In December, Australia will enforce one of the most ambitious pieces of legislation aimed at protecting children from the harms of social media. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act will require platforms like Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat to ensure users are aged 16 or over — or face penalties up to $50 million.
As a psychologist who sees firsthand the damage these platforms do to young people’s developing brains, I support the principle. But now, in a move that smacks of ideological overreach, the eSafety Commissioner is arguing YouTube should be included in this sweeping ban.
That is a dangerous step too far, and one that Australians should not accept lightly.
I’m no apologist for social media. I’ve spent the better part of 20 years working with children whose mental health is unravelling thanks to the insidious design of these platforms. Social media fuels anxiety, erodes attention spans, and distorts identity development in ways we’ve never seen before. Kids are becoming addicted to the dopamine hit of likes, shares, and short-form content designed to hijack their emotional systems.
So yes, banning social media for under-16s is a much-needed correction. Reluctantly, I support it.
But it’s “reluctantly” for a reason — because this is something that should have been handled in homes, not in Parliament. This should have been a job for parents — but too many have thrown in the towel. They’re exhausted, outmanoeuvred by peer pressure, or simply unsure how to fight back against the digital tide. In that vacuum, the government has stepped in to do what parents are no longer confident to do: say no.
And now, it seems, they’ve tasted power.
The eSafety Commissioner — an unelected official with sweeping regulatory authority — is pushing to bring YouTube under the same ban as TikTok and Snapchat. Her reasoning? That YouTube is addictive, especially for children consuming “Shorts” — the platform’s answer to TikTok’s endless scroll — and that many kids report encountering disturbing content.
I don’t disagree with her concerns. YouTube, when unfiltered and unmonitored, can be a mess. But that doesn’t mean it belongs in the same category as social media.
YouTube is not a social media platform. It’s a content library — a video-sharing site that hosts everything from cooking tutorials to science explainers, music performances to historical documentaries. It does not rely on peer validation, performative profiles, or social networks. It’s closer to a modern-day television than it is to Instagram.
That said, let’s be honest — YouTube is not harmless. For younger children in particular, it can become just as addictive and overstimulating as any social media feed, especially through its “Shorts” function. That’s why children should only be accessing YouTube under adult supervision.
When used correctly — with a parent present, curating content, and turning autoplay off — it can be a brilliant educational and creative tool. But unsupervised access is a different story altogether. The message to parents is simple: yes, this platform can be harmful. So don’t hand it over blindly. Supervise. Guide. Be involved.
To ban it outright for all under-16s would be to fundamentally misunderstand the platform — and even worse, to set a precedent where the state decides what kind of general content children may view. That is not child protection. That is content censorship.
And in a free, liberal democracy, that should alarm all of us.
Where does it end? Today, it’s YouTube. Tomorrow, will it be educational podcasts that touch on controversial topics? Will we see blanket bans on websites that fall outside the government’s definition of “appropriate”?
This mission creep is even more troubling when paired with the vagueness of the legislation’s rollout. We are now just six months away from enforcement, and yet no one seems to know how platforms will comply. The law says they must take “reasonable steps” to verify age, but the government has (rightly) ruled out using ID or passports due to privacy risks. AI-based age estimation is on the table, but it’s far from reliable - and easily bypassed by a savvy 14-year-old.
So we are entering a legal grey zone, where massive fines loom over tech companies while regulators scramble to define what compliance even looks like. It’s a mess - and a risky one at that.
Make no mistake; children need protection from the digital world. Social media is wreaking havoc on their wellbeing, and something had to be done. But this particular power grab - to include a broad content platform like YouTube - crosses a line.
The answer to digital addiction is not blanket censorship. It is restoring parental authority, educating families about how these platforms work, and building resilience in young people to use technology thoughtfully and safely. Parents must reclaim their role as gatekeepers and not outsource it to the state.
Banning social media for under-16s may well help parents reset boundaries. But banning YouTube is not protection. It is overreach. And in a free society, that matters.
Clare Rowe is a child & adolescent psychologist, speaker and author.
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.