Because of that culture, and the easy transferral of laws between former British colonies, Australia has often found itself leading the world in regulatory innovation. Seatbelt requirements, cigarette warnings, bike helmets, food nutrition labels, the list goes on. Australia leads in these because of that political focus on social cohesion.
In this way, it makes sense that Australia has taken one of the first major steps to regulate and limit the role of social media companies in modern life.
Loading
The great hope over the past 20 years was that social media companies would police themselves. They paraded in Canberra and Brussels and Washington that they must be left to their own devices, that they knew best how to develop their own platforms in a way that benefited the greatest number.
Industries such as these rarely, if ever, correct themselves. Left to their own devices, they will market vapes to children to grow their shareholder value and claim the bright colours and fruity flavours were only an accidental overlap with the same marketing psychology tricks that the producers of Bluey use. One of the great roles of government is to protect consumers, to guide private sector development in a way that doesn’t destroy public trust.
Australia is leading on this social media ban exactly because there is a general acceptance here that this is one of the primary functions of government.
More than a dozen other countries, along with the EU, are openly musing about a similar effort to rein in the excesses of the tech giants. Denmark has already announced a similar under-16 ban, though they are grappling with similar questions of enforcement that continue to wrack Australia. Only the coming years will tell how far these efforts will go.
Loading
And yet this issue seems poised to break like a wave across much of the world, with governments in Malaysia and Norway opening debate for these measures in 2026. All these countries are looking to Australia as a model for how to govern in a complicated world but also to see how citizens react to these new rules.
A measure like this will almost certainly not happen in the United States while Donald Trump and JD Vance hold power. The CEOs of these companies who have fought tooth and nail against this ban in Australia were all sitting in the front row of their inauguration. They continue to give generously to Trump’s pet projects, including his new White House ballroom that reeks of this administration’s gaudy dictatorial aesthetics.
While these social media platforms are wildly popular in terms of their use, they aren’t trusted. Most of us carry a sense that our lives are being dominated by large, unaccountable corporations far away from our understanding or oversight. We may disagree on the exact mechanism, but there is a genuine hunger for someone to do something about this feeling of modernity sinking into a distracted hellscape.
Countries are going to continue looking at how this rolls out in Australia. There are big questions about surveillance and workarounds where young people end up on alternate sites – and how the regulation will extend to those newly emergent platforms. Because this law relies on AI inference rather than paperwork, this policy experiment may become a template for how governments can govern in a reality shaped by AI rather than ignoring it.
Loading
Australia has called the bluff of these companies. Silicon Valley has thus far resisted regulation on the argument that they have become too integral to the fabric of society that they can no longer be rolled back. And despite deploying The Wiggles as erstwhile lobbyists, this law is now in place.
Much of the world has been itching to put some kind of control on these companies. Perhaps we all needed a rule-obsessed country to take the first step, one with a dorky prime minister whose historically large victory in May has made him immune to much of the anxiety that would terrify less robust governments.
For now, Australia has forced Silicon Valley to bend.
Cory Alpert is a PhD researcher at the University of Melbourne looking at the impact of AI on democracy. He previously served the Biden-Harris Administration for three years.
The Opinion newsletter is a weekly wrap of views that will challenge, champion and inform your own. Sign up here.
