Early wins for the social media ban, new survey claims

The YouGov survey found many parents had noticed several positive behavioural shifts in their children aged 16 and under since the law took effect on December 10, 2025. This, however, wasn't universal, with some parents also reporting negative changes in their children's behaviour.

This data does offer some insights into the impact of Australia's Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act. But it also has some major limitations.

So what exactly do the results of the survey show? And how should they be interpreted?

Before we can assess any effect of the legislation in preventing online harms we need to know whether the age-assurance processes are working.

Initial figures gathered by Australia's eSafety Commission indicated social media platforms had removed 4.7 million accounts of children under-16 last December.

This figure reportedly includes a number of inactive and duplicate accounts. As a result, it may not be an accurate representation of the actual number of young people affected.

Young people are also reportedly circumventing age verification restrictions. And a report by Crikey, based on new data by parental control company Qustodio, showed social media usage among under-16s had dropped only marginally in the first three months of the ban.

The YouGov survey took place online on January 12-14 this year - a little over a month after social media age restrictions took effect.

Among parents of children under 16-years-old, 61 per cent observed between two and four positive effects. Some 43 per cent noticed more in-person social interactions, while 38 per cent said their children were more present and engaged during interactions and 38 per cent reported improved parent-child relationships.

But these parents also reported negative impacts. Some 27 per cent noted a shift to alternative or less regulated platforms. And 25 per cent observed reduced social connection, creativity or peer support online.

Two thirds of adults in this survey believed greater parental involvement could make the ban more effective. And 56 per cent agreed stricter enforcement and age verification would improve its effectiveness.

This suggests many parents understand the complex challenges around implementation of effective age-assurance processes.

Disappointingly, the proportion of parents in the YouGov sample is not reported, nor is the exact age of their children.

Given the survey took place in the middle of the summer holidays, it is hard to know what contribution this may have had, as social media use generally declines then.

We also do not know whether the reported behavioural changes were observed among young people who had been "kicked off" their social media accounts.

Crucially, the YouGov survey is also missing the voices of young people.

We are involved in an ongoing study that aims to evaluate the impact of social media age restrictions. This study directly measures how much time young people actually spend on different social media apps using passive sensing technology, in addition to more common self-reported questionnaires.

Our baseline data (collected before the new rules came into effect) from 171 young people counters the prevailing narrative that "all teens are against the social media restrictions".

In fact, 40 per cent of 13- to 16-year-olds were either supportive of or indifferent to the legislation, suggesting a more nuanced examination is warranted.

Young people also showed insights into their own experiences of using social media. Watching short videos was the most frequently reported activity. But only 16 per cent thought it was a good use of their time.

Australia's eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has also committed to a comprehensive evaluation of the Social Media Minimum Age Act.

A collaboration between the eSafety Commission, Stanford University's Social Media Lab (the lead academic partner), and an 11-member academic advisory group, this evaluation aims to assess how the minimum age requirement is being implemented and examine both intended and unintended impacts.

A major element of the eSafety evaluation is its longitudinal design over at least the next two years, with perspectives from over 4000 young people aged 10-16 and their parent or carer. The participants include enough young people from certain groups, such as those living in the country, or who are neurodiverse, to take a closer look at whether restricting access to social media has a disproportionate impact on them.

The eSafety evaluation will also directly track how much time young people spend on different apps and when they do so.

The next few months will no doubt be the toughest for the eSafety Commissioner as she works with each of the technology platforms to ensure they are taking the "reasonable steps" required by the law.

There will be much global interest in the public compliance report that the eSafety Commission will soon release, which will detail these steps.

Technology companies face fines of up to A$49.5 million for failing to comply with the law. For many, the financial cost may be less of a concern than avoiding damage to their reputation, as evident in recent court cases in the United States where Snapchat and TikTok settled out of court.

Rather than anticipating immediate benefits in young people who have already enjoyed access to social media, we may see stronger effects in the next generation of children, whose parents are yet to provide permission for them to access social media accounts.

In this regard, the true benefit of Australia's legislation may be whether it changes social norms among parents about the "right" age for children to have a phone and around what role social media should play in young people's lives.

Such changes will be measured in years, not months.