Study finds 85% of Australian under-16s still using social media three months after ban, raising questions about enforcement effectiveness

Unbiased summary

A University of Newcastle, Australia observational study of 408 young people aged 12–17, published in The BMJ, found that approximately 85% of under-16s reported still using social media platforms three months after Australia's Social Media Minimum Age Act came into force in December 2025. The law prohibits under-16s from holding accounts on platforms including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, X, YouTube and Snapchat. Researchers concluded there was insufficient evidence of immediate substantive reductions in social media use, citing inadequate age-verification checks and circumvention methods such as fake accounts and private browsing. The study acknowledged the ban is still new and noted it could take a decade to assess full impact. The findings have been cited in debate over the UK's proposed similar ban, announced by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, which is due in spring 2027.

Generated with Claude Sonnet 4.6

Coverage by outlet

The Guardian left

Angle The Guardian frames the findings as evidence that bans alone are insufficient and that a broader, more holistic strategy is needed to protect children online.

Bias The Guardian accurately reports the study's findings and appropriately notes expert caveats, but it notably emphasises the views of 'experts and campaigners' who argue banning is not enough, steering the reader toward a policy-reform narrative rather than a straightforward news report. It is the only outlet to provide detailed context about the UK's proposed ban, including the specific platforms and gaming sites covered. It largely avoids partisan framing of Starmer but steers coverage toward child safety advocacy perspectives, slightly downplaying the study's own acknowledgement of its early and limited scope.

Four in five under-16s in Australia using social media despite ban, study shows

The Independent centre-left

Angle The Independent frames the story as casting doubt on the UK's incoming restrictions, foregrounding uncertainty and risk without strongly endorsing or attacking the policy.

Bias The Independent is broadly factual and notably includes the government's own rebuttal — quoting Technology Secretary Liz Kendall acknowledging limitations and citing the UK's 'highly effective age-verification measures' — giving more political balance than some other outlets. However, its headline uses the phrase 'fears over UK crackdown,' introducing an emotive framing not directly supported by the study itself. It also accurately notes the study's caveat that a decade may be needed to assess full impact, which other outlets underplay.

Four out of five Australian children still using social media despite ban, study finds amid fears over UK crackdown

Daily Mail right

Angle The Daily Mail uses the findings to attack Keir Starmer's credibility, framing the UK ban as politically motivated and likely to fail.

Bias The Daily Mail introduces politically loaded language not found in the study, describing the ban as part of Starmer's 'political legacy' and quoting an expert saying the plan is 'doomed to fail' — a strong claim not made by the study's authors themselves. It inflates the figure slightly, stating 'almost nine in ten' when the study reports approximately 85%, and omits the study's own caution that it is too early to draw firm conclusions. The framing of Starmer 'following' Australia's lead adds political editorial commentary irrelevant to the scientific findings.

There is 'little evidence' that Australia's under-16 social media restrictions have curbed teen scrolling - as UK prepares to bring in similar ban

GB News right

Angle GB News frames the study as a direct 'blow' to Keir Starmer personally, presenting the findings as straightforwardly damaging to his policy agenda.

Bias GB News leads with Starmer's name in the headline, centering the story on political damage rather than child welfare or policy effectiveness — a framing not present in the study. The reporting of the core statistics is reasonably accurate, but the outlet omits the study's own caveat that a decade may be needed for full assessment, and does not include any government rebuttal or alternative expert perspective. The use of phrases like 'blows the lid on' in the subheadline introduces sensationalist language absent from the neutral facts.

Australia social media ban isn't working, study finds in blow to Keir Starmer's internet crackdown plans