Majority of Australian teens acknowledge the social media ban is ineffective as they attempt to bypass age verification barriers using face masks and their parents’ IDs

(SeaPRwire) –   Where there is a will, adolescents will find a way.

In the wake of Australia’s social media prohibition for those under 16, the nation’s youth immediately began seeking ways to bypass the new restrictions, which included age-checking protocols, account updates, and blocks on new underage registrations.

Evelyn, a 14-year-old resident of New South Wales, informed The Washington Post in late 2025—just prior to the ban’s start—that she intended to use her mother’s facial ID to access Snapchat and Instagram. On Reddit, users discussed various bypass methods, with one suggesting the use of mesh face masks from Temu to deceive facial recognition software. Others have turned to VPNs to mask their geographic locations.

New data indicates these circumvention tactics are proving successful. A survey of 1,050 Australians aged 12 to 15, conducted last month by the UK-based Molly Rose Foundation, found that over 60% of teenagers who previously held social media accounts still have access to at least one platform. Major services like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube have kept more than half of their users under the age of 16. Furthermore, about two-thirds of these young users claim that platforms have taken “no action” to shut down or reactivate accounts that were active before the ban.

The findings come as Australia’s internet regulator initiates an investigation into five major social media companies regarding potential violations of the new law.

As the first nation to enforce such a comprehensive social media ban for minors, Australia is acting as a test case for other governments considering similar restrictions. Countries including France, the UK, Indonesia, Greece, Spain, and Austria are weighing similar moves, while eight U.S. states are currently considering legislation to regulate or ban social media access for children.

While Australia seeks to pressure tech companies to improve the ban’s effectiveness, advocates are expressing growing concern over whether these types of restrictions can actually work.

“These findings raise serious doubts about the success of Australia’s social media ban and suggest it would be a significant risk for the UK to adopt similar measures at this time,” stated Andy Burrows, CEO of the Molly Rose Foundation.

What prompted Australia’s social media restrictions for minors?

The primary motivation for the ban is a growing body of research linking heavy social media use to anxiety and depression in some teenagers. A study from 2022 revealed that nearly half of all adolescents felt that social media negatively impacted their body image.

Last month, a jury in New Mexico found Meta and YouTube liable for creating addictive platforms with features that harmed the mental health of young people. Both companies have stated they will appeal the decision.

Jacqueline Nesi, a professor of psychiatry and human behavior at Brown University, noted that the overall data on teen social media use is complex. For instance, research shows that online platforms can provide a sense of community for LGBT+ youth and offer a space for self-discovery. Conversely, these same sites can also facilitate contact between adults and children, increasing the risk of grooming.

“The current research indicates that the impact of social media varies significantly across the adolescent population,” Nesi explained. “Consequently, the effect depends largely on how the platforms are being utilized.”

Nesi argued that because the data is still relatively new and incomplete, it is only one factor driving policy. Laws like Australia’s ban are also influenced by societal values and practical constraints that are not always captured in academic studies.

“We have to ask what will actually work and what makes sense for us as a society, rather than expecting research to provide a simple, definitive answer,” she said.

Why do experts believe these bans are not necessarily pointless?

Although the effectiveness of the Australian ban is being questioned and the risks associated with social media are nuanced, Nesi suggested that the restrictions are not without merit.

“It doesn’t mean the policy is the wrong choice,” she remarked. “It just means that the current method of implementation isn’t achieving the desired results.”

Groups such as the Australian Child Rights Taskforce have criticized the ban, suggesting it might discourage social media companies from developing safety features for children if they assume minors are no longer on the platforms. The Australian nonprofit Digital Industry Group Inc. also argued that the ban might drive users under 16 toward unregulated and potentially more dangerous corners of the web.

According to Nesi, if lawmakers want social media bans to be effective, they must address the reasons why children use these platforms in the first place. Interventions should be designed to meet those needs—such as the desire for independence, exploration, or entertainment—through other means.

“Any policy aimed at social media use must consider what the alternatives will be for teenagers,” she said. “We need to consider what other opportunities we are providing for teens to find autonomy, socialization, and a sense of belonging in the offline world.”