TL;DR: Ctrl Holidays; Alt TV; Delete Teens

In this week's Plugged In, Australia just became the world's largest real-time experiment in digital childhood. On December 10, over one million teen accounts vanished as the world's first nationwide under-16 social media ban took effect.

By lunchtime, VPN searches were spiking. By evening, parents posted videos of 15-year-olds defeating age checks in minutes. But something unexpected happened too: relief. Not just from parents, but from some teenagers themselves. When everyone quits together, peer pressure vanishes.

This week also brought new research isolating social media—not TV, not video games—as uniquely damaging to children's attention spans. The timing matters as Malaysia, Norway, Denmark, and EU lawmakers watch Australia's enforcement challenges unfold.

Whether you see this as bold policy or government overreach, what happens in Australia will shape digital childhood laws worldwide.

Here's what parents need to know.

Enjoying Plugged In? Forward this to a parent friend who's also trying to navigate digital parenting decisions. They can subscribe here

Most Voice AI deployments fail for the same reasons: unclear logic, limited testing tools, unpredictable latency, and no systematic way to improve after launch.

The BELL Framework solves this with a repeatable lifecycle — Build, Evaluate, Launch, Learn — built for enterprise-grade call environments.

See how leading teams are using BELL to deploy faster and operate with confidence.

Get the Guide

Australia's under-16 social media ban took effect on December 10, 2025. By lunchtime, VPN searches were spiking and workarounds were being shared online.

Australia became the world's first country to ban social media for everyone under 16. The law requires platforms to take "reasonable steps" to prevent under-16s from creating or maintaining accounts. Platforms that fail face fines up to A$49.5 million (£25 million).

Platforms banned: Instagram, Facebook, Threads, TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, X (Twitter), Reddit, Twitch, and Kick.

Platforms NOT banned: Discord, Roblox, WhatsApp, Pinterest, Messenger, Steam, and YouTube Kids.

Why the exemptions? According to the eSafety Commissioner, platforms are only restricted if their "sole or primary purpose" is social networking. Messaging apps like WhatsApp and Messenger, gaming platforms like Roblox and Steam, and communication tools like Discord are currently exempt because they're classified as serving communication or gaming purposes rather than social media. However, these classifications may be reassessed if platforms evolve, and the inclusion of Roblox remains controversial given recent child safety concerns on the platform.

Most platforms began removing accounts starting December 4, with full enforcement beginning December 10. Meta started early on December 4, TikTok deactivated all under-16 accounts regardless of what email or name was used, and YouTube automatically signed out account holders. Snapchat suspended accounts for three years. Twitch delayed deactivating existing accounts until January 9.

Platforms verify ages through live video selfies that analyse facial data points—no government ID required due to privacy concerns.

The immediate problems:

VPN companies are advertising directly to Australian teens as a way to bypass the ban. Google Trends shows "VPN" searches spiked as the ban went live. The government insists VPNs won't work if platforms follow guidelines properly, but that remains to be tested.

Age verification is already being defeated. One parent posted video of his 15-year-old daughter passing both Snapchat's and Instagram's over-16 age checks within minutes.

Alternative platforms are surging. Photo-sharing app Yope gained 100,000 Australian users as the ban approached. ByteDance's Lemon8 is being promoted as a TikTok backup. Both are now on the eSafety Commissioner's radar—but critics call this "whack-a-mole."

The safety paradox:

Parents have lost the monitoring tools they had when children had accounts. Children can still watch YouTube, scroll through TikTok and browse Instagram—they just can't log in. This means they're viewing everything without filters or age-appropriate protections. YouTube itself warned parents that its parental controls "only work when your teen is signed in."

Who's watching:

Malaysia has already announced plans to ban social media for under-16s starting in 2026. Norway, Denmark and the European Parliament are monitoring Australia's approach. Prime Minister Albanese acknowledges the ban won't be perfect, comparing it to drinking age laws: "The fact that teenagers occasionally find a way to have a drink doesn't diminish the value of having a clear, national standard."

Stanford University researchers will track affected teens' mental health, sleep patterns, and behaviour changes over at least two years—publishing findings for other countries considering similar policies.

What's next:

A High Court constitutional challenge continues. Two 15-year-old Australians argue the ban violates their right to freedom of political communication. Communications Minister Michelle Rowland told Parliament that the government remains committed to the legislation despite legal challenges.

One thing is already clear after the first day: enforcement will be the ongoing challenge critics predicted.

Source: CNN | TechRadar | NBC News | NZ Herald

Full story: Read the complete Day One breakdown at Wired-Parents.com

Whilst VPN searches spike and workarounds spread, there's a quieter reaction: some Australian families are actually relieved.

The peer pressure trap:

Research reveals why individual families can't solve this alone. When researchers asked college students how much they'd need to be paid to deactivate social media for a month, they said $50. But when asked how much they'd pay if their peers did the same thing, they said they'd pay the researchers to make it happen.

Translation: teens want off social media but can't quit alone because of peer pressure.

The mutual relief:

Australian tech support company Original PC Doctor described what happened when the ban took effect: "The chat disappeared. The kids were relieved. The parents were relieved. The pressure was gone."

Aalia Elachi, 16, has never had social media. When her smartphone broke at age 10, her parents never replaced it. She told lawmakers: "I'm still as tech literate as the next 16-year-old. I just don't have TikTok or Instagram eating up hours of my childhood every day."

Amanda Oliver, a Queensland mother of five, says getting her 11-year-old Emma off apps has been "bloody hard." She's thrilled the ban is hitting before Emma becomes a teenager. Oliver bought her daughter a new bike and crafting supplies. "As a tired parent, I don't want to do any of that to be honest," she told the Washington Post. "But as a parent, that's my job, isn't it? So I will lovingly entertain her for the next five years, as difficult as that might be."

Why this matters:

Prime Minister Albanese framed the ban as giving parents "backup" against peer pressure. When one family bans social media, their child faces social isolation. When the government bans it for everyone under 16, no child is singled out.

Individual parents couldn't create a level playing field alone. The drinking age comparison: teenagers still find ways to drink, but the standard matters.

This doesn't mean the ban works perfectly or that all teens are happy about it. But it does explain why some families—even teens themselves—are quietly relieved that someone finally made the decision they couldn't make alone.

The research behind it:

Children are trapped in what economists call a "collective action problem." They'd be better off without social media, but can't quit individually because the social cost is too high. Only when everyone leaves together can anyone leave at all.

Australia just proved it's possible to break that cycle.

Source: NBC News | Washington Post

Full story: Read why some Australian families are relieved at Wired-Parents.com

What happened: Researchers at Karolinska Institutet in Sweden published research on December 8 that isolates social media as uniquely linked to declining attention spans in children. The study followed 8,324 children aged 9-10 in the United States for four years.

The key finding: Children who spent significant time on social media platforms such as Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, Facebook, Twitter, or Messenger, gradually developed inattention symptoms. Crucially, there was no such association for watching television or playing video games.

Why social media is different: "Our study suggests that it is specifically social media that affects children's ability to concentrate," says Professor Torkel Klingberg. "Social media entails constant distractions in the form of messages and notifications, and the mere thought of whether a message has arrived can act as a mental distraction."

Television and video games don't produce the same attention deficits. The researchers point to social media's unique characteristics: constant interruptions, unpredictable timing of content or interactions, and platform design that keeps users checking back repeatedly.

The numbers: Average time spent on social media rose from approximately 30 minutes daily for 9-year-olds to 2.5 hours for 13-year-olds. Since most platforms set their minimum age requirement at 13, this means children in the study were using social media for years before they were technically old enough, and their attention was measurably deteriorating during that period.

What this doesn't mean: The researchers stress that not all children who use social media develop concentration difficulties. The study shows a pattern across thousands of children, not a guarantee every child will be affected identically. It also doesn't examine whether removing social media would reverse attention problems in children who've already developed them.

The timing: This research arrived just two days before Australia implemented the world's first blanket ban on social media for under-16s. Denmark, Malaysia, and the EU have announced similar plans. Lead researcher Samson Nivins explicitly hopes the findings will "help parents and policymakers make well-informed decisions on healthy digital consumption that support children's cognitive development."

The question it raises: If social media specifically—not screens in general, not even other interactive digital entertainment—is associated with declining attention in children, what is it about these platforms that creates this effect? And if a child is going to have screen time, does it matter what kind?

The team plans to continue following the children after age 14 to see if the association holds.

Study: "Digital Media, Genetics and Risk for ADHD Symptoms in Children – A Longitudinal Study," Pediatrics Open Science (8 December 2025)

Find out more: Wired Parents

The school holidays have arrived, and with them comes the inevitable question: what happens to screen time when structure disappears?

Children now spend an average of 7½ hours daily looking at screens. A June 2025 survey by Lurie Children's Hospital found that parents want nine hours per week, whilst reality is twenty-one hours—more than double their preferred amount. Two-thirds of parents say they'd like to reduce screen time, yet nearly half rely on screens daily to manage parenting responsibilities.

The guidance has evolved. The American Academy of Pediatrics has largely abandoned strict time limits, emphasising that how screens are used matters more than counting minutes. Recent research from Sweden's Karolinska Institute found that social media specifically—not TV or video games (see article above)—was linked to declining attention, highlighting that not all screen time is equal.

The most interesting research centres on boredom. Multiple neuroscience studies in 2025 show that when children aren't receiving external stimulation, the brain's default mode network activates—the same system responsible for creativity, self-reflection, and planning. Children who regularly experience boredom develop stronger neural pathways for creative problem-solving and self-directed learning.

The challenge? Modern devices create a high baseline of dopamine stimulation, making ordinary activities feel boring by comparison. When children consistently use screens to alleviate boredom, they miss opportunities to develop coping skills and emotional regulation.

Rather than prescribing a single approach, experts suggest creating structure without rigidity, distinguishing between screen types, planning a gradual reset before school returns, and preparing for boredom complaints without immediately solving them. The goal isn't to eliminate screens during holidays, but to ensure they're one option among many.

Read more: Wired Parents

For more articles from the week, head over to Wired-Parents.com

Malaysia rolls out its own under-16 social media ban in 2026. Denmark, Norway and several EU nations are watching Australia's enforcement challenges, particularly the VPN workarounds and platform migration, before deciding their approach.

The US App Store Crackdown

Three US states have passed laws requiring age verification before minors can download apps or make in-app purchases. Texas's law takes effect January 1, 2026, Utah's on May 6, and Louisiana's on July 1. App store providers (Apple, Google) will need to verify all users' ages and obtain verifiable parental consent before allowing minors to download apps or make purchases.

Meanwhile, the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) remains stuck in Congress. The House weakened the Senate version by removing the "duty of care" provision—the requirement that platforms design products to prevent harm to minors. Parent advocacy groups and Sen. Blumenthal are pushing back. Whether a compromise passes in 2026 remains uncertain.

Roblox's Mandatory Face Scanning

Roblox's voluntary face verification for chat features becomes mandatory globally in January 2026. Currently optional, verification will become required for all users wanting to chat whilst gaming. Parents have until then to decide: verify and keep chat access, or skip verification entirely and lose chat functionality.

UK and EU Enforcement

Ofcom has already begun fining sites for age verification failures under the UK's Online Safety Act. Two reports are due in 2026: one assessing age assurance effectiveness (July) and another on app stores' role in children's exposure to harmful content (January 2027). This could result in app stores being brought under the Act.

The EU is expanding Digital Services Act enforcement beyond big tech to smaller platforms, with coordinated focus on age verification and child protection measures.

The new year brings fresh questions about restriction versus education and whether the global trend toward age-based bans will prove more effective than the transparency and design requirements that preceded them.