Australia’s Ban on Social Media for Under-16s

報道によると、オーストラリア政府は16歳未満のSNS利用を禁止する法律を施行しました。
国としての禁止措置は世界初とのことで、国内外で賛否両論が湧き起こっています。

【English】

Australia has recently decided to prohibit children under the age of 16 from using social media. This policy has sparked intense debate, not only within the country but also internationally, as many societies struggle to cope with the rapid expansion of digital platforms. While I am generally cautious about government-imposed bans, I believe that, given the current situation, this measure may be an unavoidable response to a serious problem.

Social media itself is not inherently harmful. It offers opportunities for communication, learning, creativity, and social participation. Moreover, outright bans often risk being ineffective, as technologically savvy teenagers may find ways to circumvent restrictions. From this perspective, education, parental guidance, and platform-level self-regulation would seem to be preferable solutions.

However, the reality is that social media has become deeply embedded in daily life, and its influence—particularly on children and adolescents—has grown far beyond what was anticipated when these platforms first emerged. Numerous reports have highlighted issues such as addiction, cyberbullying, exposure to inappropriate content, and negative effects on mental health, including anxiety and depression. For younger users, whose judgment and emotional resilience are still developing, these risks can be especially severe.

What makes the situation more serious is that the speed and scale of social media expansion have outpaced society’s ability to manage its consequences. Parents and schools often struggle to keep up, and platform providers have strong incentives to maximize user engagement rather than prioritize child welfare. In this context, relying solely on voluntary measures or individual responsibility may no longer be sufficient.

Ultimately, the key challenge is to strike a balance between freedom and protection in the digital age. Australia’s decision may serve as a wake-up call for other countries, prompting a broader discussion about the responsibilities of governments, parents, and technology companies in shaping a healthier online environment for the next generation.