Yesterday, Australia’s social media ban went into effect. In a move better suited to authoritarian regimes like China and Russia, Australia now prohibits anyone under 16 from accessing social media services. Australia’s ban is more than just a policy shift; it is a fundamental rejection of the Enlightenment principles at the heart of Western civilization.
The ban violates two long-recognized rights: first, the right of parents to raise their children as they see fit; second, the rights of minors to speak and be spoken to without government interference. Australia’s ban also introduces another ironic twist: it undermines the safety and privacy of those Australians still permitted to use social media.
The Erosion of Free Speech and Parental Rights
The pride of the West is its recognition of and respect for individual rights. Free speech has been a cornerstone of Western civilization for centuries. Thinkers as diverse as John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Ayn Rand have all recognized its fundamental importance. In short, free speech is not a luxury to be discarded on a whim; it is a prerequisite to preserve and advance a free society. It is free speech that enables individuals to engage with different perspectives, religions, or political persuasions. Free speech may not guarantee that everyone arrives at the same conclusion (or even the “right” conclusion), but it does ensure that the best ideas can be heard in the first place.
That is no less true when we talk about young people. Like adults, they must be able to engage with speech as they begin to form their own views about the world. By prohibiting those under sixteen from accessing social media websites—arguably the greatest equalizer of information, discussion, and debate since the printing press—Australia has stunted their ability to engage in speech and access valuable resources about the world around them. Australia’s ban puts its young people on the backfoot compared to their global peers who will have access to these tools from the start.
When it comes to the importance of accessing speech, history is instructive. Consistent with the West’s commitment to free expression, minors have consistently been able to access speech when it becomes available through a new medium—music, comic books, novels, newspapers, and movies, to name a few. And, like their social media successors, these new forms of communication helped young people grapple with complex moral problems, understand world events and appreciate differences between other cultures.
For example, The Boy in the Stripped Pajamas presents a compelling illustration of the evils of the Holocaust through the eyes of a small boy. Heroes like Spiderman and Batman are confronted with the loss of a loved one. The TV series Glee dealt with several different issues relevant to teens finding their way in the world. And young people have been able to appreciate and comment on these issues in turn through writing letters to the editor to established papers or presenting these issues to their peers through school newspapers. The government has sometimes tried to impose restrictions on these forms of speech, but the principle of and the commitment to free speech has consistently prevailed.
The scale of the speech available on social media, and the reach possible through it, is no reason for a different result here. The government cannot—consistent with the freedom of speech—ban an entire segment of the population from the marketplace of ideas until politicians—not parents—determine otherwise.
Sometimes, limitations on speech are presented as giving parents greater autonomy and control over how they raise their children. That pretense is not available to Australia. Rather than empower parents, Australia removes them from the equation entirely. Parents get no say in whether to allow their fifteen-year-old to join Facebook or watch a documentary on YouTube. The government’s decree is not subject to parental override. Far from supporting parental authority, the Australian government has seized that authority for itself.
To put it plainly, Australia has made its rule, dissenting parents be damned.
Bans Incentivize Cybercriminals and Risk Over Online Safety
Beyond the principled, philosophic objections, Australia’s ban also introduces a new headache parents will be forced to confront. By banning access to legitimate websites, Australia incentivizes minors to look elsewhere to recreate similar environments they would otherwise have a right to access through traditional social media.
Services like YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, and Nextdoor devote immense resources to create and curate safe environments online. By banning these services, Australia is effectively pushing its youth off of well-lit, familiar and secure websites and into the dark alleys of the internet where they are far less likely to find a website that prioritizes the safety or data security of users—let alone minors. Smaller websites may also choose to exit the market—as NetChoice has seen first-hand. When laws in Mississippi and Tennessee were allowed to take effect, websites without the resources to comply withdrew from those states.
And for websites that have the capacity to implement the ban’s requirements, collecting the data required to comply with the government-imposed age-restriction creates new “honeypots” of citizens’ information that cybercriminals are all too eager to exploit for blackmail, identity theft and sextortion.
One prime example of the inherent cybersecurity risks comes from the recent rollout of the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA). In 2025 alone, both Discord and the Tea App suffered severe data breaches that resulted in nearly 150,000 users’ sensitive information, including government IDs, being exposed.
As these incidents illustrate, the problem is not theoretical. Australians now face the same risks.
Governments Need to Empower Police, Parents, and Educators, Not Seize Control
Just because bans aren’t a sound solution doesn’t mean policymakers don’t have a robust set of options available to help families navigate the online arena. Parental education, school curriculum, and funding law enforcement are just some of the options lawmakers have at their disposal that are consistent with free speech and respect for the role of parents. NetChoice has consistently advocated that lawmakers interested in protecting kids online must do so consistent with the West’s commitment to freedom of speech—and in the U.S., consistent with the First Amendment.
In fact, NetChoice’s Digital Safety Shield for America outlines a comprehensive strategy for lawmakers that prioritizes digital safety for kids without sacrificing liberty. Our proposal calls for 1) funding law enforcement to provide them with the necessary resources to investigate, prosecute and convict predators and other criminals; 2) educating kids on responsible internet use including digital safety and security; and 3) empowering parents with the informational resources about parental controls at their disposal to manage their family’s online presence as they deem appropriate.
No matter which way you slice it, Australia’s ban is a mistake. It sacrifices liberty for a false sense of security, replaces parental oversight with government control, and ultimately leaves minors less prepared and makes everyone less safe in digital spaces. Rather than replicate censorship efforts from totalitarian regimes, Western countries should redouble our commitments to the principles that set us apart.