Australia Banned Teens From Social Media. Did It Work?

Opening

Dear reader, on December 10, 2025, Australia enacted a full ban on social media accounts for anyone under 16. A month later, the government announced “We deleted about 4.7 million accounts—this is a success.” Yet a household survey conducted around the same time found that 60-70% of kids still had accounts.

Same policy, opposite numbers. Some call it a success; others say almost nothing changed. So which side is lying? Let me tell you the answer up front: both are true. They’re just measuring different things. And hidden inside that gap is a more uncomfortable fact: this ban has never actually been tested on the very kids it targets.

Same Policy, Opposite Numbers—Why?

The 4.7 million figure the Australian government cited is the number of accounts platforms found and removed. Meta said it deleted about 550,000 accounts within a single day of enforcement. From the platforms’ perspective, that’s a clear action and an eye-catching number.

The 60-70% figure, on the other hand, measures something else entirely. According to a March 2026 compliance review by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, a parent survey found that 69.1% of kids still had Instagram accounts, 69.4% still had Snapchat, and 69.3% still had TikTok. Only about one in three parents said their child no longer had an account.

The two numbers aren’t in conflict. They’re just answering different questions. The 4.7 million measures “what did the platforms do?” The 70% measures “what actually happened to the kids?” Even after an account is deleted, a kid can just make a new one, lie about their age, or simply browse without logging in. While the count of deleted accounts keeps climbing, the number of kids actually accessing these platforms may barely move.

This is a textbook case of what I always watch out for: a ‘vanity metric’¹—a number that looks big and impressive but has no real connection to the outcome the policy was actually meant to change.

Why did the government lead with 4.7 million? Because it’s the cleanest number for giving the impression that “something was done.” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese even called it “a source of Australian pride.” The 70% figure, by contrast, exposes the policy’s gaps, so it rarely gets a spot on the same stage. Watching which numbers make it to the podium and which get left off tells you exactly what a policy is confident about—and what it wants to hide.

For context, this trend isn’t unique to Australia. France’s lower house passed a bill in January 2026 banning social media for anyone under 15, and Denmark is heading down a similar path. In the US, 8 states have introduced regulations targeting minors. Australia can fine violating platforms up to AU$49.5 million. The whole world, in other words, is moving quickly in the same direction. Even the UK Prime Minister, who initially opposed such regulation, has recently swung around to considering a ban—that’s how lopsided the mood has become.