Australia has now become the first country to shut out children under sixteen from using major social media platforms, forcing services like TikTok, YouTube, Instagram and Facebook to block young users from midnight or face fines that can reach almost fifty million Australian dollars. What the government calls a protective measure has already triggered a fierce debate about censorship, digital rights and whether the state is overreaching into family life.

Ten of the biggest platforms were ordered to comply immediately. Tech companies, civil liberties organisations and online safety researchers have criticised the law as blunt and heavy handed, while many parents and child advocates welcomed it as long overdue. Even so, the decision has pushed Australia into uncharted territory. No other country has attempted an outright legal ban of this scale, and it is already being watched closely by governments considering similar measures.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese tried to frame the move as a gesture of care. In a video message that will be shown in schools, he told young Australians to use the upcoming holidays to pick up a sport, learn an instrument or read something instead of scrolling endlessly through algorithm driven feeds. He encouraged them to spend more time with friends and family face to face. The message may sound gentle, but it is attached to one of the most sweeping online restrictions ever imposed in a democratic country.

Here’s the thing. The rollout ends months of speculation over whether governments can realistically stop children from using technology that is deeply woven into social life. It also starts a global experiment in regulating digital habits at the source, and lawmakers worldwide are paying attention. Curtin University professor Tama Leaver put it bluntly. This is the canary in the coal mine. Once one government successfully takes on Big Tech, others will try.

Countries from Denmark to Malaysia and several US states already say they are exploring similar approaches. The backlash against social media intensified after the leak of internal Meta documents showing the company knew its platforms contributed to body image issues among teenagers. Meta insists it has built tools to protect minors, but public trust has eroded.

Even so, the harm reduction argument is only half the story. The ban lands at a moment when social media use among young people has started to stagnate. Platforms aren’t making much money from under sixteen-year-olds, but they still rely on young users to fuel future growth. Cutting off that pipeline has long term consequences for the industry, especially as engagement slows.

For the platforms included in the first phase, compliance now means age inference systems, facial age estimation based on uploaded selfies, identity document checks or even linked bank account verification. All but one company said they will comply. Elon Musk’s X refused and has called the law a backdoor method for the government to control broader internet access. A High Court challenge backed by a libertarian state lawmaker is already underway.

What worries critics is that the law reaches far beyond safety and into questions about privacy, autonomy and digital freedom. Many young people say the ban will isolate entire groups. Fourteen year old Annie Wang explained what adults often forget. For queer kids or those with niche interests, online spaces are sometimes the only place to find a community. Cutting that off doesn’t heal anything. It simply removes a lifeline.

The government says it plans to adjust the list of restricted platforms as new apps rise and others fade. But the speed and scale of the ban raise deeper questions about whether states should control who gets to communicate online. Australia may see this as protection, but for many, it feels like the first step toward normalising digital exclusion disguised as child safety.

The world will watch what happens next, but the underlying message is clear. Once a government decides it can shut millions of young people out of the digital public square overnight, the boundary of what is acceptable to regulate starts to shift. And once that boundary moves, it rarely moves back.