Weather 
Roughly two thirds of people on the planet use social media — and many simply cannot stop scrolling. The dangers for children are well-documented, including mental health problems, bullying and sexual predators.
Here in the U.S., social media companies have settled lawsuits totaling billions, without admitting any wrongdoing.
But Australia is trying something different. Last year, it became the first country in the world to force many social media platforms to prevent children under the age of 16 from having accounts. As we discovered, it’s too soon to say if the experiment’s working, but the stakes extend far beyond Australia. If other countries follow its lead, it could decide what growing up looks like for future generations.
Holly Williams: Should we try Snapchat?
Oscar Groves: Sure, why not?
Holly Williams: Yeah, do you want to try and open a Snapchat account?
Oscar Groves is just shy of his 16th birthday. In Australia, social media platforms covered by the country’s new law must take “reasonable steps” to stop him from opening or holding an account.
Holly Williams: “We’re sorry to share that new local laws have placed restrictions on users under 16 accessing Snapchat.”
Social media companies are required to check the age of all users — or may face hefty penalties.
Holly Williams: So what happens if you try to open, say, a TikTok account?
Holly Williams: Oh, okay, wow. So it straight away tells you you’re not eligible–
Oscar Groves: You’re not eligible.
Australia is trying to control something that has transformed the lives of young people: the way they communicate, the information they’re exposed to, even their entire experience of childhood.
Study after study has shown the dangers. A U.S. Surgeon General advisory reported that more than three hours of social media use a day can double the risk of mental health issues like depression and anxiety in children.
In the U.S., the titans of tech have been brought in front of Congress.
Sen. Hawley: Don’t you think they deserve some compensation for what your platform has done?
… to face families who said their young relatives had been exploited, abused or killed through their use of social media.
Sen. Hawley: There’s families of victims here today, have you apologized to the victims?
Mark Zuckerberg: I –
Sen. Hawley: Would you like to do so now?
Mark Zuckerberg: Well-
Sen. Hawley: Show him the pictures!
At that hearing in 2024, Mark Zuckerberg did then apologize.
Australia’s solution is more sweeping. It puts the legal responsibility on tech companies to protect children under 16 by keeping them off social media in the first place. The plan was hatched in this home.
Peter Malinauskas is the premier of the state of South Australia, the equivalent of a state governor in the U.S.
Two years ago, he announced a plan to ban children from using social media in his state of under 2 million people. It was his wife, Annabel West, who urged him to take action.
Holly Williams: did you feel that parents had– had lost control?
Annabel West: it sounded like it from the stories that I was hearing from other parents, once sort of those early teenagers got access to a phone, it became a bit of a downward spiral in terms of the use of– and not being able to stop them.
Holly Williams: What made you think that you could take on these big tech companies?
Peter Malinauskas: The fact that we would almost certainly have the overwhelming majority of Australian parents behind us. If people are on your side, you can achieve anything and I was pretty confident that parents were on our side on this one.
The vast majority of Australians are on his side, according to the polls.
When Malinauskas announced that his state would legislate – the Australian national government quickly followed suit, with bipartisan support. Malinauskas told us he never expected it to be a silver bullet.
Peter Malinauskas: Kids are gonna find ways around it. No different than a kid at 16 years old sneaking behind the shed and having a cigarette or a beer. But they’re doing it less than what they otherwise would if you didn’t have a community standard in place.
Holly Williams: It sounds as if you’re saying that this is really about social engineering, changing people’s behavior.
Peter Malinauskas: Well, I think social media is the ultimate form of social engineering. They are dictating who sees what when in a way that is unregulated, unchecked, and ultimately driven by the profit motive. When a corporate operator is engaging in social engineering, then I think the government’s got a role to play to stop it.
Holly Williams: Lots of parents have concerns about social media. I know that I do. But– but most parents just– restrict their children’s social media use. Why didn’t you just do that?
Peter Malinauskas: You know, asking a 14-year-old to give something up once they’ve allowed that platform to become central to the way they communicate is almost impossible. So tryin’ to get in early to stop it before the rot sets in was part of the objective.
In the first three months of the ban, the number of 10- to 15-year-olds holding at least one account on age-restricted social media fell by around 20%, according to research from Australia’s online safety watchdog.
At this school in Malinauskas’ state — St Ignatius — the teachers told us the social media ban has freed at least some children to have healthier childhoods.
In the words of the principal, they want young people to master technology — not be mastered by it.
Principal: We are teaching you how to use these tools in a way that’s ethical and safe, and responsible…
Wayne Holdsworth has visited over a hundred Australian schools to talk about the hazards of social media.
60 Minutes 
In 2022 his teenage son, Mac, was sent a nude photo on social media by someone he thought was an 18-year-old woman. When Mac responded by sending an intimate photo of himself, he discovered he was really communicating with a criminal in his 40s – who blackmailed Mac, threatening to share the photo publicly if he didn’t pay – and then followed through, sending it to Mac’s friends and family members. Mac was crushed by the shame.
Wayne Holdsworth (in classroom:) I just sensed that Mac should have been up by now and he wasn’t. At 5 minutes to 7 on the 24th of October, 2023, I knocked on his door and there was no answer. And I opened the door and he’d taken his life.
Wayne Holdsworth: We elect the government to ensure that we’re safe, and that includes children. And they have not been safe, because there’s been organizations that have come into Australia that have damaged them. And finally, Australia, first country in the world, introduced legislation to prevent those tech giants damaging our children.
Holly Williams: The way you’re putting it, it sounds like Australia, this actually quite small country, up against these big foreign tech companies.
Wayne Holdsworth: Yeah. That’s how we roll here in Australia. We like to punch above our weight.
That may be true, but Australia’s discovering that it’s one thing to write a law, another to make sure it’s obeyed. Three months after the social media ban came into effect, 50% of children under 16 who still held accounts said they hadn’t even been asked to confirm their age, according to Australia’s independent eSafety commissioner.
Julie Inman Grant: We haven’t seen the kind of compliance I would have hoped for from the social media platforms. We know they have the technology to do that, because I met with their engineers and product people in September of last year to find out what their capabilities were.
Julie Inman Grant is in charge of enforcing the social media ban. She’s American, and used to work for Microsoft and Twitter, before switching sides – frustrated that tech companies weren’t doing more to protect users. Her office is currently investigating several social media platforms for potential non-compliance. And if she proves a case, they could face penalties of around $70 million each.
Holly Williams: The fines sound big to you and to me, but aren’t they just a sort of drop in the ocean for those big tech companies?
Julie Inman Grant: I found over the years that sometimes it isn’t the regulation or the fines that– motivate them. It’s their reputation. They don’t want to be seen as the company that’s deliberately hurting kids.
Noah Jones was 15 when the ban went into force. He agrees with Inman Grant that its implementation has been patchy. One social media platform scanned his face with AI and decided he was old enough to keep his account. Others made it even easier.
60 Minutes 
Noah Jones: Yeah, Well, I just clicked “create a new account,” did the exact same name, exact same everything, changed my birthday to two years before.
Holly Williams: So you just lied about your age?
Noah Jones: Yeah.
Jones has also become the public face of opposition to the law. He’s a witness in a legal challenge in Australia’s high court, made on the grounds that the ban violates the right to political communication.
Holly Williams: What is it to your mind that is so seriously wrong about the legislation that you wanted to take it to the highest court in the land?
Noah Jones: It’s just unfair. Like, I understand drinking laws, consent, all stuff like that, but why should we be blocked from information?
Holly Williams: What would your life be like without social media?
Noah Jones: If we didn’t have social media but I was born 20-30 years ago, then it wouldn’t be such a big deal. But now social media is the modern town square. It’s where information’s being passed around, and everyone uses it / And so it’d be putting me at a disadvantage.
Holly Williams: There are other countries that are thinking about bringing in similar legislation to Australia’s. What would you say to those governments?
Noah Jones: Please don’t do it. There’s– there’s a lot of better ways to fix the content and problems on social media, and one of those ways is not silencing free speech.
Yet other countries are following Australia’s lead.
The U.K.’s law should kick in next year – and Norway, Spain and Canada are all working on similar legislation.
Australia’s eSafety commissioner claims the country’s ban has become a global test case. She told us some social media platforms may not be enforcing Australia’s law to their full abilities – because they want to stop it from succeeding.
60 Minutes 
Julie Inman Grant: They were lobbying D.C. They were lobbying capitals all over the world to say that it was never going to work. They spent more time trying to convince other governments not to follow suit than they did to try and comply and implement the technologies in the right way.
Holly Williams: They were going to other governments around the world saying, “What Australia is doing is a failure. It’s not working.”
Julie Inman Grant: Absolutely.
Holly Williams: But you’re saying they were the ones– they were the ones trying to make it a failure.
Julie Inman Grant: And arguably they still are.
We reached out to some of the tech companies impacted by Australia’s social media ban. Meta told us it’s complying with the Australian law but said “blanket social media bans are ineffective because they push teens to unregulated corners of the internet.” The company says it’s working to protect child safety — with measures built into its social media platforms.
Snap told us it’s taking the Australian law seriously, and rejects claims that its product is designed to addict children, or that it places profit over safety.
TikTok said that its platform is “built with safety at its core” in order to “foster a safe and positive space.”
Peter Malinauskas, who pushed for the social media ban in the first place, told us tech companies have no excuse for not implementing the law.
Peter Malinauskas: The duty is on them. Let’s be clear about this. These companies have demonstrated that they are some of the most innovative, clever, well-resourced companies in human history. If they know what breakfast cereal I’m eating, (LAUGH) if they know what my regular run in the morning looks like, I’m pretty sure they can work out who’s 13 and who’s 16 pretty easily.
Produced by Jacqueline Williams and Erin Lyall. Associate producers, Mimi Lamarre and Nadim Roberts. Broadcast associate, Jessica Schwalb. Edited by Warren Lustig and April Wilson.
