A historic initiative to prohibit all children under 16 from accessing social media is about to unfold in Australia, but teens are already pushing back.

Initially announced last November, this prohibition, proposed by Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, will commence on December 10th. On this date, all underaged users of platforms like Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube, and Snapchat will have their accounts removed.

Companies operating social media platforms may incur fines up to A$49.5 million (£25 million) if they do not comply by expelling underage users. Nonetheless, neither parents nor children face penalties.

This regulation is garnering global attention. The European Commission is considering a similar rule. So far, discussions have centered on implementation methods, potential age verification technologies, and the possible adverse effects on teens who depend on social media to engage with their peers.

As the deadline approaches, teens preparations are underway to defy these restrictions. A significant illustration is of two 15-year-old boys from New South Wales, Noah Jones and Macy Neyland, who are challenging the social media ban in the nation’s highest court.

“The truth is, kids have been devising ways to bypass this ban for months, but the media is only catching on now that the countdown has begun,” Jones remarked.

“I know kids who stash their family’s old devices in lockers at school. They transferred the account to a parent or older sibling years ago and verified it using an adult ID without their parents knowing. We understand algorithms, so we follow groups with older demographics like gardening or walking for those over 50. We engage in professional discussions to avoid detection.”

Jones and Neyland first sought an injunction to postpone the ban but opted instead to present their opposition as a specific constitutional challenge.

On December 4, they secured a crucial victory as the High Court of Australia agreed to hear their case as early as February. Their primary argument contends that the ban imposes an undue burden on their implied freedom of political speech. They argue this policy would compromise “significant zones of expression and engagement in social media interactions for 13- to 15-year-olds.”

Supported by the Digital Freedom Project, led by New South Wales politician John Ruddick, the duo is rallying for their cause. “I’ve got an 11-year-old and a 13-year-old, and they’ve been mentioning for months that it’s a hot topic on the playground. They’re all active on social media, reaping its benefits,” Ruddick shared.

Ruddick noted that children are already brainstorming methods to circumvent the ban, exploring options like virtual private networks (VPNs), new social media platforms, and tactics to outsmart age verification processes.

Katherine Page Jeffrey, a researcher at the University of Sydney, mentioned that the impending ban is starting to feel tangible for teenagers. “Up until now, it seems young people hadn’t quite believed that this was actually happening,” she commented.

She adds that her children have already begun discussing alternatives with peers. Her younger daughter has downloaded another social media app called Yope, which is not listed on the government’s watch list yet, unlike several others like Coverstar and Lemon8 that have been warned to self-regulate.

Lisa Given, a researcher at RMIT University in Melbourne, believes that as children drift to newer, less known social media platforms, parents will struggle to monitor their children’s online activities. She speculated that many parents may even assist their children in passing age verification hurdles.

Susan McLean, a foremost cybersecurity expert in Australia, argued that this situation will lead to a “whack-a-mole” scenario as new apps emerge, kids flock to them, and the government continually adds them to the banned list. She insists that rather than taking social media away from teenagers, governments should compel large companies to rectify algorithms that expose children to inappropriate content.

“The government’s logic is deeply flawed,” she pointed out. “You can’t prohibit a pathway to safety unless you ban all communications platforms for kids.”

McLean shared a poignant quote from a teenager who remarked, “If the aim of this ban is to protect children from harmful adults, why should I have to leave while those harmful adults remain?”

Noah Jones, one of the teen complainants, stated it bluntly: “There’s no greater news source than what you can find in just 10 minutes on Instagram,” he insisted. “Yet, we faced bans while perpetrators went unpunished.”