Live Battle · Culture

Should children under 16 be banned from social media?

Australia's minimum age law for social media took effect on 10 December 2025, and other countries are now deciding whether to follow. Jon Haidt and Ravi Iyer argue that every country should set the age at 16 with no parental-consent loophole, because a rule that applies to everyone is the only way out of the 'everyone else has one' trap. Lisa M. Given, an information sciences professor at RMIT University, looks at how the ban has worked in its first months and argues that bans are not the answer. Both want children safer online. They disagree on whether an age ban is the way to get there. Haidt and Iyer wrote in January 2026, before the early Australian data; Given wrote in June 2026. Read both cases, then vote for the argument you find more convincing.

Voting closes · 11 October 2026

Provocation

Why Every Country Should Set 16 (or Higher) as the Minimum Age for Social Media Accounts

Jon Haidt and Ravi Iyer, After Babel · Culture

Haidt and Iyer argue every country should follow Australia and set 16 as the minimum age for social media accounts, with no parental-consent exception. Puberty is when experience shapes the brain most, they say, and only a firm rule that applies to everyone frees families from the 'everyone else has one' trap.

Read the original →

Half or more of boys are still in puberty at 16 and half or more of girls at 15, a sensitive period when heavy social media use may do lasting harm, so 16 is a better line than 15.
Parental-consent exceptions recreate the collective action trap: once some parents say yes, every child can argue that their friends were allowed.
Laws should target account creation and harmful design features, not content, so under-16s can still watch videos logged out but are not profiled, sent notifications or contacted by strangers.

Evidence from the source

This is why parents need help from their governments, and from the platforms (which have shown repeatedly that they will not protect children unless forced to by law). This is why the Australian law is so important: It delays the struggle over social media until the age of 16.

The strongest objection

It assumes the age line can be enforced and that the new norm will take hold. Australia's early evidence, published after this piece, suggests most under-16s kept using restricted platforms. The case also rests on the claim that social media causes serious harm to adolescents, which is still contested among researchers.

“The correct answers: 16, and no.”

Defence

Australia has already banned social media for under 16s – here’s what the UK can learn from the experience

Lisa M. Given, The Conversation · Culture

Given argues that Australia's ban has not worked and is the wrong tool. Children still watch content logged out, move to gaming and messaging apps or get past weak age checks, while strict ID checks would create privacy problems. She wants technology companies held to account for building safety into their designs instead.

Read the original →

The law only requires 'reasonable steps' against under-16 accounts and excludes gaming and messaging apps, so children can still view content and move their conversations elsewhere.
eSafety's March 2026 compliance report included parent data showing 70% of children kept active accounts, and a separate study found 61% of under-16s reported little or no change in their use.
Age estimation tools have error rates of one to three years, and requiring ID from everyone would raise privacy concerns and push more people to VPNs.

Evidence from the source

In March 2026, Australia’s eSafety Commission released its first detailed compliance report. It showed social media companies had taken “some steps” to restrict access to accounts. But the report also provided data from parents showing 70% of children retained active social media accounts.

The strongest objection

Early enforcement failures do not prove the idea is wrong. The ban was only months old, five platforms were under investigation for possible non-compliance, and a rule that is widely flouted at first can still shift norms over time. Her alternative, a digital duty of care, had not yet been legislated when she wrote, so its results are unknown too.

“But I don’t believe bans are the answer.”