MELBOURNE â Riley Allen, a 15-year-old schoolboy living on an Outback sheep ranch, doesnât know how heâll keep in touch with his circle of far-flung friends once Australia's world-first social media ban takes effect on Wednesday.
Rileyâs family lives 5 kilometers (3 miles) from Wudinna, a community of just over 1,000 in South Australia state. But some of his school friends live as far as 70 kilometers (43 miles) away.
Recommended Videos
âI donât think the impact will be very positive for us. We donât have a lot out here to get in contact with each other,â Riley said.
âIâm not sure how weâre going to keep in touch over the holidays with each other,â he said, referring to the Southern Hemisphere summer break that starts on Thursday.
Riley and others younger than 16 will be banned by law from holding accounts with Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, X, YouTube and Twitch from Wednesday. The platforms face fines of up to 49.5 million Australian dollars ($32.9 million) if they fail to take reasonable steps to remove the accounts.
Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and Threads, was the first tech giant to react, beginning to exclude suspected young children from last week.
Riley holds accounts with most of the age-restricted platforms and had been asked by some to verify that he is at least 16. But by Monday, he had not been ousted by any.
Mom won't help 15-year-old son bypass social media ban
Rileyâs schoolteacher mother, Sonia Allen, said she wouldnât help her son get around the ban, but suspects other parents will.
âI wouldnât. I do know there are other people that would. If the rule is there, the rule is there. But I know what kids are like, and Iâve been a kid before, and theyâre going to get around it if they can,â she said.
While the law allows parents no discretion to allow their children to hold social media accounts, Allen said there was a role for parents in regulating their childrenâs social media use.
A year ago, she banned Riley from social media for several weeks.
âIn the past with Riley, weâve had to take measures to limit his usage because we found him on social media at midnight and he wasnât getting his homework done and things like that. We ended up taking it off him for a couple of months,â Allen said. âFrom that, heâs learned to use it a more responsibly.â
Riley, who turns 16 in April, said he understood the banâs objectives, but there are other ways to achieve them. He suggested a 10 p.m. enforced social media curfew for young children to prevent them losing sleep.
Teens challenge the ban in Australia's highest court
Riley has an ally in Australiaâs largest city, Sydney: schoolboy Noah Jones, who turns 16 in August.
Noah is one of two 15-year-old plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to the law in the High Court. The other in the case brought by the Sydney-based rights group Digital Freedom Project is schoolgirl Macy Neyland.
They claim the law improperly robs 2.6 million young Australians of a right to freedom of political communication implied in Australiaâs constitution.
The Australian government is committed to defeating the challenge on behalf of what they say is an overwhelming majority of parents who demand government action against social media harms.
Many restricted children have told media they welcome their exclusion from platforms with design features that encourage them to spend more time on screens while also serving up content that can harm their health and well-being.
The parentsâ group Heaps Up Alliance, which lobbied for the social media age restriction, backs the theory behind the blanket ban that âwhen everybody misses out, nobody misses out.â
Before Parliament passed the ban last year, more than 140 Australian and international academics with expertise in fields related to technology and child welfare signed an open letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese opposing a social media age limit as âtoo blunt an instrument to address risks effectively.â
Noah said the ban would lead to young Australians swapping from age-restricted platforms to more dangerous, less regulated options.
âIâm against this social media ban because as young Australians, weâll be completely silenced and cut off from our country and the rest of the world,â Noah said. âWeâve just grown up with this our entire lives, and now it's just being taken away from us all of a sudden. We wouldnât even know what else we could do.â
His mother, Renee Jones, is also involved in the court case as her sonâs litigation guardian, because as a child he canât make legal decisions himself.
She considers herself a relatively strict parent on social media, and never allowed Noah or his two older brothers to take devices into their bedrooms. But she supports Noahâs stance.
âMy parents would never have dreamed that my children could be so fortunate to have this library of knowledge,â Jones said.
âBut I really credit Noah as a young person who recognizes the dangers of social media. Itâs not all sunshine and lollypops,â she added.
A plaintiff says tech giants' money would be welcome
Digital Freedom Project president John Ruddick, who is also a state lawmaker for the minor Libertarian Party, said he had initially intended to apply for a court injunction in a bid to prevent the ban taking effect on Wednesday. But his lawyers advised against it.
A directions hearing will be held in late February to set a hearing date for the constitutional challenge that will be heard by the full bench of seven judges.
Ruddick said the case wasnât funded by any tech giant, but they would be âextremely welcomeâ to make a financial contribution.
Ruddick expected children would get around the ban by means including using virtual private networks to make them appear to be offshore.
âTheyâre going to get around it so theyâre then going to be on an underground social media and, to make it worse, without parental supervision,â Ruddick said.
âItâs much better for it to be out in the open and for parents to play a very, very active role ⊠in monitoring what theyâre doing on social media,â he added.
