulations could better protect children, they may also lead to privacy violations, increased inequality, and potential legal challenges if not carefully crafted or enforced. Studies from countries such as China, Iran, and Australia may offer insights into the long-term benefits of restricting children's access to social media apps. Additionally, it is important to explore mitigating factors that can help minimize the negative implications of age restrictions on these platforms. South Africa should closely examine Australia’s Online Safety Amendment Act, as the safety and future of young citizens must always remain a top priority.