It is an ambitious social experiment of our moment in history 鈥� one that experts say could accomplish something that parents, schools and other governments have attempted with varying degrees of success: keeping kids .

Australia鈥檚 new law, approved by its Parliament last week, is an attempt to swim against many tides of modern life 鈥� formidable forces like technology, marketing, globalization and, of course, the iron will of a teenager. And like efforts of the past to protect kids from things that parents believe they鈥檙e not ready for, the nation鈥檚 move is both ambitious and not exactly simple, particularly in a world where young people are often shaped, defined and judged by the online company they keep.

The ban won鈥檛 go into effect for another year. But how will Australia be able to enforce it? That鈥檚 not clear, nor will it be easy. TikTok, Snapchat and Instagram have become so ingrained in young people鈥檚 lives that going cold turkey will be difficult.

Other questions loom. Does the ban limit kids鈥� free expression and 鈥� especially for those in vulnerable groups 鈥� isolate them and curtail their opportunity to connect with members of their community? And how will social sites verify people鈥檚 ages, anyway? Can鈥檛 kids just get around such technicalities, as they so often do?

This is, after all, the 21st century 鈥� an era when social media is the primary communications tool for most of those born in the past 25 years who, in a fragmented world, seek the common cultures of trends, music and memes. What happens when big swaths of that fall away?

Is Australia鈥檚 initiative a good, long-time-coming development that will protect the vulnerable, or could it become a well-meaning experiment with unintended consequences?

Platforms will be held liable

The law will make platforms including TikTok, Facebook, Snapchat, Reddit, X and Instagram liable for fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($33 million) for systemic failures to prevent children younger than 16 from holding accounts. 鈥淚t鈥檚 clear that social media companies have to be held accountable, which is what Australia is trying to do,鈥� said Jim Steyer, president and CEO of the nonprofit Common Sense Media.

Leaders and parents in countries around the world are watching Australia鈥檚 policy closely as many seek to protect young kids from the internet鈥檚 dangerous corners 鈥� and, not incidentally, from each other. Most nations have taken different routes, from parental consent requirements to minimum age limits.

Many child safety experts, parents and even teens who have waited to get on social media consider Australia鈥檚 move a positive step. They say there鈥檚 ample reason to ensure that children wait.

鈥淲hat鈥檚 most important for kids, just like adults, is real human connection. Less time alone on the screen means more time to connect, not less,鈥� said Julie Scelfo, the founder of Mothers Against Media Addiction, or MAMA, a grassroots group of parents aimed at combatting the harms of social media to children. 鈥淚鈥檓 confident we can support our kids in interacting in any number of ways aside from sharing the latest meme.鈥�

The harms to children from social media have been well documented in the two decades since Facebook鈥檚 launch ushered in a new era in how the world communicates. Kids who spend more time on social media, especially when they are tweens or young teenagers, are more likely to experience depression and anxiety, according to 鈥� though it is not yet clear if there is a causal relationship.

What鈥檚 more, many are exposed to content that is not appropriate for their age, including pornography and violence, as well as . They also face bullying, sexual harassment and unwanted advances from their peers as well as adult strangers. Because their brains are not fully developed, teenagers, especially younger ones the law is focused on, are also more affected by social comparisons than adults, so even happy posts from friends can send them into a negative spiral.

What unintended harms could be caused?

Many major initiatives, particularly those aimed at social engineering, can produce side effects 鈥� often unintended. Could that happen here? What, if anything, do kids stand to lose by separating kids and the networks in which they participate?

Paul Taske, associate director of litigation at the tech lobbying group NetChoice, says he considers the ban 鈥渙ne of the most extreme violations of free speech on the world stage today鈥� even as he expressed relief that the First Amendment prevents such law in the United States

鈥淭hese restrictions would create a massive cultural shift,鈥� Taske said.

鈥淣ot only is the Australian government preventing young people from engaging with issues they鈥檙e passionate about, but they鈥檙e also doing so even if their parents are OK with them using digital services,鈥� he said. 鈥淧arents know their children and their needs the best, and they should be making these decisions for their families 鈥� not big government. That kind of forcible control over families inevitably will have downstream cultural impacts.鈥�

David Inserra, a fellow for Free Expression and Technology, Cato Institute, called the bill 鈥渁bout as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike鈥� in a . While Australia鈥檚 law doesn鈥檛 require 鈥渉ard verification鈥� such as an uploaded ID, he said, it calls for effective 鈥渁ge-assurance鈥� that includes an array of ways companies can estimate someone鈥檚 age. He said no verification system can ensure accuracy while also protecting privacy and not impacting adults in the process.

Privacy advocates have also raised concerns about the law鈥檚 effect on online anonymity, a cornerstone of online communications 鈥� and something that can protect teens on social platforms.

鈥淲hether it be religious minorities and dissidents, LGBTQ youth, those in abusive situations, whistleblowers, or countless other speakers in tricky situations, anonymous speech is a critical tool to safely challenge authority and express controversial opinions,鈥� Inserra said. 鈥淏ut if every user of online platforms must first identify themselves, then their anonymity is at risk.鈥�

Other countries are trying to figure it out, too

Parents in earlier this year organized on platforms such as WhatsApp and Telegram to promise not to buy smartphones for children younger than 12 or 13. This approach costs almost no money and requires no government enforcement. In the United States, some parents are either informally or as part of an organized campaign such as Wait Until 8th, a group that helps parents delay kids鈥� access to social media and phones.

This fall, Norway announced plans to ban kids under 15 from using social media, while a smartphone ban for kids under 15 in a limited number of schools 鈥� a policy that could be rolled out nationwide if successful.

U.S. lawmakers have held multiple congressional hearings 鈥� 鈥� on child online safety. Still, the last federal law aimed at protecting children online was enacted in 1998, six years before Facebook鈥檚 founding. In July, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation , pushing forward with what would be the first major effort by Congress in decades to hold tech companies more accountable. But the has since stalled in the House.

While several states have passed laws requiring age verification, those are stuck in court. Utah became to pass laws regulating children鈥檚 social media use in 2023. In September, a against the law, which would have required social media companies to verify the ages of users, apply privacy settings and limit some features. NetChoice has also obtained injunctions temporarily halting similar laws in several other states.

And last May, said there is insufficient evidence to show social media is safe for kids. He urged policymakers to address the harms of social media the same way they regulate things like car seats, baby formula, medication and other products children use.

Said Scelfo: 鈥淲hy should social media products be any different? Kids may try to get around the restrictions 鈥� just like they do for alcohol, tobacco or drugs 鈥� but nobody is saying that because they try, we should give them unfettered access to them. Parents cannot possibly bear the entire responsibility of keeping children safe online, because the problems are baked into the design of the products. And so we need policies that hold Big Tech accountable for ensuring their products are safe.鈥�