Australia’s Social Media Ban Is Isolating Kids With Disabilities—Just Like Critics Warned

from the who-could-have-seen-this-coming? dept

We’ve been covering Australia’s monumentally stupid social media ban for kids under 16 since before it went into effect. We noted how dumb the whole premise was, how the rollout was an immediate mess, how a gambling ad agency helped push the whole thing, and how two massive studies involving 125,000 kids found the entire “social media is inherently harmful” narrative doesn’t hold up.

But theory and data are one thing. Now we’re getting real-world stories of actual kids being harmed by a law that was supposedly designed to protect them. And wouldn’t you know it, the harm is falling hardest on the kids who were already most vulnerable. Just like many people predicted.

The Guardian has a deeply frustrating piece about how Australia’s ban is isolating kids with disabilities—the exact population for whom social media often serves as a genuine lifeline.

Meet Indy, a 14-year-old autistic girl who used social media to connect with friends in ways that her disability makes difficult in person:

While some young people were exposed to harmful content and bullying online, for Indy, social media was always a safe space. If she ever came across anything that felt unsafe, she says, she would ask her parents or sisters about it.

“I have autism and mental health things, it’s hard making friends in real life for me,” she says. “My online friends were easier because I can communicate in my own time and think about what I want to say. My social media was my main way of socialising and without it I feel like I’ve lost my friends.”

As the article notes, the ban started just as schools in Australia let out for the summer, just when kids would generally use communications systems like social media to stay in touch with friends.

“I didn’t have all my friends’ phone numbers because we mostly talked on Snapchat and Instagram. When I lost everything I all of a sudden couldn’t talk to them at all, that’s made me feel very lonely and not connected,” she says.

“Being banned feels unfair because it takes away something that helped me cope, where I could be myself and feel like I had friends who liked me for being myself.”

This is exactly what critics pretty much across the board warned would happen. Social media isn’t just “distraction” or “screen time” for many young people with disabilities—it’s their primary social infrastructure.

Advocacy group Children and Young People with Disability Australia (CYDA) says social media and the internet is “often a lifeline for young people with disability, providing one of the few truly accessible ways to build connections and find community”.

In a submission to the Senate inquiry around the laws, CYDA said social media was: “a place where young people can choose how they want to represent themselves and their disability and learn from others going through similar things”.

“It provides an avenue to experiment and find new opportunities and can help lessen the sting of loneliness,” the submission said. “Cutting off that access ignores the lived reality of thousands and risks isolating disabled youth from their peer networks and broader society.”

This goes beyond people with disabilities, certainly, but the damage done to that community is even clearer than with some others. We were among those who warned advocates of an age ban that nearly every study shows social media helps some kids, is neutral for many, and is harmful for some others. The evidence suggests the harmed group is less than 5% of kids. We should do what we can to help those kids, but it’s astounding that politicians, advocates, and the media don’t seem to care about those now harmed by these bans:

Isabella Choate , CEO of WA’s Youth Disability Network (YDAN), says they are concerned that young people with disability have been disproportionately affected by losing access to online communities. “Young people with disability are already isolated from community often do not have capacity to find alternative pathways to connection,” Choate says.

“Losing access to community with no practical plan for supporting young people has in fact not reduced the online risk of harm and has simultaneously increased risk for young people’s wellbeing.”

A few years back we highlighted a massive meta study on children and social media that suggested the real issue for kids was the lack of “third spaces” where kids could be kids. That had pushed many into social media, because they had few unsupervised places where they could just hang out with their friends. Social media became a digitally intermediated third space. And now the adults are taking that away as well.

Ezra Sholl is a 15-year-old Victorian teenager and disability advocate. His accounts have not yet been shut down, but says if they were it would mean “losing access to a key part” of his social life.

“As a teenager with a severe disability, social media gives me an avenue to connect with my friends and have access to communities with similar interests,” Ezra says.

“Having a severe disability can be isolating, social media makes me feel less alone.”

There’s a pattern here: every time kids find a space to gather—malls, arcades, now social media—a moral panic emerges and policymakers move to shut it down. It’s almost as if adults just don’t want kids to gather with each other anywhere at all. But the kids still figure out ways to gather.

As Ezra notes in that Guardian piece, most kids are just… bypassing the whole thing anyway:

But he adds that many of his friends have also evaded the ban, either because their original account was not picked up in age verification sweeps or because they started a new one.

“Those that were asked to prove their age just did facial ID and passed, others weren’t asked at all and weren’t kicked off,” Ezra says.

So the kids who follow the rules, or whose parents enforce them, lose their support networks. The kids who figure out the trivially easy workarounds keep right on using social media. And the politicians get to take victory laps about “protecting children” while the most vulnerable kids pay the price.

It doesn’t seem like a very good system.

Remember, this is the same Australia where that recent study found social media’s relationship with teen well-being is U-shaped—moderate use is associated with the best outcomes, while no use (especially for older teenage boys) is associated with worse outcomes than even heavy use. Australia’s ban is taking kids who might have been moderate users with good outcomes and forcing them into the “no use” category that the research associates with worse well-being. Even if you’re cautious about inferring causation from that correlation, it should, at minimum, give policymakers pause before assuming that less social media automatically means better outcomes.

And yet, the folks who pushed this ban remain unrepentant. The Guardian quotes Dany Elachi, founder of the Heads Up Alliance (one of the parent groups that advocated for the ban), taking credit for starting the “debate” and saying that it’s a “win” in his book that kids are suffering now, because… that’s part of the debate, I guess?

“So the fact that this was a debate that was front and centre for over a year means that the message got through to every parent in the country, and from that perspective alone I count it as a win,” Elachi says. “What happens further from that is a bonus, we are trying to change the social norm and that takes years.”

He’s essentially shrugging off the actual harms as collateral damage, which is quite incredible, because you know that he would be screaming loudly about it if any tech company ever suggested any harms to kids on social media were collateral damage.

“Ultimately we don’t want to have platforms policing what is going on, we just want parents themselves to say ‘this is not good for you’ to their twelve or thirteen year old children, and saying the new standard is that we don’t get on social media until we’re 16 – just like we don’t think twice about not giving cigarettes to kids any more or about not giving them alcohol to drink in early teens.”

Right. Except the law doesn’t let parents make that call. It makes it for them. That’s… the entire point of the ban. Parents who think their autistic kid benefits from social media connections don’t get to decide their kid can keep using it. The government has decided for them.

This is what happens when you build policy on moral panic instead of evidence. You end up with a law that:

• Cuts off support networks for kids with disabilities
• Does nothing about the kids who just bypass it
• Ignores the actual research on what helps and harms young people
• Was pushed by an advertising agency that makes gambling ads
• Lets politicians claim victory while vulnerable kids suffer

But sure, think of the children.

Filed Under: australia, kids, kids and social media, social media, social media ban