In December 2025, Australia introduced a world-first social media ban for people under the age of 16. While the policy aims to improve social and mental health outcomes in young people, it also carries foreign policy implications in an era where social media is used to commodify the attention of its users and influence individual preferences and beliefs.

Australia’s Landmark Policy

Australia’s world-first under-16 social media ban came into effect in December 2025 as a key component of the country’s new Online Safety Act. The ban covers popular social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat and YouTube, with companies failing to comply fined up to AU $50 million (£26 million) (Champion et al., 2025; Taylor, 2025b).

The policy has widespread political support, with both major parties hailing the ban’s aim to reduce the mental and social harms of social media on young people (Champion et al., 2025; La Sala et al., 2025). There is less consensus within the scientific community, with critics arguing that the link between social media use and mental health outcomes is not clear cut (Singh et al., 2026). However, regardless of whether the ban will have the desired effect, it is likely to significantly impact the way Australian teenagers socialise and spend their time, with those aged between 12 and 15 spending an average of 13.5 hours a week online. 93% use this time to chat with friends; and watch videos, movies or TV (eSafety Commissioner, 2021).

Countries around the world have responded to Australia’s move with cautious optimism. In January this year, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer indicated that the UK government would be considering a similar policy to protect the experience of children online, with policy consultations beginning in March (Chen & Lhomedet, 2026; Stacey & Milmo, 2026). Similar moves have been made by leaders in India, Malaysia, Denmark, Norway and Spain.

The US response: Social media bans as a barrier to a free attention economy

The US presents an exception to global sentiment, citing fears that such policies encroach upon free speech. In November 2025, the Republican administration called on Julie Inman Grant, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, to address these concerns  before a US Congressional committee (Lavoipierre, 2025). Elon Musk, owner of X, has further expressed his concern around the lawfulness of Australia’s policy, citing its incompatibility with rights relating to freedom of expression (Taylor, 2025a).

The motivation behind the US’ response likely lies in its status as the home ground for many of the world’s largest social media companies. Apart from TikTok, all social media companies affected under the Australian ban are based in the US. As such, behind talks of free speech, the US’ response to the Online Safety Act is likely motivated by the fear that tech companies could lose access to markets where the attention of young people is commodified. In this way, the ban can be considered a tool of foreign policy which may subject the US to economic and ideological sanctions by removing its near-monopoly over the attention economy.

Social Media and the Attention Economy

To understand the attention economy, we must begin with the premise that the attention of individuals can be treated as a commodity. That is, that companies can trade in their ability to influence our attention, just as the labour market influences our capacity to work (Browne & Watzl, 2026). When applied to social media, the attention economy allows for companies’ influence to be traded between consumers, social media platforms, and advertisers (Browne & Watzl, 2026):

1. Attention is traded firstly between consumers and social media platforms, with users offering their attention in exchange for free access.
2. Platforms collect user data to feed algorithms which then adjust to present content aligned with individuals interests, maximising their time spent on the platform (Bhargava & Velasquez, 2021).
3. Attention is also traded between platforms and advertisers in the form of user data. Platforms sell user data to advertisers who use this information to inform marketing campaigns tailored to user interests.

Together, algorithms and advertiser campaigns perpetuate a cycle in which the social media landscape is moulded to hold and commodify user attention, allowing companies to build economic and ideological power. The commercialisation of our attention is problematic in the way it threatens our autonomy. What we are influenced to pay attention to directly affects our preferences, opinions, and subsequent behaviour.

Today’s under-16s are among the first generation to be raised under the influence of the internet and as such, have been fully integrated into the attention economy from an early age. They therefore represent an important demographic which tech companies can influence and commodify. In light of Australia’s social media ban, the question becomes: what happens when companies lose access to this key demographic? Breaking the link between Australia’s young people and social media platforms restricts the influential power of these companies on two levels – economically through the removal of a key source of revenue generation, and ideologically through the removal of their ability to transform the attentional landscape and influence opinions and behaviour..

While this discussion has the potential to sound conspiratorial, there is precedent for the use of social media as a tool to influence our mental landscape by capturing our attention.

The 2018 Cambridge Analytica scandal revealed how Facebook users’ data was used to target them with personalised political advertisements favouring Donald Trump (Berghel, 2018; Cadwalladr & Graham-Harrison, 2018). This example illustrates how user data is used to inform the presentation of future content which reinforces existing beliefs. Today, the spread of ideological messaging can be seen in the rise of misogynistic social media content driven by the ideologies of the ‘manosphere’. Content from influencers such as Andrew Tate exploits the insecurities of young boys, using sensationalism and humour to spark interest, with algorithms driving continued engagement. The effect is the normalisation of misogyny, studied in boys as young as 13 (Rollano et al., 2026).

Final Thoughts

While not labelled as such, Australia’s social media ban is deeply political in the way it blocks US tech companies’ access to a key demographic and its associated attention economy. In a world which is becoming increasingly polarised, social media bans can be viewed as a way of reclaiming power through control of the digital sphere, protecting the minds of young people from commodification and potentially divisive ideologies.

Berghel, H. (2018). Malice Domestic: The Cambridge Analytica Dystopia. Computer, 51(5), 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2018.2381135

Bhargava, V. R., & Velasquez, M. (2021). Ethics of the Attention Economy: The Problem of Social Media Addiction. Business Ethics Quarterly, 31(3), 321–359. https://doi.org/10.1017/beq.2020.32

Browne, K., & Watzl, S. (2026). The attention market—And what is wrong with it. Philosophical Studies, 183(1), 227–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-025-02436-3

Cadwalladr, C., & Graham-Harrison, E. (2018, March 17). Revealed: 50 million Facebook profiles harvested for Cambridge Analytica in major data breach. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election

Champion, K. E., Birrell, L., Smout, S., Teesson, M., & Slade, T. (2025). Debate: Social media in children and young people – time for a ban? Beyond the ban – empowering parents and schools to keep adolescents safe on social media. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 30(4), 411–413. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.70032

Chen, C., & Lhomedet, H. (2026, January 27). From Australia to Europe, countries move to curb children’s social media access. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-europe-countries-move-curb-childrens-social-media-access-2025-12-09/

eSafety Commissioner. (2021). Digital lives of Aussie teens | eSafety Commissioner. eSafety Commissioner. https://www.esafety.gov.au/research/digital-lives-of-aussie-teens

La Sala, L., Filia, K., Gao, C. X., Baker, D., Browne, V., Brennan, N., Freeburn, T., Boon, B., & Teo, S. M. (2025). Social Media and Young People in Australia: Findings from the 2024 Mission Australia Youth Survey. Mission Australia and Orygen.

Lavoipierre, A. (2025, November 19). Australia’s eSafety commissioner called to testify before US Congress and labelled a “zealot.” ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-19/julie-inman-grant-called-to-testify-us-congress/106028042

Rollano, C., Pérez-González, J.-C., & Román-González, M. (2026). A Framework for Understanding the Manosphere. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 20(1), e70123. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.70123

Singh, B., Zhou, M., Curtis, R., Maher, C., & Dumuid, D. (2026). Social Media Use and Well-Being Across Adolescent Development. JAMA Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2025.5619

Stacey, K., & Milmo, D. (2026, February 26). UK social media ban for under-16s edges closer with Starmer expected to back it. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/feb/26/uk-social-media-ban-under-16s-consultation-keir-starmer-backing

Taylor, J. (2025a, September 24). Elon Musk’s X calls for delay in Australia’s child social media ban citing ‘serious concerns’ about policy’s lawfulness. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/24/australia-child-social-media-ban-age-varification-elon-musk-x-calls-for-delay-citing-policy-lawfulness

Taylor, J. (2025b, December 9). Social media ban explained: When does it start in Australia, how will it work and what apps are being banned for under-16s? The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/dec/10/social-media-ban-australia-explained-banned-apps-list-guide

Disclaimer 

The views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author/s and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IDS.