Grace Anderson, 15,
Share this @internewscast.com
Opinion: I keep seeing people acting shocked that social media is out of control, and yet the ban feels like the government has finally noticed a problem we’ve been living with for years and picked the laziest fix.

Being 15 and navigating the online world is far from simple. Most would agree that the digital landscape presents a relentless pressure to stay trendy, adopt certain appearances or behaviors, and remain constantly connected.

This digital whirlwind is exhausting, and many teenagers confess that stepping away from it might be in their best interest.

Grace Anderson, 15,
Fifteen-year-old Grace Anderson says the Australian government is taking the easy option with the implementation of the social media ban.(Supplied)

Social media hasn’t just entered the lives of today’s teens; it has taken over with forceful momentum.

However, proposing a complete ban as a solution is not as effective as it might seem.

In my view, banning social media for young users punishes individuals rather than addressing the root of the issue. It’s not the users who are problematic—it’s the applications themselves.

Prohibiting access for those under 16 doesn’t resolve the underlying issues within social media. It doesn’t alter the algorithms that push extreme content into view, nor does it compel platforms to be accountable for their addictive designs.

Banning every under 16 doesn’t fix the parts of social media that are actually broken. It doesn’t change the algorithms that shove extreme content in your face. It doesn’t make platforms take responsibility for the way they design apps to keep us addicted.

When someone finds a way around the ban, because trust me – they will, the cycle just repeats.

Nothing improves. The problem doesn’t disappear, it just goes into hiding.

Cutting teenagers off such a big part of society for the first 16 years of life doesn’t “fix” social media. It just means that when we do turn 16, the shift is an unnecessary confrontation with reality that could so easily be softened.

Policies like these act as if every teenager is the same. That’s not true – as if a 12-year-old on TikTok at 2am is identical to a 15-year-old using Instagram to keep up with school, friends, and sport. A harsh rule doesn’t recognise differences.

Differences in people, in apps.

I don’t want to be treated like one big problem to be managed.

If governments actually wanted to help, they’d go after the companies. Force them to fix features that make social media so damaging – streaks, instant gratification, constant notifications. Instead we’re stuck with a ban, which is the most basic solution to this complex problem.

I could’ve thought of it.

I’m not against it. Not fully. I can see where they were coming from. I see the addiction in society, I see it in myself.

But there were so many ways to help. To help kids see themselves in lights that aren’t overshadowed by their phones. What Australia needed right now wasn’t an age restriction, a blanket ban, a loss of trust with the government.

What Australia needs is an overhaul, a genuine effort to collaborate with social media companies on making them a safer and useful place for everyone.

They took the easy option, and it will fail.

Until they choose the harder option, this policy isn’t protecting teenagers. It’s just avoiding the truth.

Share this @internewscast.com
You May Also Like
The way you watch TV is about to change — again

Revolutionizing TV Viewing: Discover the Next Big Shift in Home Entertainment

Prepare for another shake-up in your TV app lineup. As part of…
Fierce red rash spotted on Trump's neck

Mysterious Red Rash Appears on Trump’s Neck: What Could It Mean?

A new rash on the right side of US President Donald Trump‘s…
kyle and jackie o fight jackie set to return

Jackie O Departs Leading Breakfast Show Amid Kyle Sandilands’ Suspension for Serious Misconduct

After a notable 22-year tenure, Jackie Henderson has bid farewell to the…
A glitch at an Amazon Web Services (AWS) data centre in the US left millions around the world unable to access half the internet, but how exactly did it cause the widespread disruption?

Amazon Services Disrupted in Middle East Amid Facility Strikes: Impact on E-commerce and Delivery

Several Amazon Web Services are down in the Middle East after three…
Three US fighter jets accidentally shot down by 'friendly fire'

Friendly Fire Fiasco: US Fighter Jets Downed in Shocking Military Blunder

On Monday, a mishap involving “friendly fire” led to the crash of…
Diners flee Dubai restaurant after mistaking Ramadan cannon for bomb blast

Dubai Diners Mistake Ramadan Cannon for Explosion, Sparking Momentary Panic

A Ramadan cannon blast at sunset was mistaken for a bomb blast…
'We will kill you': Chilling US threat as war spirals

U.S. Issues Grave Warning Amid Escalating Conflict

The war in the Middle East has spiralled further as Israel and…

Live Updates: Rising Death Toll in Middle East Conflict; Trump Warns of Protracted War

Overnight in Australia, tensions have escalated as the conflict involving the US…
Mehdi Taj (left) has said Iran may not compete in this summer's 'inappropriate' World Cup

Iran Considers Withdrawing from US World Cup 101 Days Before Kickoff Following Tensions

Iran might withdraw from this summer’s World Cup in the United States,…

Who’s in charge of Iran, and what is the process for selecting a new Supreme Leader?

The 36-year tenure of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the autocratic leader of Iran,…

Pauline Hanson Faces Censure for Controversial Comments on Muslim Community

IN BRIEF The censure motion passed with Labor and Greens’ backing, but…
A prominent businessman's appeal against a legal‑costs order from a previously private family dispute with his DJ ex has backfired - forcing the case into open court and allowing both parties to be named for the first time. (Pictured: Matthew Pringle and Olivia Nervo)

Prominent Figures Revealed in High-Profile Family Dispute: Noted DJ and Business Mogul’s Case Goes Public, Potentially Impacting His Fortune

A high-profile businessman’s attempt to overturn a legal-costs ruling from a past…