Is Australia's social media ban working? The first results

Is Australia's social media ban working? Three months in, mostly not yet. More than 81% of children aged 10 to 15 surveyed by the regulator still used at least one banned platform, down from nearly 86% before the ban, according to Al Jazeera's report on the eSafety evaluation. Daily use barely moved.

The surprising part is why. Most kids who kept their accounts didn't hack anything. About half said the platform had simply never checked their age. There are also early signs that kids who fully lost access slept better and felt better, which is worth knowing if your child is 8 to 12 and will grow up under a ban like this one.

Below is what the first evaluations found, how much weight each one can bear, and what it means if you live in the UK, the EU or anywhere else lining up to copy Australia.

The ban covers 10 platforms and leaves messaging alone

The law took effect in December 2025, the first national ban of its kind (Al Jazeera). It covers Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, TikTok, X, YouTube and Twitch. Messaging apps such as WhatsApp and Messenger are exempt, and video game platforms aren't covered.

The duty sits with the platforms. They face fines of up to A$49.5m (about US$33.2m) and can verify age with ID documents, face-based age estimation, or inferences from data they already hold, such as how old an account is (Al Jazeera/AP). Reddit challenged the law in the High Court while still complying, and that case was open as of August 2026.

Why 4.7 million closed accounts doesn't mean 4.7 million kids went offline

In January the government declared victory on that figure. But eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant also put the number of Australians aged 8 to 15 at about 2.5 million. The account count is nearly double the number of children, because it counts accounts, and plenty of kids had more than one.

Meta alone said it removed nearly 550,000 under-16 accounts by the day after the ban began. None of these totals tell you how many children actually stopped using social media. The survey data that came later suggests most didn't.

Is Australia's social media ban working? The regulator's own numbers

Daily social media use went from about 60% to about 58%. Most 10 to 15 year olds used social media about as often in March 2026 as before the ban. The regulator also found little change in sport, arts and music, time with friends and family, or going to community events.

One finding should make parents sit up: parents knew less about their kids' habits after the ban. That makes some sense. A child who isn't supposed to be on TikTok has less reason to mention that they are.

A caveat on strength. The data was collected in March 2026 and published on 31 July, and I could only read it through news coverage, so I can't give you the sample size or method. It's also self-reported. The government's response was that millions of accounts had closed and nobody expected 100% compliance, with assistant minister Andrew Leigh comparing it to drinking-age laws.

A poll of 1,050 kids found account numbers roughly halved

The Molly Rose Foundation polled 1,050 Australians aged 12 to 15 in March 2026. Of those who had accounts on banned platforms, 61% still had at least one active account. That works out to 54% of all 12 to 15 year olds.

Use did shrink. YouTube went from 66% of kids to 35%, TikTok from 55% to 29%, Instagram from 49% to 25% and Snapchat from 49% to 23%. Still, a majority of former users kept access somewhere. The foundation is a UK charity that argues for tougher platform regulation instead of bans, which may colour its framing, but its numbers broadly match the regulator's.

Most kids got around the ban by doing nothing at all

The popular picture is a teenager with a VPN. In the regulator's findings, about half the children who kept accounts said the platform had never checked their age, the most common reason they still had access. Others had accounts already listed as 16 or over, or were wrongly judged older by an age check (Al Jazeera). eSafety named weak age checks by the platforms as the main reason.

The Molly Rose Foundation poll breaks down how kids kept their access:

• The platform took no action on their existing account: around 60% (YouTube 64%, Snapchat 61%, Instagram 60%, TikTok 60%)
• They got past an age check on an existing account: about 22 to 25%
• A family member or friend set up a new account: 7 to 10%
• They used a VPN: about 4 to 5%

Seven in ten kids still on banned platforms said getting around the ban was easy, and 46% said very easy. Given that most of them didn't have to try, that's hardly surprising.

Time moved to games and messaging, and some kids felt better

Former users didn't simply put the phone down. 43% said they game more, 39% message more, 21% use social apps the ban doesn't cover, and 16% opened accounts on platforms they hadn't used before (Molly Rose Foundation). Half said they spend less time online overall, and 37% said nothing changed.

Asked about the effect on their life overall, 42% said none, 32% said negative and 22% positive. On safety, 31% felt safer, 51% felt no different and 14% felt less safe.

Kids who lost every account most often reported better sleep

The same group reported better mental health (46% positive, 19% negative) and better schoolwork (47% positive, 8% negative). There were costs too. On connection to friends and family, 43% said positive but 31% said negative, and on understanding world news, 34% said worse against 29% better.

Treat these as early impressions. They're kids' own perceptions a few months in, with no measured sleep or clinical outcomes behind them. The pattern is still telling: the gains show up where the scrolling went away, and the losses cluster around contact and news.

South Korea's gaming curfew faded within four years

In 2011 South Korea banned online gaming for under-16s between midnight and 6am. According to research summarised by the Molly Rose Foundation, the early drop in use faded, internet use rose within four years, and the policy was later scrapped. One study estimated sleep rose by about 1.5 minutes per child. I haven't read the original papers, so take the exact figures as reported.

What Australia's results mean if your country is next

The UK plans a ban from spring 2027, with WhatsApp, Signal, educational tools, shopping and music streaming excluded. Greece plans an under-15 ban from 1 January 2027, subject to parliament, Denmark is planning an under-15 ban and Malaysia an under-16 one (Al Jazeera). If you're in Britain, I've covered what's settled so far on the UK ban's timing.

Australia's lesson is mostly about age checks. Kids walked straight past the system because nobody stopped them. So the detail to watch where you live is how platforms will be made to verify ages, including on accounts that already exist. In the EU there's also a separate push to regulate feed design itself, which I looked at in whether the EU will ban infinite scroll.

What parents of 8 to 12 year olds can do before a ban arrives

1. 01
   Keep it your plan

   In Australia most kids still on banned apps were never age-checked, and parents ended up knowing less about their children's habits.

2. 02
   Check accounts yourself, old ones included

   Around 60% of remaining accounts were never touched by the platform, so accounts made before a ban are the biggest gap.

3. 03
   Ask about more than TikTok

   Time moved to gaming (43%), messaging (39%) and uncovered apps (21%), so those deserve the same conversations.

4. 04
   Remove the feed, keep the friends

   The clearest reported gains came from losing the scrolling, while messaging, which the law leaves alone, kept kids in touch.

5. 05
   Plan for what gets lost

   Some kids felt less connected or less informed, so set up other ways to see friends and follow the news together.

6. 06
   Pair any rule with routines

   South Korea's curfew wore off within a few years, so a switch on its own is a weak bet.