The next speaker in this session at the ECREA 2026 conference in Brno is my QUT colleague Kim Osman. She presents a project by the Centre for the Digital Child, which actually consulted children and young people about their perspectives on the impending social media ban; this took place against the uncertain and shifting background of Australian policy-making, which was (and remains) unclear about the definition of ‘social media’ and prevaricated about which platforms would even be included in the ban (Facebook is; 4chan is not…).
In the end, this project conducted some 86 30-minute interviews with young people aged 12-15 – so young people at high-school age, and most affected by a ban which would apply to children under 16. They represented a range of social media users, from non-users to heavy users.
Overall, kids were deeply sceptical about the ban: they saw it as the easy, adult-centric solution to a much more complex problem. Kids highlighted that they weren’t constantly on their phones and social media platforms, but used them quite deliberately; they noted the conflation of screentime and social media debates; and the focus on harms (like cyberbullying) rather than benefits (like finding community). Key platforms they highlighted were Snapchat, TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube, and the noted the very different uses these supported.
Kids were very scared about losing their archived content from existing social media platforms: posts, messages, photos, videos, etc. They highlighted the fun and social nature of social media platforms, enabling them to connect ephemerally and phatically with friends as well as family, especially also with geographically remote contacts like family in other countries.
The noted that the ban does not address the actual issues they have; banning young people from these platforms does not make them any safer or more enjoyable. It also pushes social media use by young people underground: if they continue to use social media despite the ban, this means that feel they are doing something wrong, and will no longer speak to their parents or teachers about any problematic experiences they may have there.
Finally, young people were also unclear about what would happen: much of the national conversation did not address them, even as the group most directly affected by this initiative. What little school-based information they did receive did not address the things they actually wanted to know; for instance, as they eventually turned 16 they expected the social media environment to be worse, and themselves to have fewer skills, than without a ban. At the same time, they were also already working out ways to work around the ban.
