The first big finding is simple: these bans often do not work as intended. They can reduce some visible use, but they rarely keep all affected young people off social media.

Getting around the rules is usually easy. Common methods include borrowed accounts, fake ages, parent help, and VPNs.

Early Australian evidence fits this pattern: account ownership can fall, but a large share of prior users still retain access.

The second big finding is that use often moves rather than stops. When one platform is harder to access, people switch to others that may be less transparent or less moderated.

Badly designed restrictions can limit access to lawful speech without delivering the safety benefits promised.

The Online Safety Act has already narrowed access to lawful online speech in practice; an under-16 social media ban could extend those effects further.

If mainstream platforms are blocked, users may move to less transparent alternatives with weaker moderation and safeguards.

In our assessment, this makes a broad under-16 ban difficult to justify: the likely benefits are uncertain, while the risks to lawful access and free expression are clearer.