Contents
- Australia’s Social Media Ban On Users Under Age 16
- The Stark Reality Of Educational Costs In India
​Australia’s Social Media Ban On Users Under Age 16
Australia has become the first country to enforce a blanket ban on social media accounts for users under 16, and governments worldwide are closely observing it as a potential model for much tougher regulation of Big Tech and youth online safety.
About the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act
The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 is an law that prohibits children under the age of 16 from holding accounts on designated social media platforms.
Key Provisions
- Minimum Age of 16: Children under 16 are legally restricted from creating or maintaining accounts on "age-restricted social media platforms".
- Targeted Platforms: The law currently applies to major services including TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, X (formerly Twitter), Reddit, YouTube, Threads, Kick, and Twitch.
- "Reasonable Steps" Requirement: Platforms must implement systems to identify and deactivate accounts held by under-16s. The eSafety Commissioner provides guidelines on what constitutes "reasonable steps," which may include various age assurance technologies.
- Platform Liability, Not Users: The burden of compliance lies entirely with social media companies. There are no penalties for children who bypass the ban or for parents who allow their children to use these platforms.
Exemptions
Certain digital services are excluded from the age restriction to ensure children can still access essential tools for education, health, and communication. These include:
- Messaging & Communication: WhatsApp, Messenger, and standard email or video calling services.
- Gaming Platforms: Roblox and Steam.
- Educational & Health Tools: Google Classroom, YouTube Kids, and help services like Kids Helpline.
- Other: Professional networking (e.g., LinkedIn) and information-focused services like Pinterest.
Penalties and Enforcement
- Civil Fines: Companies that fail to comply face massive penalties of up to A$49.5 million for serious breaches.
- Privacy Mandates: To protect user data during age verification, the law requires platforms to destroy personal information once it has been used to verify a user's age.
Rationale of the Australian Goverment
The Australian Government’s primary rationale for the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 is to safeguard children from the documented psychological and social harms associated with social media use during "critical stages of their development".
The government has framed this as a "duty of care" obligation for tech platforms, arguing that the industry's existing self-regulation has failed to protect minors.
1. Mental Health and Wellbeing
The central justification is the "social harm" caused by social media, which Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has described as a "scourge".
- Addictive Design: The government targets "predatory algorithms" and design features (such as infinite scrolls and push notifications) that encourage excessive screen time and sleep deprivation.
- Psychological Impact: Officials point to high rates of anxiety, depression, and body dissatisfaction among teens, often driven by social comparison and idealized standards.
- Isolation: The government aims to shift youth activity back to physical environments, with the Prime Minister stating he wants children "on the footy field or the netball court" rather than on their phones.
2. Protection from Online Crimes and Harassment
The Act is a direct response to rising public concern over the safety of children in digital spaces.
- Cyberbullying: Government data indicates that over 50% of young Australians have experienced cyberbullying, which has been linked to several high-profile cases of youth suicide.
- Predatory Behavior: The ban is intended to reduce opportunities for online predators to target, groom, or manipulate children through account-based interactions.
- Harmful Content: Platforms serve up "sensational or polarizing content," including hate speech and extremist ideologies, which the government argues under-16s are not developmentally prepared to manage.
3. Failure of Existing Safeguards
The government argues that current "parental controls" and platform policies are insufficient.
- Bypassing Restrictions: It noted that many children under the current industry standard age of 13 easily bypass restrictions, and that 13-15-year-olds remain highly vulnerable.
- Industry Accountability: By shifting the burden of enforcement to platforms (with fines up to A$49.5 million), the government aims to force "Big Tech" to invest in robust safety and age-assurance technologies that they previously had little financial incentive to implement.
4. Supporting Parents
The rationale includes a strong social component: providing a "basic sensible model" that supports parents in regulating social media use at home. The government views this as a "seatbelt moment"—a necessary legislative intervention to protect the public from a technology that has outpaced existing safety norms.
Arguments Against the Ban
Infringement on Constitutional Rights
Freedom of Political Communication: High-profile legal challenges in the High Court of Australia, led by organizations like the Digital Freedom Project and platforms like Reddit, argue that the law violates the implied constitutional right to freedom of political communication. They contend it prevents young Australians—some approaching voting age—from engaging in essential civic and political discourse.
Access to Information: Human rights advocates argue the ban restricts children’s fundamental rights to seek, receive, and impart information, which are protected under international treaties like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Privacy and Data Security Risks
Invasive Age Verification: To comply with the law, platforms may require users (including adults) to provide highly sensitive information, such as government-issued IDs, facial biometrics, or bank-verified details.
Data Breach Vulnerability: Critics warn that mandating the collection of such sensitive data creates new targets for cybercriminals. Despite "ringfence and destroy" mandates, there are fears that these systems could lead to identity theft or unauthorized profiling of individuals.
Isolation of Vulnerable Groups
Loss of Support Networks: Mental health experts and organizations like UNICEF Australia warn that the ban could cut off vital lifelines for marginalized or isolated youth, including LGBTQ+ and neurodivergent teens, who often rely on online communities for peer support and health information.
"Hidden" Harm: By forcing children off mainstream platforms, critics argue users may migrate to "darker corners" of the internet—unregulated apps or encrypted messaging services—where they are even harder to monitor and protect.
Technical Infeasibility and Circumvention
Easy Workarounds: Tech experts point out that teenagers frequently bypass restrictions using VPNs, fake ages, or secondary accounts, making the ban largely symbolic rather than practical.
Ineffective Technology: Reports have indicated that current age-estimation tools (such as AI facial analysis) remain inaccurate, leading to accidental bans of adults or failure to catch minors.
Economic and Social Impacts
Stifling Small Business: Organizations like the Digital Industry Group Inc. (DIGI) argue that the high cost of implementing complex age-verification systems could force smaller platforms out of the market, further consolidating power among "Big Tech" giants.
Undermining Digital Literacy: Critics argue that instead of a ban, the focus should be on digital literacy and "duty of care" for platforms. They believe that delaying access by a few years does not equip children with the skills needed to navigate the digital world once they eventually turn 16.
Encroachment on Parental Rights
State Overreach: Many argue that the law removes the agency of parents to decide when their child is mature enough for social media. Opponents contend that the government is essentially "outsourcing parenting" to state regulation rather than empowering families with better tools.
Comparing Australia and India on Regulating Children’s Online Safety
Key Regulatory Differences (2025)
| Feature |
Australia |
India |
| Primary Legislation |
Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 |
Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act 2023 |
| Minimum Age |
Strict 16 years for social media access; no parental overrides |
18 years for full digital consent, but children of any age can access with parental approval |
| Enforcement Model |
Platform Liability: Fines up to AUD 50 million ($33M) for failing to block under-16s |
Parental Burden: Relies on "verifiable parental consent" and prohibits behavioral tracking |
| Verification |
Mandatory age verification via ID, biometrics, or algorithmic sweeps |
No mandatory verification mechanism; largely relies on self-declaration |
| Key Regulator |
eSafety Commissioner: A dedicated independent office with proactive removal powers |
NCPCR (protection) and MeitY (policy) share oversight roles |
Balanced conclusion
In conclusion, the Act represents a bold regulatory experiment that foregrounds child safety and platform accountability but moves Australia into complex territory on enforceability, privacy, teenage autonomy, and proportionality of restrictions. Its ultimate success will depend less on the statutory age of 16 itself and more on how proportionate, privacy‑protective, and practically effective the age‑assurance and enforcement measures turn out to be once fully implemented and tested in real online behaviour.
The Stark Reality Of Educational Costs In India
In 2025, the landscape of education in India reflects a widening gap between constitutional ideals and financial reality. Data from the National Sample Survey (NSS) 80th Round (April–June 2025) reveals that household expenditure on education is rising sharply, driven by a growing reliance on private schooling and "shadow education" (private coaching).
Constitutional and Policy Framework
Constitutional basis: Right to education
Article 21A guarantees free and compulsory education for children aged 6–14 years, read with Directive Principles such as Articles 41, 45 and 39(f), which place a duty on the State to prevent economic deprivation from denying children an education.
RTE Act and cost‑sharing
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 operationalises Article 21A by prohibiting any fee or charge that could prevent a child from completing elementary education in a recognised school.
25% reservation in private schools
Section 12(1)(c) of the RTE Act mandates that private unaided (non‑minority) schools reserve 25% of entry‑level seats for children from weaker and disadvantaged groups, with reimbursement capped at the lower of actual school fee or per‑child government expenditure.
Regulation of private school fees
Courts have consistently held that private unaided institutions have autonomy to fix fees under Article 19(1)(g), subject to reasonable regulation to prevent profiteering, capitation and commercialisation. High Court and Supreme Court decisions have approved state‑level fee regulation laws and committees that scrutinise fee hikes, but have also emphasised that governments cannot completely take over fee‑setting or use regulation to impose across‑the‑board standardisation.​
NEP 2020 and affordability
The National Education Policy 2020 reiterates the goal of raising public education spending to around 6% of GDP and lists affordability and equity as core pillars of reform.
Fee Burden and the Rise of Shadow Education
High fees in Indian schools, amplified by hidden costs like coaching, fuel the growth of shadow education—a parallel system of private tuitions—burdening households and widening inequality, as revealed by the 80th NSS round (CMS-E 2025).​
Rising Fee Burden
- Private school fees cost up to 9 times more than government schools, with urban annual fees reaching ₹15,143–₹49,000 versus rural ₹3,979.​
- Hidden expenses (transport, uniforms, devices) double rural spends, forcing low-income families to cut essentials like nutrition.​
- Coaching alone averages ₹7,066 rural and ₹13,026 urban annually, comprising 15.2% of total education outlay.​
Drivers of Shadow Education
- Government school quality issues—teacher shortages, poor outcomes—push 25.5% rural and 30.7% urban students (33% nationally) to private tuitions.​
- Peer pressure and competitive exams (UPSC, JEE) treat coaching as investment, with costs hitting ₹50,000–₹8 lakh yearly.​
- Private schools still require extra classes from underqualified tutors, creating a dual dependency.​
Socio-Economic Fallout
- Lower-income and rural households bear disproportionate loads, perpetuating caste-wealth gaps; urban states like Delhi, Telangana spend most.​
- Girls and marginalized students face exclusion, undermining Article 21A and NEP 2020 equity aims.​
- Psychological strain rises from competition, with shadow sector projected to trillions by 2028 despite unregulated growth.​
Policy Contradictions
- NEP 2020 critiques coaching but 2024 guidelines legitimize centers, aligning with neoliberal shifts viewing education as private investment.​
- No robust fee caps; schools cite infrastructure for 15–30% hikes via trustee-linked firms.
Impact of Financial Exclusion With Respect To Education
- Financial exclusion significantly impacts education by creating substantial barriers to access and success, leading to
- increased absenteeism, lower academic performance, and higher dropout rates, which ultimately perpetuates a cycle of poverty and social inequality.
Direct Impacts on Students
- Reduced Academic Performance: There is a statistically significant negative correlation between financial stress and academic performance. Students under financial pressure often perform poorly in their studies.
- Increased Absenteeism: Financially excluded students report significantly higher class absenteeism compared to their financially supported peers. One study found 68% of financially excluded students reported frequent absences, versus just 22% of funded students. These absences are often due to an inability to afford transport, food, or stable housing.
- Higher Dropout Risk: Financial hardship is a major contributor to student disengagement and attrition. Over 43% of financially excluded students in one survey expressed uncertainty about completing their academic year, and nationally, 59% of college students have considered dropping out due to financial stress.
- Basic Needs Insecurity: Financial exclusion often means students struggle to meet basic needs beyond tuition, such as housing, food, and study materials. A study found 72% cited transport costs and 68% cited food insecurity as major barriers.
- Negative Mental Health Effects: Financial stress significantly impacts students' mental well-being. A report indicated that 78% of college students experienced negative impacts on their mental health due to financial concerns.
Systemic Consequences
- Perpetuates Inequality: Financial barriers in higher education reinforce the idea that wealth, rather than merit, determines access and success. This prevents social mobility for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, who may be the first in their families to attend university.
- Economic Cost to Society: Educational gaps and school dropouts due to financial constraints cost the global economy an estimated $10 trillion a year by 2030. Conversely, reducing early school leaving could significantly increase GDP growth.
- Lack of Financial Literacy: A lack of access to basic financial services like savings accounts or credit is often linked with low financial literacy. Without knowledge of budgeting, credit management, and long-term planning, individuals struggle to use financial products effectively, leading to a higher likelihood of debt accumulation.
Way forward and conclusion
Addressing India's escalating educational costs requires strengthening public schools, regulating private fees and coaching, and leveraging NEP 2020 for equitable access.​
Strengthen Public Education
- Invest in teacher training, infrastructure, and technology to make government schools competitive, reducing reliance on shadow education; PM SHRI scheme targets 14,500 exemplar schools.​
- Implement NIPUN Bharat for foundational literacy by Grade 2, ensuring quality outcomes without extra tuition.​
- Expand hybrid models with community learning hubs and digital resources to bridge rural-urban gaps.​
Regulate Private Sector
- Enforce strict fee caps, audits, and annual hike limits (10-15%) via parent associations and state laws, targeting trustee-linked profiteering.​
- Apply 2024 coaching guidelines nationwide: age limits, qualified tutors, transparent fees, and grievance redressal to curb exploitation.​
- Promote online coaching (₹25,000-₹1.5 lakh vs. offline ₹1-2.5 lakh) with scholarships up to 100% for meritorious students.​
Policy and Funding Reforms
- Raise public education spend to 6% GDP, prioritizing equity funds for girls, rural, and marginalized groups under NEP 2020.​
- Introduce PARAKH assessments for holistic monitoring and National Research Foundation for innovation.​
- Foster public-private partnerships without commercialization, ensuring audits treat institutions as not-for-profit.​
Conclusion
Reforms must prioritize quality public education as the default, curbing shadow education's trillion-rupee grip and fulfilling Article 21A's promise of free, equitable schooling for all.
Download Pdf
