Ten thousand accounts removed: How Australia's social media ban reshapes the global digital governance landscape

On [Year Month Day], a groundbreaking law officially came into effect in Australia. From that day forward, any Australian child or teenager under the age of [age] is legally prohibited from having their own social media account. One month later, data released by the Office of the eSafety Commissioner in Australia captured the world’s attention: over [number] accounts identified as belonging to minors were removed, restricted, or deactivated by platforms.

What does this number signify? Australia has approximately 2.3 million adolescents aged 10 to 17, and past data indicate that up to 80% of children aged 10 to 13 already have social media accounts. The figure of 4.7 million accounts is equivalent to nearly two accounts per child in the target age group on average. At the press conference, Communications Minister Anneka Wills did not hide her triumphant demeanor: "We have withstood doubts from everyone, including the world's most powerful and wealthiest companies and their supporters. Now, parents in Australia can rest assured that their children can reclaim their childhood."

The beginning of a global experiment.

This ban in Australia was not an overnight decision. As early as 2023, intense debates on the matter had already unfolded in parliament. At that time, research reports on the link between the youth mental health crisis and social media use were continuously emerging, with issues such as school bullying, body image anxiety, and internet addiction becoming increasingly prominent. The discussion on hate speech reform following the Bondi Beach shooting incident further pushed the governance of the online environment to the forefront of the political agenda.

At the end of the year, the bill promoted by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese passed in parliament with cross-party support. The law grants social media platforms a six-month preparation period, requiring them to establish compliance mechanisms by the specified date. The coverage includes ten major platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, YouTube, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Snapchat, Discord, and Twitch, while instant messaging services like iMessage and Telegram, as well as gaming platforms such as Steam, are exempted.

The fine amount is set at a maximum of 49.5 million Australian dollars (approximately 33.2 million US dollars), a figure significant enough to make any platform take it seriously. The law places the responsibility for age verification entirely on the platforms. They can choose to require identification documents, use third-party age estimation technology to analyze users' faces, or make inferences based on existing data such as account holding time.The fine amount is set at a maximum of 49.5 million Australian dollars (approximately 33.2 million US dollars), a figure significant enough to make any platform take it seriously. The law places the responsibility for age verification entirely on the platforms. They can choose to require identification documents, use third-party age estimation technology to analyze users' faces, or make inferences based on existing data such as account holding time.

Electronic Safety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant emphasized when explaining the legal design, "We are not punishing children or their parents; the responsibility lies entirely with the technology companies." This approach to allocating responsibility essentially directs regulatory pressure toward platform operators, who possess both the technology and resources, rather than dispersing it across millions of households.

How does the compliance mechanism work?

The platform's response speed exceeded the expectations of many observers. It announced the removal of nearly ten thousand accounts identified as belonging to users under the age of 13 on the day after the ban took effect. This figure only covers its three major platforms: X, Y, and Z. Considering its dominant position in the Australian social media market, the number of ten thousand may just be the tip of the iceberg.

While other platforms have not separately disclosed their data, according to the statement from the Office of the eSafety Commissioner, all ten major regulated platforms submitted their takedown reports on time and demonstrated a "genuine effort" to comply with the ban. Only TikTok complied while simultaneously filing a lawsuit in an attempt to overturn the ban—the outcome of this legal battle may set an important precedent for similar legislation in the future.

The actual effectiveness of age verification technology has become a focal point of concern. Platforms have been granted the authority to flexibly choose verification methods, but this flexibility has also introduced vulnerabilities. Some teenagers have admitted to successfully bypassing verification systems by using forged documents, AI-processed photos, or with the help of their parents or older siblings. Opposition party members have criticized the ban as "easily circumvented" based on this, arguing that young people may simply shift to smaller platforms with less regulation.

In response to this, Inman Grant stated that data shows a surge in downloads of alternative apps when the ban took effect, but usage did not increase correspondingly. "We haven't seen a real long-term trend yet, but we are continuously monitoring." This relatively cautious assessment reflects regulators' clear understanding of technological circumvention behaviors.

The Global Governance Game Behind the Ban

Australia's initiative quickly generated international ripples. The Danish government announced plans in [year] and [month] to implement a social media ban for children under [age]. Countries such as France, Malaysia, and Indonesia have also publicly expressed consideration of similar legislation. Although the Netherlands remains at the recommendation stage, a group of [number] doctors, scientists, and experts have jointly called for age restrictions on smartphones and social media.

Australian Prime Minister Albanese views this trend as a manifestation of the nation's soft power: "Despite some skepticism, it is working and being emulated around the world, which is a source of pride for Australia." This strategy of transforming domestic policy into international influence is particularly prominent in the emerging field of digital governance.

The European Commission and several European countries are closely monitoring the results of the Australian experiment. Countries such as Norway and Greece have already begun discussing the possibility of similar measures. In the United States, related debates are taking place at the state level, although legislation at the federal level still faces greater resistance. In Canada, some advocacy groups have started calling for the introduction of similar protective measures.

This global attention is no coincidence. With the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence, deepfake technology, and algorithmic recommendation systems, governments worldwide are increasingly concerned about the impact of the digital environment on children. Australia's ban provides a rare "natural experiment," allowing policymakers to observe the practical effects and potential issues of large-scale age restriction measures.

The Contradictory Stance of Tech Giants

The platform's response presents a complex picture. While removing hundreds of thousands of accounts, it publicly criticized the ban through a blog post, arguing that this could drive children toward smaller platforms not subject to the ban and with weaker safety measures. The company also pointed out that algorithm-based content recommendation systems can still expose children to content—which is one of the core issues the ban aims to address.

More interestingly, Meta has proposed an alternative: requiring app store operators to verify age and obtain parental consent before minors download apps. The company believes this is the only way to avoid a "cat-and-mouse game" with children attempting to circumvent the ban. This suggestion of shifting responsibility upstream reflects tech companies' dissatisfaction with current compliance costs and hints at possible future directions for regulation. More interestingly, Meta has proposed an alternative: requiring app store operators to verify age and obtain parental consent before minors download apps. The company believes this is the only way to avoid a "cat-and-mouse game" with children attempting to circumvent the ban. This suggestion of shifting responsibility upstream reflects tech companies' dissatisfaction with current compliance costs and hints at possible future directions for regulation.

The lawsuit represents another form of resistance. While the company claims to be complying with the ban, it is challenging its constitutionality through legal means in an attempt to fundamentally overturn this regulatory framework. The outcome of this lawsuit may influence the legal foundation for similar legislation in the future, particularly regarding the balance between freedom of speech, privacy rights, and child protection.

Unsolved Problems and Future Challenges

The removal of 10,000 accounts is only the beginning of the story, not the end. The Office of the eSafety Commissioner has made it clear that they anticipate ongoing attempts to circumvent the rules, and the platform's focus will shift from enforcing the ban to preventing children from creating new accounts or finding other ways to bypass the restrictions.

Limitations of Age Verification Technology Itself is a fundamental issue. Facial age estimation may be biased due to factors such as race and lighting conditions; identity document verification may exclude children who cannot obtain official documents; inferences based on account data may misjudge the actual user's age. These technical challenges not only affect the effectiveness of the ban but also raise concerns about privacy and fairness.

The social impact of the ban also requires long-term observation. Supporters believe it will reduce cyberbullying, exposure to harmful content, and social media addiction, allowing children to return to a real childhood of "riding bicycles and reading." Opponents, however, point out that for vulnerable youth or isolated adolescents in Australia's vast rural areas, online spaces provide important social support and channels for connection.

According to Inman-Grant, a study conducted in collaboration with mental health experts will track the long-term effects of the ban. This evidence-based evaluation approach is commendable, but the results may take years to emerge. During this period, policymakers must make decisions based on limited information.

Another noteworthy development is the Office of the eSafety Commissioner's plan to introduce "world-leading restrictions on AI companions and chatbots" in [year/month]. Although details have not yet been released, this indicates that Australia's regulatory focus is expanding from traditional social media to emerging areas of AI interaction. Against the backdrop of rapid advancements in generative artificial intelligence, this forward-looking regulatory attempt may once again set a global benchmark.

A New Paradigm for Global Digital Governance

Australia's experiment marks a significant turning point in digital governance: shifting from content-based regulation to identity-based access control. Traditionally, most countries' regulation of cyberspace has focused on restricting illegal or harmful content, while Australia's ban directly controls who can enter specific online spaces.

This paradigm shift brings new governance challenges. It requires platforms to assume the role of "gatekeepers," using technological means to distinguish users' ages. It also raises profound questions about digital rights, privacy protection, and intergenerational equity. Should adolescents have different internet access rights compared to adults? If so, where should the line be drawn? Who defines the boundaries between "children" and "adults"?

From a broader perspective, Australia's ban is part of the global trend toward digital sovereignty. Countries are increasingly inclined to formulate digital rules based on their own values and societal needs, rather than fully accepting a globally uniform standard defined by Silicon Valley companies. This trend of "digital balkanization" may reshape the global architecture of the internet, bringing new geopolitical and technological challenges.

The long road to finding a balance point.

The removal of tens of thousands of accounts within a month is, in itself, sufficient to demonstrate the initial enforcement power of Australia's ban. However, the story behind the numbers is far more complex: technical loopholes, legal challenges, social impacts, and international ripples together form a multidimensional picture.

Both supporters and opponents of the ban have reasonable arguments. On one hand, there is growing evidence linking social media to mental health issues among adolescents, making preventive measures urgent. On the other hand, a one-size-fits-all age restriction may overlook individual differences and the positive potential of digital technology, particularly its empowering role for marginalized groups.

In the coming years, the world will closely monitor the long-term outcomes of Australia's experiment. Will the ban significantly improve adolescent mental health indicators? Will avoidance behaviors evolve into a widespread phenomenon? How will imitation versions in other countries differ? The answers to these questions will influence the direction of global digital governance.

The reality of regulation was captured by e-safety commissioner Inman Grant: "We don't expect safety laws to eliminate every breach. If we did, speed limits would fail because people speed, and drinking age restrictions would fail because some kids do access alcohol."

Ultimately, Australia's social media ban experiment reminds us that in the rapidly changing digital age, society must continually seek new balance points between protection and empowerment, security and freedom, regulation and innovation. This search will not be easy, but as the figure of 4.7 million shows, when political will, regulatory tools, and technological capabilities converge, change is possible. Other countries around the world will draw lessons from this Southern Hemisphere nation's experiment, collectively shaping the definition of childhood in the digital era.