Australia’s Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 came into effect last week. This democratically approved ban on social media for under-16s, enacted by a country with a liberal outlook and high state capacity, marks a turning point for global technology policy. As in other countries, many Indians are asking if we should implement such a ban too. However, rather than rushing to emulate such a ban, India should wait and watch how Australia’s experiment unfolds.
Before going further, it’s vital to understand the Australian law, for it is not a ban on users as we in India are accustomed to. The Australian law now requires platforms like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and others to block account creation and deactivate existing ones for minors under 16, raising the age floor from 13, using steps such as facial recognition, behavioural analysis, or ID checks. It explicitly rejects self-reported ages or parental approval. There are no penalties for children or parents who circumvent this law, but platforms that fail to take reasonable steps to implement it face a hefty civil penalty.
The restriction is also not a blanket one. It exempts messaging apps, online gaming services, and ‘services with the primary purpose of supporting the health and education of end-users’. Two, it does not prevent children from accessing ‘logged-out’ versions of social media platforms; i.e., they can access YouTube, X, and Facebook without signing in. And three, the bill explicitly acknowledges that its aim isn’t 100% compliance. The explanatory memorandum accompanying the Bill frankly admitted that “it is impossible for governments to completely prohibit young people from accessing harmful products or content. Australia should be prepared for the reality that some people will break the rules or slip through the cracks. However, the Bill will set clear parameters for our society and assist in ensuring the right outcomes.”
Its stated aim is to mitigate harms resulting from various features associated with logged-in social media accounts, particularly negative impacts on sleep, stress, and attention spans as a result of “algorithms tailoring content, infinite scroll, persistent notifications and alerts, and ‘likes’ to activate positive feedback neural activity.” The narrative instrument is also crucial. This legislation is being positioned as just an age‑based law to limit or minimise access to known harms, as in the case of alcohol and cigarette use.”
Many articles have tried to anticipate the unintended consequences. Some of them have focused on enforcement and implementation issues. Age verification using biometrics will harm children’s privacy, push kids toward more harmful, less-regulated platforms, and deny them the benefits that social media provides; these are concerns that have been widely discussed.
Given that VPNs exist, it will be impossible for the government to prevent motivated children from using social media. Some others have pointed out that any ban—even a symbolic one—empowers the State at the expense of its citizens. Others have correctly highlighted that the move has privacy costs for all users because platforms will be pushed towards profiling and data collection to identify who is under 16, and who isn’t. Finally, the bill doesn’t comment on other alternatives, like the film content rating system or forced logouts after a specific time period.
It appears that by zeroing in on persistent notifications and algorithmic tailoring, the government focused on upholding the cognitive autonomy of kids. To make it seem less unpopular, it has also allowed a number of exceptions. Given the implementation problems that are easy to anticipate, it’s unlikely that Australian kids will suddenly gain more cognitive freedom from social media trickery. Ultimately, its most significant value might be just this: it is a signal to parents, platforms, and other governments that social media use requires moderation.
From an Indian lens, it is pointless to criticise or support a democratically approved Act in another country. The relevant question for us is, should India do the same? Not just yet.
India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) already mandates verifiable parental consent for processing data of anyone under 18 on all platforms. It is aimed at preventing behavioural monitoring and targeted ads for minors. However, there are exemptions for platforms that process data in a “verifiably safe manner”, as determined by the government.
As per Rule 10, platforms handling children’s data must be able to determine that the user is under 18, authenticate an adult as a parent using government‑issued ID, tokens, or existing account information, and generate a traceable and detailed consent artefact for audits. In order to determine whether a user is under 18, the Rules rely on self-declaration of age, which fiduciaries may supplement with risk-based checks like age-gating prompts or backend inference from usage patterns to ensure compliance.
This would effectively form a barrier dependent on family involvement and curtail children’s access to online platforms, making a ban unnecessary.
An idea is only as good as its implementation, and a key difference between the two countries is their implementation capacity. While the Australian government could practically enforce the ban, the state capacity deficit in India might lead to non-compliance and reduced legitimacy of the State.
Crucially, India currently has an 18-month runway for the DPDPA Rules to come into effect, thereby providing fiduciaries a chance to see how the ban in Australia may pan out. Given the stakes involved, it is better to observe, orient, and act rather than frame it as a hard binary choice between freedom and surveillance.