• Anthony Albanese’s Labor Party amended Australia’s Online Safety Act to implement an under 16 Social Media Ban. 
• It is the first ban of its nature adopted by any country, but has faced setbacks as teenagers circumvent restrictions with relative ease. 
• Despite announcing an increase in penalties to strengthen the ban, its initial run has left a lasting impact on his popularity and credibility.

Why is Anthony Albanese COLD?

Answer: Despite Albanese’s successful implementation of the Social Media Ban, the policy’s lack of effectiveness is rapidly cooling any momentum gained. 

Anthony Albanese, Australia’s Prime Minister, has been re-elected for a second term in May 2025. Notably, he is the first prime minister in two decades to do so. The landslide victory allowed him to oversee the continued implementation of what has become his most renowned policy, the November 2024 amendment to the Online Safe Stay Act. This policy bans children under 16 years old from creating or owning social media accounts on websites like Instagram, X (formerly Twitter) and YouTube. Breaches of the act, however, do not place responsibility on individuals but rather on social media companies themselves which are tasked with taking measures to verify the age of their users. Non-compliance would result in these companies facing fines up to AUD $50 million. 

During Albanese’s first term he established a Parliamentary Select Committee that linked Social Media use to declining mental health among teenagers. It paved the way for widespread bipartisan support for a bill, with some reports suggesting nearly 77% of all Australians desired the changes. The bill passed after eight days of its introduction to the Parliament, with a majority of 34 votes to 19 in the Senate and 102 votes to 13 in the House of Representatives.

The social media ban came into effect on the 10th of December 2025, but due to its ineffective implementation, it has lost much of its positive momentum. A study conducted by the University of Newcastle revealed that nearly 86% of underaged teenagers reported continued access to the restricted platforms a few weeks after the ban was implemented with only two-thirds of the platforms reporting any form of age verification. Circumventing the ban is done by changing the self declared age, fake accounts or using another account. The Molly Rose Foundation found that nearly seven in ten children surveyed said it was easy to get around said restrictions. Therefore, the ban has been a setback for Albanese, highlighting the disparity between policy implementation from its effectiveness. 

What is changing Anthony Albanese’s heat level?

Answer: The inefficiencies of the ban have led to declining poll numbers and changes to the policy may come too late. 

In spite of banning nearly 550,000 Meta accounts since the launch of the amendment, inefficiencies stem from the lack of compliance by social media companies to properly implement measures. The e-commissioner stated that these enterprises were refusing to hand over the appropriate documents or cooperate. Nonetheless, the e-commissioner’s lack of appropriate investigative powers has been of particular concern.

Moreover, the ban is proving to be cooling his reputation because it plays into the rhetoric of Albanese’s opposition. One Nation, a prominent opposition party, launched the ‘fire the liar’ campaign focused on Albanese’s inability to follow up on his campaign promises, perfectly demonstrated by the social media ban. His declining popularity is reflected in recent polls conducted by sky news / You gov, where nearly 60% of voters were dissatisfied with Albanese. This translates to nearly 1 million voters that supported the labor party in 2025 having changed their opinion. The ‘fire the liar’ campaign led to One Nation overtaking the labor party in the primary polls at 29.5% compared to the labor’s 28%, and in districts like Victoria One Nation is leading for the first time in the last 5 years. One Nation leading on primary votes does not mean it would win a general election as Albanese’s party still leads comfortably on two-party preferred but these numbers still indicate changing voting preferences.

In response to the criticism, the government has recently announced that it will increase the penalties given to social media companies to AUD$99 million as a way to further incentivise the adequate enforcement. However the road map for implementing these changes came nearly 6 months after the policy’s implementation and are still vague. These modifications also act as an admission of shortcomings of the original policies at a time where support for Albanese is already slipping.

What is driving Albanese?

Answer: Albanese wants to position Australia as a pioneer in the field of internet policy regulation.

While the social media ban is proving to be tumultuous on the domestic front, the same cannot be said for the policy’s international support. In fact, it is the first ban of its nature to be implemented by any country, and for Albanese it serves a much larger purpose. 

During the ban’s consideration the Communications Minister gave a speech to the UNGA in September 2025, after which over 40 countries have begun considering their own version of the policy, using a similar rhetoric to Albanese’s. Evidently, Albanese wants to position Australia as a global pioneer and influence how nations face large social media companies. The most recent example of a country taking inspiration from Australia, is the UK and Keir Starmer who explicitly acknowledged Albanese’s policy as a direct influence for his own under 16 ban. 

Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the social media ban is a part of the wider Digital Duty of Care, the ultimate goal of Albanese’s digital policies. In this bill social media companies would bear the responsibility to prevent future harm from scams, gambling, and harmful content on the internet. 

What does this mean for you?

Answer: Social media bans are still gaining momentum worldwide. 

Regulating social media platforms is becoming a priority for the international community, especially when it concerns the ever evolving areas of cyber security and privacy. Consequently, Australia has effectively opened the pathway for many countries to follow suit. The first country to follow Australia’s model in South East Asia, Indonesia, is facing its own issues in implementing restrictions resulting in a similar pattern of expanding legislation as a response. 

As far as Australia is concerned, it is likely that the Digital Safety Act will continue to be amended, with greater powers for the eSafety commission, and increasing fines for social media companies.