Australia’s under-16 social media ban was meant to shut kids out. Five months on, most are still getting in.

The law came into force on December 10, requiring platforms to enforce strict age checks or face fines of up to $50 million for failing to take “reasonable steps”.

Now, the first major test of the ban suggests little has changed.

A 7NEWS Spotlight/YouGov survey of 1500 Australians aged 13 to 15 — the largest since the law began — shows 85 per cent are still using social media daily.

More than half (52 per cent) say it’s still easy to access platforms, with most simply lying about their age.

“I just made the account . . . threw in my name, faked my age — boom. It just says, welcome to Facebook,” said 14-year-old Oliver, one of the teens interviewed for the social media ban special.

For 51 per cent, there’s been no change. Another 22 per cent say their use has increased.

“I think it’s not surprising that young people would want to be on social media,” Paul Smith from YouGov said.

“But it’s clearly that the social media companies have not done anywhere near enough to get young people off social media.”

The top platforms remain unchanged — YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat and Facebook.

But beneath the headline numbers, there are signs of minor progress.

Online bullying is down nine per cent, while exposure to inappropriate and violent content has dropped 18 per cent.

Away from screens, habits are shifting too — 30 per cent of teens say they’re spending more time on sports and activities, and 27 per cent report better sleep.

“Now, these are modest improvements,” Mr Smith said.

“But it shows that the ban has had a real impact in improving, in just six months, the lives of our young people.

“It’s made good progress, but there’s a long way to go.”

Jeffrey, 14, said since the ban has kicked in, he’s felt “more connected” with his family, having better conversations without the distraction of social media.

Significantly, parents appear to be stepping in where platforms haven’t.

Sixty-seven per cent are now monitoring their children’s social media use, and 87 per cent of teens have discussed the ban at home.

“Parents have felt empowered by the ban,” Mr Smith said.

“And those 67 per cent of Australian parents who are monitoring their children are clearly making a difference in driving that improvement in the life experience of, alright, you’ve been on that long enough, now it’s time to go out and do something else.”

For Oliver, that can only be a positive.

“I have concerns that some parents don’t really know what they’re doing, what their kids are doing online,” he said.

“Maybe some (parents) need to up their game . . . I do think it should be up to the parents mainly (over the tech giants).”

Mother’s mission

For Emma Mason, the issue is deeply personal. Her daughter Tilly died by suicide in 2022 after relentless bullying. Now, she’s campaigning for stronger protections.

She wants tech giants to do more to remove under-16s, but said the pathway to success starts with bringing it to the front of the public mind.

“Success is that parents and teachers and schools are talking about this. Children are talking about this. And the children that are 10 and downwards will end up with a life in Australia where this is not the norm,” Ms Mason said.

She also believes enforcement is lagging, but remains confident it is coming.

“The government wasn’t going to wait to try and get the technology right because technology is constantly changing,” she said.

“It’s like trying to put a fence around a cyclone, trying to get everything right in time to get this law to work perfectly.

“So I think what it says is there’s a significant work to be done, but the work needs to be done by the social media companies who are continuing to allow this to happen.”

Internal documents exposed

Internal documents revealed in US lawsuits are now adding fuel to that argument.

In a Los Angeles courtroom, a case brought by a young woman known only as “Kayley” alleged social media platforms were built to hook users — fuelling addiction and a mental health crisis.

She claimed the algorithms didn’t just keep her scrolling — they hooked her, causing anxiety, depression and even suicidal thoughts.

Kayley took on the tech giants — Instagram, owned by Meta, and YouTube, owned by Google.

After a six-week trial and nine days of deliberation, a California jury found Meta Platforms and Google liable.

During the discovery process in that and other lawsuits, internal documents revealed long-running concerns inside tech companies.

In a 2017 email, one employee wrote: “oh good, we’re going after <13 year olds now?”

A colleague replied: “zuck (Meta chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg) has been talking about that for a while,” prompting the response: “yeah it was gross the last time he mentioned it”.

Another internal document states: “Instagram is an inevitable and unavoidable component of teens (sic) lives. Teens can’t switch off from Instagram even if they want to”.

And in a 2020 exchange, one employee wrote: “oh my gosh y’all IG (Instagram) is a drug”.

A colleague responded: “Lol, I mean, all social media. We’re basically pushers.”

“It’s the disconnect between these documents that show the truth of what’s going on in these companies,” Ms Mason said.

“And then the face of Antigone Davis, head of safety for Meta, who stands in front of our government and says, ‘I don’t think social media has done harm to our children’.”

“I mean, it riles me so much, because I just think, how can you as a company with that face say those things in circumstances where you well know the truth of the way you are functioning as a company?

“I think it’s such a disconnect. It’s a slap in the face to parents.”

The verdict so far is some gains, but a long way to go, and a growing question over whether the platforms — not just the laws — will be forced to change.

Lifeline 13 11 14