TL;DR: Teens Fight Back; YouTube Folds; Parents Take the Phones

In this week's Plugged In, more stories from Australia, the first country in the world to ban social media for everyone under 16. Over one million teen accounts will be deactivated in six days, YouTube, the last holdout, finally capitulated this week and two 15-year-olds filed a High Court challenge to stop the ban.

Their argument isn't that teens should have unlimited social media access. It's that blanket bans don't work when the internet exists, it just drives teenagers to VPNs, fake profiles and unregulated platforms and fundamentally doesn’t make anyone safer, it just makes the problem harder to see.

Whether you think Australia's ban is bold policy or government overreach, what happens on 10 December matters beyond Australia. Norway, Denmark, Malaysia, and the European Parliament are all watching to see if this works or backfires spectacularly.

Also this week, the phone basket trend that's transforming children's parties, why AI detection in schools has failed and what teachers are doing instead.

Here's what parents need to know.

Transform your team’s static training materials into dynamic, engaging video guides with Guidde.

Here’s what you’ll love about Guidde:

1️⃣ Easy to Create: Turn PDFs or manuals into stunning video tutorials with a single click.
2️⃣ Easy to Update: Update video content in seconds to keep your training materials relevant.
3️⃣ Easy to Localize: Generate multilingual guides to ensure accessibility for global teams.

Empower your teammates with interactive learning.

And the best part? The browser extension is 100% free.

Check out Guidde

Eight days before Australia's social media ban takes effect, one of the teens challenging it in court has explained why she thinks the law will make the internet less safe, not more.

Macy Neyland, 15, is one of two teenagers who filed a High Court challenge on 26 November to stop the ban. In court documents filed this week, she argues the ban's real impact will be pushing teens to unregulated platforms and workarounds.

Her argument:

"Driving us to fake profiles and VPNs is bad safety policy. Bring us into safer spaces, with rules that work: age-appropriate features, privacy-first age assurance, and fast takedowns."

The logic: if platforms are legally required to block under-16s, teens won't simply give up social media. They'll create fake profiles, use VPNs to mask their location, or move to platforms that don't comply with Australian law—all of which put them in less regulated, less safe environments.

What happens on 10 December:

Over one million Australian accounts belonging to under-16s will be deactivated on Instagram, Facebook, Threads, TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, X, Twitch, Kick, and Reddit. Platforms face fines up to A$49.5 million (£25 million) for failing to comply.

Meta has already started sending teens warnings to download their data before 4 December. Snapchat is implementing age verification using bank-linked digital ID.

The constitutional challenge:

Neyland and fellow plaintiff Noah Jones, also 15, argue the ban violates their implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication. They're asking the High Court for an urgent injunction to prevent the law taking effect while the case proceeds.

Communications Minister Anika Wells: "We will not be intimidated by legal challenges. We will not be intimidated by Big Tech. On behalf of Australian parents, we stand firm."

What Neyland and the Digital Freedom Project want instead:

Why this matters beyond Australia:

Norway, Denmark, Malaysia, and the European Parliament are all watching to see if Australia's approach works—or backfires.

If Neyland is right and the ban pushes teens to unregulated platforms using VPNs and fake profiles, other countries may think twice before following Australia's lead.

The stakes:

The High Court decision isn't just about whether two teenagers keep their Instagram accounts. It's about whether governments can effectively regulate teen social media use through blanket bans, or whether the internet simply routes around such restrictions.

We'll know within days whether the ban takes effect as scheduled or whether the court grants an injunction.

Source: Wired Parents

One week before Australia's under-16 social media ban takes effect, the last major holdout has capitulated.

YouTube announced Wednesday it will comply, calling it a "disappointing update" and warning the law "will, in fact, make Australian kids less safe on YouTube".

From 10 December, users aged under 16 will be automatically signed out. They can still watch videos without logging in, but can't subscribe, like, comment, or post content.

The decision ends months of resistance. The government initially exempted YouTube for educational purposes, then reversed course in July.

Communications Minister Anika Wells revealed Wednesday that YouTube dispatched a representative of the Wiggles, Australia's beloved children's entertainment group, to argue against inclusion.

"I said to them, you're arguing that my 4-year-old twins' right to have a YouTube login is more important than the fact that four out of 10 of their peers will experience online harm on YouTube," Wells said.

When YouTube warned parents that "parental controls only work when your pre-teen or teen is signed in, so the settings you've chosen will no longer apply," Wells shot back: "It's weird that YouTube is always at pains to remind us all how unsafe their platform is in a logged out state. If YouTube is reminding us all that it is not safe, that's a problem that YouTube needs to fix."

Platforms face fines up to A$49.5 million for failing to prevent under-16s from holding accounts. All major platforms have now agreed to enforce the ban: Meta (Facebook, Instagram, Threads), Snapchat, TikTok, X, YouTube, Reddit, Twitch, and Kick.

YouTube's warning about parental controls no longer working raises an uncomfortable question: if logged-out YouTube is so unsafe that the platform itself warns parents about it, what exactly has the ban accomplished?

Children can still watch everything, they just can't comment, subscribe, or use any of the safety features parents previously relied on. The platform that insisted it should be treated as an educational tool is now pointing out that forcing kids to use it logged out makes it less safe, not more.

The government's response is essentially: that's YouTube's problem to fix.

Source: Reuters

At children's parties these days, a familiar scene plays out: the activity finishes, and within minutes, half the children have their phones out, scrolling and snapping instead of talking to each other. The party atmosphere dissolves. Parents who spent hours planning wish they'd done something—but weren't sure they had the right to tell other people's children to put their phones away.

Turns out, they do. And the parents who've actually done it are discovering something surprising: children don't just tolerate phone-free parties. They thrive at them.

One family hosts an annual party for 30 middle schoolers. This year, they tried something different: a phone basket at the door. As children arrived, they were asked to place phones in the basket. A few rolled their eyes. But every child complied.

What happened next: 2.5 hours of charades upstairs, ghost stories around the fire pit outside, guitar playing and singing. These weren't specially curated screen-free children, they were school friends with smartphones and social media accounts. Many would have preferred Fortnite to board games.

But because they couldn't default to screens, they stepped out of comfort zones. Because they couldn't take pictures, they made memories. Because they couldn't text, they talked.

Given the choice, they wouldn't have chosen to put phones in the basket. Which is precisely why the adults chose for them.

At two large teen parties, event organisers implemented formal phone check systems; tags, compartmentalised boxes, an attendant parents could call if needed. Most guests handed over phones readily. Without devices, they took advantage of everything the party offered.

There were two notable incidents. One boy requested his phone to "call a parent," then was found ten minutes later hunched in a corner scrolling whilst everyone else danced. One girl claimed "medical issues" requiring her phone, then was found Snapchatting with five friends on a sofa. Phone separation anxiety, diagnosed on the spot.

But overall? Parents thanked the organisers for setting a precedent. They recognised that without phones as a safety net, children were forced to socialise in real time. Social graces can only be learned from actual human interaction.

Some parents worry that limiting phone use for visiting children constitutes overreach. It doesn't. These children are guests in your home, where certain behavioural norms exist. If something they're doing compromises those norms and affects your own children, you have the right to do something about it.

A simple approach: text the parent beforehand. "Just a note that I'd like it to be a screen-free play, so if you could mention that ahead of time, I'd appreciate it." Parents typically don't push back. Many seem relieved that someone else is willing to be the phone police.

The resulting play is noticeably different: active, energetic, noisy. Children who normally default to screens suddenly want to wrestle on the living room floor, practice flips on trampolines, stage impromptu jam sessions. For some of these children, it may be the only time all week when an adult makes them put the phone away and just play.

Daily screen time averages: 5.5 hours for 8- to 12-year-olds, 8 hours 40 minutes for 13- to 18-year-olds. Why would we deny children the opportunity to take a break? Parties are precisely where children practice social skills—making conversation, including others, reading social cues. When phones come out, that practice stops.

We adults need to normalise phone-free spaces. We have a responsibility to create them—whether at parties, play dates, or youth group meetings. These spaces allow children to spend time without the urge to scroll compulsively or have their attention constantly tugged elsewhere.

And since most parents love the idea of their children getting off devices, you're more likely to receive gratitude than resistance.

There's no way to discuss this without it sounding like "taking something away." But the devices themselves are what's taking away—children's time, attention, communication skills, interactions. Removing phones isn't punishment. It's liberation.

The evidence from phone-free parties is clear: children don't just survive without phones for a few hours. They play harder, laugh louder, connect more deeply, and create memories that will last far longer than any Snapchat story.

Your party. Your home. Your rules.

Read the full story of how parents are implementing phone-free parties—with practical tips for making it work

If your child's school announces more in-class assessments and less weight on homework, AI is likely the reason.

Andrej Karpathy, former director of AI at Tesla and OpenAI founding member, recently addressed a school board about AI's implications for education. His framework offers a clear picture of how schools are responding.

The Core Problem

Schools cannot reliably detect whether students used AI to complete homework. Detection tools don't work consistently and can be easily defeated. Schools must assume any work done at home has potentially used AI assistance.

The Solution

If schools can't trust at-home assignments, grading shifts to in-class evaluation where teachers can monitor students directly. Homework becomes practice rather than proof. Students remain motivated to learn because they know they'll be tested independently.

The philosophy mirrors calculators: teach foundational skills first, then introduce the tool. But AI is far more fallible than calculators. It confidently produces wrong answers and misinterprets instructions. Students who understand underlying concepts can spot errors. Students who've only used AI cannot.

What Teachers Can Do

Assessment options include no tools allowed, cheat sheets permitted, open book, or even providing AI-generated responses for students to evaluate and improve. A literature class might give students an AI essay to critique. A maths class might allow AI for calculations but require students to show their logic.

What Parents Should Know

Expect homework to count for less. Expect more quizzes and in-class essays. Ask your school: What's your AI policy for homework? How are you adjusting assessments? Are you teaching students how to use AI effectively?

The goal: children who are proficient with AI whilst remaining capable without it.

Source: Andrej Karpathy, former Director of AI at Tesla and OpenAI founding member, speaking to a school board

Full story: Wired Parents

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

This is the big one—Australia's world-first social media age restriction takes effect on 10 December, requiring platforms including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X, YouTube, Threads, Kick, Reddit and Twitch to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from holding accounts, with fines up to A$49.5 million for non-compliance.

What's actually happening:

The court challenge: The Digital Freedom Project filed a constitutional challenge in the High Court, but Communications Minister Anika Wells told Parliament the government remains committed to the ban taking effect on schedule, saying "We will not be intimidated by legal challenges. We will not be intimidated by Big Tech".

Global attention: Malaysia has also announced plans to ban social media accounts for children under 16 starting in 2026, and multiple countries are watching closely.