Critical Policy Analysis of the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024

Introduction

The rapid expansion of digital technologies and the central role of social media in the lives of young people have prompted growing serious concern among the policymakers worldwide. In today’s digital era, social media has become deeply embedded in youth culture worldwide, shaping their perspectives, behaviors, and attitudes (Barman & Dakua, 2024). In Australia, rising concerns about young people’s mental health difficulties, child exploitation, and exposure to harmful online content have sparked debate over regulating children’s access to social media platforms (Tully et al., 2025). Furthermore, cyberbullying has become a major public health concern for children, with impacts such as depression, anxiety, loneliness, low self-esteem, and school absenteeism. With the rise of social media, many young people experience online victimization that even extends beyond the physical boundaries, often worse than traditional bullying because of anonymity and constant access (Zhu et al., 2021). In response, the Australian Government introduced the Online Safety Amendment (social media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 (Cth), which establishes an obligation on certain social media platforms to take the reasonable steps in order to prevent children under 16 from creating accounts, with oversight and guidelines provided by the eSafety Commissioner (Fraser & Griffiths, 2024). However, it also raises critical ethical, social, and legal challenges, especially regarding privacy, surveillance, and the feasibility of enforcing such regulations.

This policy analysis critically evaluates the Bill using Lawrence Lessig’s “pathetic dot” model, which highlights the regulatory interaction of law, norms, market forces, and digital architecture. It also examines the intended objectives of the legislation, explores tensions and unintended consequences, as well as considers whether the proposed approach is a proportionate and effective solution. Recommendations for policy improvement are provided in order to strengthen both child safety and individual rights.

Background and Context

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 was introduced to safeguard young Australians from the risks of social media, such as effective design features that promote prolonged screen use and harmful content that can impact their health and wellbeing (eSafety Commissioner, n.d.). According to Wahyuni et al. (2024), social media has both positive and negative effects on children. Positively, it supports learning, expands knowledge, and enables social connections. Negatively, its overuse can reduce focus, motivation, and study habits that lead to laziness, personality changes, and increased activity in cyberspace. Marsh (2025) highlighted that many children aged 11 and 12 use TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat despite the platforms’ minimum age requirement of 13, and a large proportion of these children have already shown signs of social media addiction, highlighting the concerns about underage access. These inconsistencies underscore the ineffectiveness of existing platform-led enforcement and the need for regulatory intervention.

According to the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts (2025), the Social Media Minimum Age framework requires age-restricted platforms to prevent under-16s from creating accounts through Age Assurance Technologies (AATs). Platforms need to take reasonable steps to enforce compliance, supported by a $6.5 million government trial in 2024–25 to test the effectiveness and readiness of AATs. The framework also provides strong privacy safeguards, excludes essential services, and enforces penalties of up to $49.5 million, supporting well-being of youth and parental oversight.

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 is aimed at amending the Online Safety Act 2021to introduce an obligation on age-restricted social media platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent age-restricted users, or Australian children under the age of 16 years, from having accounts (proposed section 63D). The Bill represents a proactive approach to online safety by focusing on the restricting underage users’ access, supported by the ongoing Age Assurance Technology Trial (Fraser & Griffiths, 2024).

Issues, Tensions, and Ethical Concerns

While the stated intention of the bill is to protect children, its provisions raise several critical issues. First, there are privacy concerns. Age Assurance Technologies collects personal information such as birth dates, IDs, or biometrics, and this presents privacy threats during storage, processing, or sharing. Reliance on third-party services lowers the levels of transparency, and a combination of this data with IP addresses or browsing history can potentially identify users, revealing more information than intended (Beltran & de Salvador, 2024).

The Bill raises ethical dilemmas around autonomy and rights. Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) recognises children’s right to play, rest, and freely participate in cultural and recreational activities (Save the Children, n.d.). Excluding young people from social media may isolate them from peers and restrict their access to important information and support, potentially limiting legitimate opportunities for learning, socialising, and self-expression (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2024).

A further concern is the risk of ineffective enforcement of the age ban. Despite the amendment to the Online Safety Act, the government acknowledges that self-reported ages are still unreliable, with many children currently using social media despite the minimum age restrictions. This raises concerns that children may bypass the ban by using methods like falsifying documents, parental credentials, or accessing exempt platforms, undermining the law’s effectiveness and potentially exposing them to unregulated or unsafe online environments (Fardouly, 2025).

Another key issue involves free speech and anonymity. Age verification technologies may restrict access to legal content, decrease online anonymity, and overload users. Sensitive information, including IDs, credit cards, or facial recognition, puts privacy and cybersecurity at risk, which leads to ethical dilemmas between child protection and safeguarding basic digital rights (Bechtold, 2024).

Application of Lessig’s Pathetic Dot Model

Lawrence Lessig’s pathetic dot model provides a useful lens for understanding how different forces regulate online behaviour. According to Leiser (2025), Lessig identifies four levers, which are law, norms, market, and architecture, which collectively shape compliance and outcomes. The Online Safety Amendment Bill engages all four levers:

Law establishes a binding minimum age of 16, obligating platforms to implement the Age Assurance Technologies (AATs) and take reasonable steps in order to prevent underage accounts, with penalties up to $49.5 million (Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts, 2025).

Social norms support the expectation that children should delay social media use, which reflect parental and community standards. However, such restrictions may limit their autonomy, peer interaction, learning, and self-expression, potentially hindering the full exercise of rights recognised in Article 31 of the UNCRC (Save the Children, n.d.; Australian Human Rights Commission, 2024).

Market shapes behavior through compliance costs, affecting smaller platforms and competition.

Architecture uses algorithms, biometrics, and platform design to enforce compliance, though technical limitations and privacy risks may reduce effectiveness. As noted by Zhang et al. (2024), users are concerned that the biometric systems could be breached or misused, potentially exposing their personal data.

Lessig’s levers function synergistically within the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, as law establishes enforceable age restrictions, norms shape parental and societal expectations, market incentives platforms to implement Age Assurance Technologies, and architecture enforces the technical access controls, collectively creating an integrated framework that promotes the compliance and safeguards children online.

Evaluation of Policy Effectiveness and Recommendations

The aim of the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 is to protect children from online harm, a commendable objective given the increasing risks associated with the use of social media among youth. However, the effectiveness of this policy is uncertain due to technological, social, and ethical challenges. While the aim of Age Assurance Technologies (AATs) is to restrict underage access, children can still bypass the ban by falsifying documents, using parental credentials, or accessing exempt platforms, reducing the effectiveness of law and potentially placing them in unregulated or unsafe online spaces (Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts, 2025; Fardouly, 2025). The policy risks overemphasising technical enforcement while potentially limiting the young people’s freedom of expression, access to information, inclusion, and social participation (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2024).

Nevertheless, the Bill may succeed in ensuring the online safety by placing the all the responsibility on digital platforms to proactively protect Australians and requiring them to take the necessary steps to prevent age-restricted users from having accounts. Flexibility for messaging services, low-risk platforms promotion, as well as the eSafety Commissioner’s powers to gather information, issue notices, and enforce penalties further support the effective implementation (Fraser & Griffiths, 2024).

To strengthen the policy, several measures are recommended. Privacy protections should be enhanced and improved through strict data minimisation and independent audits of Age Assurance Technologies (AATs). While transparency and oversight can also be improved by establishing an independent regulatory body in order to monitor implementation and publish findings. Complementary digital literacy programs for children, parents, and educators are very important to equip users with skills and resilience. As highlighted by Gemella (2024), digital literacy is needed for societal participation and to meet the growing demand for integrating digital technology in education. Finally, adopting a flexible, risk-based approach, with stricter requirements that are applied to higher-risk platforms, can establish a more proportionate and adaptive regulatory framework that effectively protects children and maintains safe access to social media. As noted by Efroni (2021), risk-based regulation typically refers to the regulatory frameworks implemented by the government or official agencies that use their authority to manage and mitigate risks.

Conclusion

The aim of Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024 is to protect children from online harm, but it faces several challenges in enforcement, privacy, and autonomy. Enhancing the oversight, strengthening privacy safeguards, promoting digital literacy, and implementing a flexible, risk-based approach can surely improve its effectiveness while balancing the safety of children with rights and social inclusion.

References

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2024, November 21). Proposed social media ban for under-16s in Australia. https://humanrights.gov.au/about/news/proposed-social-media-ban-under-16s-australia

Barman, S., & Dakua, G. (2024). Studies on social media and its impact on youth: Exploring real-world consequences. Vidya- A Journal of Gujarat University, 3(2), 132–144. DOI:10.47413/y9ty4d20

Bechtold, E. (2024). Regulating online harms: an examination of recent developments in the UK and the US through a free speech lens. Journal of Media Law, 16(2), 358-389. https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2024.2395094

Beltrán, M., & de Salvador, L. (2024, August). Implications of Age Assurance on Privacy and Data Protection: A Systematic Threat Model. In Annual Privacy Forum (pp. 1-22). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68024-3_1

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts. (2025). Social Media Minimum Age – Fact sheet. [Fact sheet]. https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/department/media/publications/online-safety-amendment-social-media-minimum-age-bill-2024-fact-sheet

Efroni, Z. (2021, Nov 16). The Digital Services Act: risk-based regulation of online platforms. Internet Policy Review. https://policyreview.info/articles/news/digital-services-act-risk-based-regulation-online-platforms/1606

eSafety Commissioner. (n.d.). Social media age restrictions. Australian Government. https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions

Fardouly, J. (2025). Potential effects of the social media age ban in Australia for children younger than 16 years. The Lancet Digital Health, 7(4), e235-e236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landig.2025.01.016

Fraser, N., & Griffiths, O. (2024). Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024: Bills Digest No. 39, 2024-25. Parliament of Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2425/25bd039

Gemella, J. (2024). Digital literacy and resilience: How can professional development prepare instructors to succeed in changing times (Publication No. 31634211) [Master’s thesis, Royal Roads University (Canada)]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. https://www.proquest.com/openview/7a65bd3dc78e348d37687bd649c9322a/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Leiser, M. R. (2025). From'The Law of the Horse'to Digital Law: Navigating the Philosophical Foundations of a Digital Rule of Law. Available at SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5207813

Marsh, J. (2025, January 10). How many children use TikTok against the rules? Most, study finds. UCSF. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2025/01/429296/many-children-use-tiktok-against-rules

Save the Children. (n.d.). UNCRC Article 31: A child’s right to rest and play. https://www.savethechildren.org.au/about-us/save-the-childrens-charity-work/uncrc-article-31-rest-play-culture-and-arts

Tully, J., McLean, S., & Rowse, J. (2025). Technology‐Facilitated Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children Is Everyone's Problem; How Can Healthcare Practitioners Respond to the Second Global Pandemic of the 21st Century? A Narrative Review. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 61(8), 1378–1384. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpc.70148

Wahyuni, N., Putri, K, D., Widiyastuti, S., Siburian, K, H., Saputra, G, D. (2024). The Impact of Social Media on the Learning Process of Children Aged 6-12 Years Old. Journal International of Lingua and Technology, 3(1), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.55849/jiltech.v3i1.507

Zhang, J., Liu, Z., & Luo, X. R. (2024). Unraveling juxtaposed effects of biometric characteristics on user security behaviors: A controversial information technology perspective. Decision Support Systems, 183, 114267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2024.114267

Zhu, C., Huang, S., Evans, R., & Zhang, W. (2021). Cyberbullying among adolescents and children: A comprehensive review of the global situation, risk factors, and preventive measures. Frontiers in public health, 9, 634909. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.634909