Should Kids Be on Social Media? What the Law and the Research Actually Say

For years this was the hardest conversation at every barbecue: "Do you let yours have TikTok?" Then, on 10 December 2025, Australia largely made the decision for us — at least for the having-an-account part. We're the first country to do it, everyone has opinions, and there's a lot of confusion about what the rules actually say. So here it is, plain English, sources linked.

First, the split that makes everything clearer: viewing vs owning

"Social media" is really two different things:

• Viewing content — watching YouTube videos logged out, seeing a public page someone sends you. Still legal for under-16s. eSafety spells it out: "Under-16s are still allowed to see publicly available social media content that doesn't require logging into an account — including most videos on YouTube."
• Having an account — a profile, a feed built around you, followers, DMs, the algorithm learning your kid at 2am. This is what Australia's new minimum age targets.

That split matters because the risks the research worries about — the always-on social comparison, the DMs from strangers, the algorithmic rabbit holes — mostly come with the account, not the occasional video.

What the law actually says

From 10 December 2025, "age-restricted social media platforms" must take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from creating or keeping accounts. Straight from eSafety, in their words:

• The restricted list (as at now): "It is eSafety's view that Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X, YouTube, Kick and Reddit are age-restricted platforms, among others. This list may change in the future." So: check their live list rather than assuming.
• Not restricted: in eSafety's view, Discord, GitHub, Google Classroom, LEGO Play, Messenger, Pinterest, Roblox, Steam and Steam Chat, WhatsApp, and YouTube Kids are not age-restricted platforms. Broadly, services whose main purpose is messaging or gaming stay open to under-16s. (Not restricted doesn't mean risk-free — our app and game safety guides → /app-game-safety cover several of these.)
• Kids and parents face zero penalties. eSafety again: "There won't be any penalties or fines for under-16s who have social media accounts, or their parents or carers." The obligation — and the fines, up to $49.5 million AUD — sit entirely with the platforms.
• Existing accounts can be deactivated or removed any time before your child turns 16, even if they previously passed an age check.

So if your 14-year-old's Instagram vanished last December, that's the platform complying with the law — not your kid being in trouble.

Hang on — didn't the apps already have minimum ages?

Yes, sort of. Most major platforms' own terms have long set 13 as the minimum age to hold an account (the US Surgeon General's advisory notes 13 "is commonly the required minimum age used by social media platforms in the U.S."). It was never a safety endorsement — and it was barely enforced: the same advisory reports that nearly 40% of American kids aged 8–12 use social media, which tells you exactly how well a checkbox works. In Australia, for the platforms on eSafety's restricted list, the effective minimum is now 16, and it's the platform's legal job to enforce it.

What the research says (without the panic)

The honest version: the evidence is genuinely mixed, and anyone who tells you social media is all poison or all fine is selling something. The US Surgeon General's 2023 advisory — still the most careful mainstream summary — found indicators of both benefit (connection, community, support for marginalised kids) and harm. Two findings worth knowing as a parent:

• A large US study of 12–15 year olds found that adolescents who spent more than 3 hours a day on social media "faced double the risk of experiencing poor mental health outcomes including symptoms of depression and anxiety."
• Ages 10–19 are "a highly sensitive period of brain development" — which is the scientific case behind waiting, and behind Australia's choice of 16 rather than 13.

Up to 95% of US teens use social media, so the realistic parenting goal was never zero — it's later, slower, and with you in the loop.

So what do you actually do?

Under 13: No accounts — this was every platform's own rule even before the Australian law. Watching together is fine; use it as talking practice. YouTube Kids exists for a reason and isn't on the restricted list.

13–15: In Australia, the big platforms are now off the table until 16 — and honestly, the law makes your life easier: "it's the law, and it's the platform's job to block it" is a much shorter argument than the one we all used to have. Messaging apps and gaming chat are still allowed, so your actual work in these years is there — see our app and game safety guides (→ /app-game-safety) and the warning signs (→ /warning-signs) to watch for. If your child already had accounts, don't punish — plan the transition together, and eSafety's young-people pages are written for exactly this.

16+: Now it's legal, and it's back to being a readiness call — the same signals as the first phone decision (→ /when-should-kids-get-a-phone): do they come to you when things go wrong, do they get consequences, will they accept you nearby while they learn? Start with one platform, locked-down privacy settings, and the phone still charging in the kitchen overnight.

Whatever the age, the setting that matters most isn't in an app. It's whether your kid believes they can tell you about the weird thing they saw without losing their device on the spot. That conversation (→ /talk) is the whole game — the getting started guide (→ /start) and checklist will handle the rest.