When calendars turned to December 10, pockets of the nation held their breath as the world looked on to see how Australia would fare in its implementation of the Under-16 ban of interaction with social media platforms including YouTube, Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, and Reddit.
The response was a mixed one, as the government, from the top down, recognised it would be a "work-in-progress" and an endeavour with serious boundaries and even more serious penalties for platforms that failed to comply with what had been researched, planned and promised for certain months, likely years, of monitoring the debilitating and often fatal impact of social media realities on young people.
Our newspaper heard from parents and teachers, also reaching out to local leaders, about their thoughts on the initial implementation, realising that time will indeed tell, what benefit will be realised within this continued collective hope for greater protection.
Deputy Principal of the School of Total Education (SOTE), Rachael Eastwell, also a mum of two teens under 16 years, told us she's optimistic about the restrictions.
"From both a professional and personal perspective, I believe this legislation is a positive step," she said. "As a parent, I see first-hand the impact social media can have, particularly on young girls. The constant comparison, the intensity of online friendships, and the pressure to stay connected can make it incredibly difficult for young people to switch off. Many struggle to disengage even when they are overwhelmed or unhappy.
"For parents, this creates a real challenge. It can feel as though social media has such a strong hold that it becomes hard to get through to our children, or to help them see that there is more to life beyond what is happening on a screen. In that context, external boundaries are not about punishment they are about support."
Ms Eastwell said that the philosophy of the Total Education model blends well with the invention to "help protect developing minds while young people are still learning how to regulate themselves emotionally and socially".
While optimistic, she's also realistic that the ban "will not solve every issue, but it will make a meaningful difference".
"(The ban) eases some of the pressure families face by removing the need for constant negotiation and conflict around access," she said. "It also creates space, space for young people to reconnect with themselves, with others, and with experiences beyond the digital world.
"For many families, this change may open the door to healthier conversations and a gradual reset of habits, rather than parents feeling like they are constantly pushing uphill against powerful platforms."
Ms Eastwell said the financial penalties for technology companies are "necessary" and takes the pressure off parents.
"Parents are often trying to compete with systems designed to maximise engagement and emotional investment," she said. "This legislation recognises that families should not be left alone to manage that imbalance without meaningful accountability from those who profit from it."
While companies, and even young people, may attempt to find methods around the restrictions, "calm and connected adults" are needed to help those younger than 16 years "rediscover other ways of relating, creating and belonging," she continued to reflect.
"This transition offers families an opportunity to strengthen those protective factors and remind young people that life is bigger, richer and more meaningful than what appears on a screen," Ms Eastwell said.
Have an opinion on how this ban has been received in your family? Have ideas for engagement with young people, beyond screens? Let us know at editor@thedailyjournal.ink as we continue this conversation in future editions.
