Communications

age verification for social media

It's because water is dangerous that we teach kids how to swim

We all want to keep kids safe; it’s fundamental to who we are as human beings. The world is a scary place, and there are people out there who would do us and our loved ones harm. It’s natural to want to shield the people we care about the most from that danger.

But this instinct extends way past the current debate around social media. It’s been what’s propelled us before, through debates around how to handle the risks posed by fast food, sugar, alcohol, tobacco, video games, violent films, and just about any new technological development.

We haven’t always got it right.

But the approach of banning access outright has never worked before. It is strange we think it will work now.

This approach, of blanket prohibition for children under 16, misunderstands both the nature of digital engagement and the lessons we’ve learned from other domains of risk management in adolescent development. Just as we teach children to swim because water poses inherent risks, we must adopt a more nuanced approach to social media exposure that emphasises guidance and graduated independence rather than prohibition.

The current proposal: Understanding the implications

The push to ban under-16s from social media platforms presents significant practical and privacy challenges that deserve careful examination. To enforce such a ban, platforms would need to verify the age of every user – not just new accounts, but existing ones as well^[1]. This verification would likely require users to provide government-issued identification or other sensitive personal documents to social media companies, who would then need to maintain databases of this information and potentially share it with government authorities for compliance verification.

This creates several immediate concerns. First, it establishes massive databases of identity documents linked to social media accounts – an attractive target for cybercriminals and a potential privacy nightmare. Second, it requires social media companies to become de facto identity validators, a role they’re neither equipped for nor suited to perform. Third, it creates a precedent for government access to social media identity verification data, raising serious privacy and surveillance concerns.

Alternative enforcement mechanisms might include IP-based restrictions or device-level controls, but these are easily circumvented through VPNs or device sharing. This is not a dreamed-up hypothetical: already, nearly 30 per cent of Australians rely on VPNs^[2], which mask the user’s country of origin (and would, therefore, exempt the user from the restrictions). Payment verification through credit cards presents similar issues – they can be borrowed from parents or siblings, and requiring payment for age verification would effectively monetise basic social connection.

The swimming pool paradigm

Instead of pursuing unworkable prohibition, we should look to how society manages other potentially dangerous but essential activities. Consider how we approach water safety: We don’t ban children from swimming until they’re 16. Instead, we create structured environments for learning, with appropriate supervision and graduated levels of independence.

Swimming pools maintain different depths, with clear markings and safety equipment. Lifeguards provide oversight without hovering over every swimmer. Most importantly, we accept that while swimming carries inherent risks, the solution is education and preparation rather than prohibition.

This approach has proven remarkably successful. Despite water’s inherent dangers, we’ve managed to make swimming both accessible and generally safe through a combination of education, supervision, and graduated independence. The same principles can apply to social media engagement.

A graduated approach to digital engagement

Rather than imposing a binary cutoff at age 16, we should establish a graduated system of social media access that reflects the reality of digital literacy development. This approach would begin with supervised access in pre-teen years, progressing through increasingly independent usage as young people demonstrate understanding and responsibility.

The early stages would feature parent-linked accounts with significant oversight and limited feature access. As young users demonstrate responsible usage and complete digital literacy milestones, they would gain access to more features and greater independence. This mirrors how we handle other coming-of-age activities, from learning to drive to managing money.

This system would require social media platforms to develop more sophisticated access controls and parental oversight tools. However, these technical requirements are far more achievable than implementing and maintaining a comprehensive age verification system for all users.

Implementation framework

The implementation of this graduated access system would require cooperation between platforms, educators, and regulators. Platforms would need to develop robust parental controls and tiered access systems. Schools would integrate digital literacy education into their curricula, helping students understand both the opportunities and risks of social media engagement. Regulators would establish clear guidelines for platform features and safety mechanisms while avoiding the privacy pitfalls of universal age verification.

This framework would include:

• Clear guidelines for platform safety features, including content filtering options and reporting mechanisms that grow more sophisticated as the user gains experience. These would be technical requirements rather than privacy-invasive verification systems.
• Educational components that help young users understand digital citizenship, online safety, and responsible social media use. This education would be integrated into school curricula and supported by platform-based tutorials and resources.
• Parental engagement tools that provide oversight without requiring constant monitoring, allowing young users to develop independence while maintaining appropriate safety nets.

Policy recommendations

1. Replace blanket age restrictions with a graduated access system that includes supervised learning periods and progressive independence.
2. Mandate that platforms develop robust parental oversight tools and tiered access systems rather than universal age verification requirements.
3. Integrate digital literacy education into school curricula, focusing on responsible social media use and online safety.
4. Establish clear safety guidelines for platforms while avoiding privacy-invasive verification requirements.
5. Create support systems for parents and educators to help guide young people through their social media journey.

The impulse to protect children from online harms through age restrictions is understandable but misguided. Just as we don’t keep children away from water until they’re 16, we shouldn’t attempt to ban them from social media. Instead, we must create structured environments for learning and graduated independence.

This approach acknowledges both the risks and the essential nature of social media in modern life. By focusing on education, supervised experience, and graduated independence, we can better prepare young people for digital citizenship while maintaining necessary safeguards. Most importantly, we can achieve these goals without creating new privacy risks or unworkable verification requirements.

The path forward lies not in prohibition but in preparation. By teaching young people to navigate social media safely and responsibly, we prepare them for full participation in our increasingly digital world.

---