A groundbreaking study conducted by the Molly Rose Foundation and YouthInsight has delivered a sobering assessment of Australia’s recent decision to implement a social media ban for children under 16. The research, which surveyed 1,050 young people aged 12 to 15, reveals that the policy is largely failing to achieve its primary objective. Contrary to the narrative of a decisive “firebreak” against digital harms, 61% of Australian children who held accounts on restricted platforms prior to the legislation continue to maintain access. Perhaps most alarmingly, the data indicates that this persistence is not due to widespread circumvention by minors, but rather a failure by tech companies to proactively identify and deactivate accounts belonging to underage users.
The efficacy of the major tech platforms comes under direct scrutiny in the report, which highlights a widespread lack of administrative enforcement. With over half of previous users on TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram still able to access their accounts, the findings suggest that the industry has largely failed to enforce the new age restrictions. Statistics show that roughly two-thirds of YouTube and Snapchat users reported that their platforms took no action to deactivate their pre-existing accounts. Critics argue this allows tech giants to evade responsibility for safety failings while creating a “false sense of security” for parents who believe the digital environment has been cleansed of underage activity.
Beyond the administrative shortcomings, the study raises concerns about the actual impact of the ban on the wellbeing of Australian youth. Half of the surveyed children stated that the restrictions have resulted in no change to their perceived online safety, while 14% noted that the ban actually made them feel less secure. When asked about their general wellbeing in the wake of the policy, only 22% reported a positive impact, while a combined 74% noted either no change or a negative shift in their day-to-day lives. These findings suggest that the legislative focus on a blanket ban may be obscuring the more pressing need to address the fundamental design choices of these platforms.
In light of these results, the Molly Rose Foundation has issued a stark warning to the UK government, which is currently consulting on its own child safety regulations. Arguing that an Australia-style policy would be a “high stakes gamble,” the Foundation suggests that rushing to implement a similar ban would be a strategic error. Instead of acting as a panacea for digital harm, such legislation risks letting technology companies off the hook for the underlying product safety failures that allow addictive, harmful, and inappropriate content to flourish regardless of user age.
The Foundation is now heavily lobbying the UK Prime Minister to pivot from the idea of a generic age ban toward a more robust framework centered on an updated Online Safety Act. Their proposal calls for a stringent “Duty of Care” that mandates tech companies reconfigure their business models to prioritize safety over profit. By shifting the regulatory focus to the “egregious product safety failures” inherent in platform algorithms and addictive design features, advocates believe the UK can bypass the pitfalls seen in Australia and implement a legally binding structure that actually holds global tech giants accountable.
Ultimately, the Molly Rose Foundation is calling for a decisive shift in policy ahead of the King’s Speech. They argue that parents are united in their desire to protect children, but remain underserved by current, superficial legislative approaches. By focusing on evidence-based regulation—such as targeting the algorithmic engines that drive harmful engagement—the UK has an opportunity to lead the world in online safety. The research serves as a definitive reminder that effective regulation requires addressing the root causes of platform toxicity rather than relying on blunt, unenforceable prohibitions that fail to protect the children they are intended to support.