---

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner defends the nation’s teen social media ban, rejecting “technological exceptionalism” and urging global action on youth online safety.

---

A Bold Move Sparks Global Debate

As Australia activates its landmark ban preventing children under 16 from accessing social media platforms, the nation’s top online safety regulator is pushing back against criticism from Silicon Valley and Washington. eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant says global tech giants, and even some U.S. lawmakers, are missing the point: parents worldwide are demanding stronger protections, and Australia is stepping in where others have hesitated.

With the world watching this unprecedented policy rollout, the debate has quickly expanded beyond Australia’s borders, surfacing urgent questions about child safety, tech accountability, and whether social media companies should be treated differently from every other consumer-facing industry.

Why Australia Moved First

Australia’s ban, taking effect Wednesday, requires major platforms, including Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and YouTube, to prevent users under 16 from accessing their services. Companies that fail to comply face penalties that can reach A$49.5 million (US$33 million).

Supporters argue the move is long overdue, pointing to escalating concerns about the impacts of social media on teens: cyberbullying, body-image pressures, mental health struggles, and online radicalization. Critics, including some of America’s most influential tech firms and a group of U.S. lawmakers, claim the restrictions infringe on free speech.

The clash reflects a deeper tension over whether technology companies deserve special treatment or must meet the same safety standards expected of other industries.

Regulator Rejects “Technological Exceptionalism”

In an interview from her Sydney office, Commissioner Inman Grant dismissed the idea that social media platforms should operate without the safety expectations applied to cars, medicine, toys, or any imported consumer product.

Calling the industry’s position “technological exceptionalism,” she argued that governments have a responsibility to protect children from harmful design features and addictive algorithms, no matter where the platforms are headquartered.

She noted that many U.S. parents have expressed frustration that their own government hasn’t imposed similar guardrails.

The Australian policy arrives at a time when other countries from Europe to Asia are exploring stricter youth safety standards. Many governments have been influenced by emerging research connecting social media use to mental health issues and the deliberate engineering of “stickiness” through outrage-driven content cycles.

U.S. Reaction: Political Pushback and Parental Support

Not everyone in the United States is embracing Australia’s approach. Days before the ban took effect, a U.S. congressional committee requested that Inman Grant testify, describing her role as that of a foreign official attempting to influence American First Amendment rights.

Still, Inman Grant says the most consistent feedback she receives from Americans isn’t pushback, it’s gratitude.

“Parents tell me all the time, ‘We wish we had something like this. We wish our leaders put children’s well-being ahead of tech profits,’” she said, reflecting on growing grassroots support for reform in the U.S.

While several U.S. states have tried to implement minimum age requirements, most efforts have stalled in court. A federal online safety bill, focused on child protection but lacking an age minimum, remains unresolved after three years of debate.

Yet Inman Grant believes the U.S. is capable of moving in the same direction. She noted her recent work with the Department of Homeland Security to combat the online circulation of child sexual abuse materials as evidence of shared priorities.

She also pointed to America’s Take It Down Act, signed by President Donald Trump in May, which limits AI-generated deepfakes targeting minors. The law, she said, mirrors many principles Australia has enforced for nearly a decade.

“More Unites Us Than Divides Us”

A former policy leader at Microsoft and Twitter, Inman Grant brings experience from both sides of the tech–regulation divide. She describes the global debate not as a clash between governments and innovation, but as a collective reckoning with the responsibilities of platforms that shape childhood experiences.

“There’s far more that unites us than divides us,” she said, noting that the safety concerns parents voice in Sydney mirror those she hears from families in Seattle or Chicago.

Her view underscores why countries watching Australia’s move are contemplating their own regulations. The momentum is no longer limited to Western democracies, governments across Asia, Europe, and Latin America are weighing stronger measures to counter the pervasive influence of social platforms on young users.

Enforcement vs. Accountability

All 10 platforms covered under Australia’s ban have pledged compliance. Yet even Inman Grant acknowledges that monitoring full adherence is a challenge, especially given the technical sophistication of major platforms.

But she believes regulatory pressure is rarely the only driver of change.

“In my experience, the law doesn’t always motivate companies to act. Reputational damage often does,” she said.

Australia’s approach may shape global norms in several key ways:

It challenges the default legal framework for online platforms.

For decades, tech companies have operated with broad immunity from liability. Australia’s ban reframes them as accountable actors in the same realm as auto manufacturers or pharmaceutical firms.

It may accelerate international policy coordination.

If more nations adopt similar restrictions, global platforms could face pressure to redesign youth experiences across markets rather than customize compliance country by country.

It raises the stakes for social media design choices.

Features that promote compulsion, outrage, or viral spread, long regarded as innovation, may soon be evaluated through a safety lens similar to other hazardous products.

It forces a deeper conversation about children’s digital rights.

Whether the U.S. follows suit remains uncertain, but parental advocacy is growing, and the cultural debate is shifting fast.

A Reckoning With Big Tech’s Role in Childhood

Australia’s teen social media ban marks a defining moment in the global movement to hold technology companies accountable for the risks young users face online. While critics warn of free-speech implications and enforcement challenges, the policy has already begun to reshape conversations worldwide about what responsible digital childhoods should look like.

For Inman Grant, the goal is simple: apply the same duty of care to social platforms that societies expect from every other industry delivering products to children.

Whether other nations follow Australia’s lead remains to be seen, but the pressure on Big Tech, from lawmakers and parents alike, is unmistakably rising.

 

ALSO READ:  The Hidden Internet Where Deleted Things Go to Live