The largest social media corporations in the world are not doing their part to ensure that children in Australia are not accessing their sites, the country’s internet regulator believes, despite a law that came into effect late last year.

The law prohibited users younger than 16 on 10 sites, yet eSafety claims it has “major issues” with the adherence of Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube.

The campaigners and the government justified the ban in Australia (which is being monitored closely by other countries such as the UK) as a way of ensuring that children are not exposed to harmful content and addictive algorithms.

Such companies as Meta and Snap think the strategy is misguided, yet say they are doing the best they can to abide by it.

The regulator, in its initial report since the ban was triggered in December, claimed that it had found a number of bad practices by the five platforms.

These include:

• Allowing children who had claimed that they were younger than sixteen years when the ban was imposed the opportunity to prove that they were indeed older than sixteen.
• Allowing under-16s to have a repeat of the same age assurance approach.
• Lack of adequate measures to stop new under-16s setting up accounts.
• Failing to offer effective means of reporting under-16s who continued to have access to social media by their parents and others.

There has been a small amount of data released since the ban was enacted. In January, the regulator reported that 4.7 million accounts had been limited or closed in the first month since the law was passed on December 10.

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Julie Inman Grant has expressed worries that “some social media platforms are not doing enough to ensure they adhere to the Australian legislation amid our compliance monitoring.”

“The regulator that has so far been keeping an eye on the situation indicates that it will commence imposing the restrictions and collecting evidence.”

“The evidence should prove that the platform has failed to implement reasonable measures to avoid children under the age of 16 having an account,” Inman Grant said.

This is more than just proving the existence of children who still have accounts, but instead, the evidence needs to prove that the platform has not put in place proper systems and processes.

All the social media companies have been approached by the BBC to comment.

A spokesperson of Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Messenger, and Threads, indicated that the company was determined to abide by the social media ban in Australia. It also observed that the correct age verification is a problem for the entire industry, and it claims that the best method to guard young people is to enforce a strong age verification and parent approval at the app store level.

Snap, the creators of Snapchat, reported that it has locked 450,000 accounts and that
it is still locking more accounts daily.”

Although the ban was introduced in Australia with much hype, it is common knowledge that most users below the age of 16 still use 10 of the platforms that the legislation applies to: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, X, YouTube, Reddit, and streaming platforms Kick and Twitch.

In a visit by the BBC to a school in Sydney last month, most of the students who had access to social media prior to the ban still had access. Others argued that they were not requested to demonstrate their age, and others claimed that they had evaded the age checks.

One of the pupils said that she knew only of three girls in her group of 180 who had been kicked off platforms.

The policy has been well supported by parents in Australia. To most, when the government is on their side, they are likely to win when they are at loggerheads with pre-teens who are willing to get on social media.

However, critics abound, and technology experts and child well-being advocates state that children should be taught about the possible evils on the platforms, instead of being prohibited from using them.

And most people doubt the enforceability of the ban and argue that it discriminates against minority groups like rural children, disabled teenagers and LGBTQ+ individuals – all of whom may feel more at home when they are online.

On Tuesday, the eSafety commissioner said the reform was “unwinding 20 years of entrenched social media practices”.

Inman Grant said: “Durable, generational change does not happen overnight – yet these platforms can meet the demands of today.

“Although the responsibility lies on age-restricted sites to take reasonable measures to ensure that children below the age of 16 do not have accounts, parents are turning out to be the key collaborators in this cultural re-setting.”

“We have heard from parents who have said the law is empowering them to say no to requests by their kids to have social media accounts.”

“Any cultural transformation that threatens the overpowering interests and money-making opportunities of established industry actors, be they car manufacturers, Big Tobacco or Big Tech. They will counter-push, but we will keep pushing on.”