Signpost
Posts
🇦🇺 Australia: Social media is for adults only

🇦🇺 Australia: Social media is for adults only

In a pioneering move, tech companies will be fined for allowing users below 16 years old onto their platforms.

Imran Khan
November 29, 2025

Analysing meaning and power through language.

Hi Signposter. I first heard of Facebook back in 2004 when I was at York University in Toronto. I had a close friend who was studying at the University of Toronto at the time, and he told me how his university was now able to sign up for The Facebook, being the first Canadian university to do so. Back then, Facebook (as it is now called) required your university student email address to sign up, and was only limited to a few North American universities.

A few years later in 2007 I finally signed up for Facebook because of peer pressure. I was still in university, this time in Dubai, trying to redirect my academic and professional career from my failed attempt at science at York to communications in Middlesex. I immediately felt pressure to upload pictures, add friends, and ‘poke’ strangers.

Just before the pandemic hit in 2020, I had made a vow to stop using Facebook (despite having worked either in social media companies or with them as a marketer). I also tried (and stopped using) other social platforms like Snapchat, TikTok, Twitter, and Bluesky. I never opened an Instagram account. My usage nowadays is limited to YouTube (because that’s more to watch stuff than to connect with anybody) and LinkedIn (because I cannot avoid it even if I want to).

I’ve never met anyone who felt energised or happy about spending hours on social media. So while adults may not admit our addictions, Australia passed legislation this week that introduces a minimum age of 16 years for social media users in the country. In this issue of Signpost, we will have a look at what was the initial statement from the prime minister’s office earlier this month.

THIS WEEK

Gif by news on Giphy

Here is the entire text of the media release, verbatim from prime minister of Australia’s website, with specific words and phrases highlighted for semiotic analysis below:

The Albanese Government will legislate 16 as the minimum age for access to social media, following endorsement by National Cabinet today.

The decision follows extensive consultation with young people, parents and carers, academics and child development experts, community, industry and civil organisations, First Nations youth, and state and territory governments.

The Albanese Government will introduce legislation in the next Parliamentary sitting fortnight.

The Bill puts the onus on social media platforms, not parents or young people, to take reasonable steps to ensure fundamental protections are in place.

The Government will continue to work closely with stakeholders in the lead up to the commencement of the law, with a lead time of at least 12 months following the Bill’s passage to give industry, governments and the eSafety Commissioner time to implement systems and processes.

We will also use this time to develop guidance for parents, carers and children ahead of the change.

The Bill builds upon the Australian Government’s work to address online harms for young people, including the $6.5 million age assurance trial, establishing an online dating apps code, legislating new criminal penalties for non-consensual sexual deepfakes, and quadrupling base funding for the eSafety Commissioner.

The Government will ensure young Australians retain access to services that primarily provide education and health services, and work constructively with stakeholders to ensure that only services which meet the strict criteria under eSafety's powers are able to be accessed by children under 16.

Quotes attributable to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese:

“Social media is doing social harm to our kids. I’m calling time on it.

“We need to do everything we can to keep our kids safe, and wherever I go in Australia, I know one of the biggest issues worrying mums and dads is the impact social media is having on their children's well being.

“I want Australian parents and families to know we’ve got their backs.

“In the next Parliamentary fortnight we will introduce legislation into the Parliament to make 16 the minimum age to access social media.

“I want to thank the Premiers and Chief Ministers for their engagement and support on this issue.

“This is a national challenge that requires national leadership. That’s what our Government is stepping up to deliver.”

Quotes attributable to Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland MP:

“Introducing a minimum age for social media access is about protecting young people – not punishing or isolating them – and letting parents know that we are in their corner when it comes to supporting their children’s health and well being.

“Our decision to set the minimum age at 16 years is based on extensive consultation with experts, parents and young people. It strikes a balance between minimising harms experienced by young people during a critical period of development.

“Social media has a social responsibility for the safety of their users, and this legislation is one way they’re being held to account – with significant penalties for any breaches.

“This measure is a key component of our work across the online safety space and will enable young people to use the internet in a safer and more positive way.”

Prime Minister of Australia’s Office

CONTEXT

1️⃣ What is happening?

Some of the largest companies in the world are social media-first companies, specifically Meta and Google. TikTok was for the longest time the fastest growing and largest startup in the world, before being unseated by Open AI. Still, TikTok is also a huge company.

With tons of cash at their disposal, hundreds of thousands of highly qualified employees, and billions of users, it’s safe to say that the world has never had such a class of companies. And the users of these companies tend to skew younger.

The impact of social media on young people has been documented countless times, including cyberbullying, scams and extortions, grooming, warping their sense of reality, and general addiction to spending time on these platforms. The control of information has led to social media companies being accused of everything from undermining democracy to fuelling ethnic violence across the world. A recent example was how earlier this month X (formerly Twitter) rolled out a new feature showing user’s locations on the platform for greater transparency, exposing many high engagement, pro-Trump U.S. political accounts originating from outside the United States. This is being turbocharged by AI slop and the proliferation of bots online.

Despite all this doomsaying, social media has allowed for a freer community expression outside the usual four estates. While the results of the Arab Spring can be debated, Twitter and other social platforms were huge unifying social forces for the protests that led to Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, and Sudan deposing their leaders and calling for democratic reform. Many fringe communities, particularly the LGBTQIA+ community, have found social media to be a safe third space where they can connect with other members of their community from around the world, explore their identities, and form bonds, helping to bring greater social acceptance to their community in the offline world.

Since the great lockdown experiment of 2020, social media and online time spent has increased, but there are signs we may already be past the peak. In October 2025, a report in the Financial Times argued that peak social media happened in 2022 (paywall), with younger people showing the sharpest decline in usage.

Despite this, Australia has taken the extraordinary step of introducing a 16+ age limit for social media platforms in the country, and putting the onus of keeping younger users off the platform onto the companies themselves. It is to go into effect on 10th December.

2️⃣ What was written, and to whom?

The prime minister’s office issued their statement on 8th November introducing the legislation. Earlier this week, the legislation was passed, prompting Google to issue an official response. While the prime minister’s office has clearly targeted their message to parents and voters, Google has tried to tread lightly in their response, speaking for the youth effectively locked out of their services from next month.

ANALYSING THE TEXT

Words / Phrases	What it Says	What it Means
The Albanese Government	a decision made by the current administration	a decision made by Anthony Albanese
extensive consultation with young people	we spoke to young people about this	we didn’t override young people in making this decision
onus on social media platforms, not parents or young people	the pressure is on the platforms, not the people of Australia	remember this when the next election comes along
take reasonable steps to ensure fundamental protections are in place	we expect only what’s reasonable and necessary	we kept the language vague to allow for enough wiggle room for the platforms while claiming we’ve done our job
will continue to work closely with stakeholders	we will work with the social media companies	we are not ostracising the trillion dollar tech companies who are critical to the Australian economy
young Australians retain access to services that primarily provide education and health services	this is not a blanket ban	we will decide what constitutes ‘education and health services’
“Social media is doing social harm to our kids. I’m calling time on it.”	as prime minister, this is my decision	all social media is objectively bad. Remember my decision at the next elections
“I want Australian parents and families to know we’ve got their backs.”	I am putting Australian families first	I am putting Australian voters first
“about protecting young people – not punishing or isolating them – and letting parents know that we are in their corner”	we are not punishing young Australians	we are assuaging voting age parents’ fears by letting them know we care for them
“significant penalties for any breaches”	there will be consequences	which we will figure out how to manage

DECONSTRUCTING THE TEXT

🗝️ Unlocking Meaning

Australia prime minister Anthony Albanese has been front and centre of this legislation, ensuring that his name is associated with it. Part of the reason could be because Albanese convincingly won the federal elections in May, allowing Albanese and his party certain powers to push through high profile, visible legislation. Having said that, parents are generally behind the push.

Albanese’s language targets these very parents. It’s notable that at no point does Albanese or his government speak directly to the under-16 youth who are locked out of social media from next month. This targeting of language effectively reiterates his government’s narrative that these decisions are to be made by parents, and this government has the best interests of parents at heart. Albanese is leaning hard into being sincere and showing care to voters, if still vague about the technical details of how this will be implemented. It’s clear this is an emotional, human issue with strong social feelings and backing.

Crucially, Albanese has not singled out any specific company, referring to ‘social media’ in a non-specific, vague description. This is likely because most of these companies are American, and U.S. president Donald Trump has issued tariffs (some as high as 50%) on Australian goods coming into the United States. Considering that the U.S. invested $186B in Australia in 2024, Albanese does not want to turn off that spigot.

👑 Power Play

What of the tech companies themselves? Having worked at TikTok and Google previously, I know that in the case of private company versus state, the state always wins (eg: TikTok’s ban in India, TikTok’s political challenges in the U.S., and Google’s ban in China). Despite these major firms creating jobs and investing billions into the country, they are also aware that in today’s political climate, private business is conducted at the auspices of the state. Despite many of these private companies having a market cap larger than most national GDPs, political power trumps (pun not intended) any technical expertise.

The Albanese government clearly have legitimate power (having been elected via landslide) on the back of having referent power. They are using these strengths to exert moral power, while using coercive power on the tech companies.

Google has unfortunately responded to a human issue with a technical response:

The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill was just passed by the Australian Parliament, banning Australians under the age of 16 from holding an account on ‘social media’.

We are disappointed by the Australian Parliament's hasty passage of this Bill. Online safety is crucial, but effective regulation requires consultation and careful consideration. This rushed legislation overlooks the fundamental differences between services and the unique benefits these can deliver to Australian youth.

We urge the Government to swiftly follow through on their commitment to preserve access to services that “operate[s] with a significant purpose to enable young people to get the education and health support they need” and pass legislative rules that clearly exempt YouTube, thereby providing certainty to Australian families, creators, teachers, and educators.

Google Australia Blog

To make matters worse, Google, along with the other tech companies in the firing line, have not mounted a united front, choosing instead to fight the legislation individually. Each platform is determined to only get their own platform exempt from the ban, arguing that they are not like their competitors. Unfortunately for them, because all these platforms have been grouped together under the ban, admitting that their competitors are not the upstanding corporate citizens they claim to be makes the ban look legitimate.

One last thought: during my time at TikTok, I worked closely with some of the leadership in the monetisation team to craft their speeches and messaging both internally and externally. One of the leaders asked me once if we could use another word for ‘user’ to describe TikTok’s audience because the same word is used to describe drug addicts.

It’s also worth noting that some youth in Australia are challenging the ban.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Tell me your reasoning. In next week’s issue, I’ll highlight the most thought-provoking responses.

Was this forwarded to you? Signpost is a free weekly newsletter analysing meaning and power through language. It’s free to subscribe.

Think somebody else would enjoy this? Send them here.