Australia’s world-first law banning children under 16 from using major social media platforms has taken effect, forcing big names like Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Reddit and YouTube to kick under-16s off their services. But as teens grapple with losing access to those apps, another digital space — online gaming — has largely escaped the ban, highlighting both an intentional legal blind spot and a growing public debate about where Australian regulators should draw the line between safety and play.
The social media ban — what it covers and what it doesn’t
On 10 December 2025, the Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 came into force, barring Australians under 16 from holding accounts on a specified list of major social media platforms. The law requires platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X (Twitter), YouTube, Reddit, Twitch and Kick to take “reasonable steps” to stop under-16s from signing up or maintaining accounts — or risk fines of up to A$49.5 million.
The government has used a legal definition for age-restricted “social media platforms” that excludes services whose primary purpose is not social interaction, even if they incorporate social features. Because of this, popular online games and gaming environments such as Roblox are currently not required to enforce age bans, and under-16s can continue playing them without breaching the social media law.
Platforms not covered by the ban include, for example:
- Roblox
- Minecraft and other popular games
- Discord (in gaming contexts)
- Steam and Steam Chat
- YouTube Kids
- Messaging apps like WhatsApp
- Google Classroom and some educational tools Википедия
This means that for now, many teens can still be highly active online — interacting, chatting and creating content — without being subject to the new social media age limits.
Why online games were exempt — and why that matters
The law’s exemptions are intentional: the eSafety Commissioner and federal lawmakers defined the scope of banned services around social networking features — broadly, platforms whose main purpose is to enable users to share content and actively interact with each other. Games, even those with robust social elements, were judged not to fit that definition.
That legal distinction reflects a balancing act: regulators wanted to limit teens’ exposure to the kinds of social media environments associated with algorithm-driven feeds and mental-health concerns, without sweeping in all forms of online interaction where socialising may be incidental to the primary activity (such as gaming).
For many Australian families, that’s a relief: video games play a central role in youth culture, and unlike the targeted content of platforms such as TikTok or Reddit, gaming interactions are generally seen as less data-driven and less algorithmic. Many parents and experts agree that games can offer creative, cognitive and social benefits, even as they recognise that online games aren’t without risks.
Critics: a growing list of exclusions that could leave kids vulnerable
Not all observers are comfortable with leaving online gaming out of the ban. Researchers and some MPs have raised concerns that platforms like Roblox, with extensive user-generated worlds and messaging features, expose children to risks similar to those on social media — including harassment or inappropriate contact — and therefore should be considered for inclusion.
Digital media researchers have also pointed out that the line between a game and a social platform is increasingly blurry, especially when titles include social chat, friend lists and community content creation — features that strongly resemble core aspects of social networks. Some have warned that under the current law, a significant amount of youth interaction simply shifts from “banned” platforms to unregulated ones, potentially undermining the policy’s goals.
The eSafety Commissioner has indicated that the list of services captured by the social media age restrictions is not final and may be updated if under-16s transition en masse to platforms currently exempted. That could, in theory, widen future coverage to include games with substantial social features.
Teen behaviour post-ban: migration to other apps and games
Even as major social media platforms enforce the age ban, teenagers are already seeking alternatives:
- Many are flocking to smaller apps and services not currently covered, like Coverstar, Lemon8, Yope and Rednote.
- Others are migrating to gaming environments, where they can chat, form groups, stream gameplay and build communities in ways that elude the social media definition.
This early migration raises questions about the effectiveness of the ban: if the objective is to reduce harmful interactions, regulators may need to reassess how digital spaces are categorised and regulated.
Legal and policy pressure points
The exclusion of gaming platforms from the ban has also entered legal and policy debates. Platforms such as Reddit, a hybrid forum/social space, have challenged the underlying law in court, arguing it infringes on freedom of political communication and improperly equates diverse services with traditional social media.
Opposition from digital rights groups and academics echoes concerns that simply blocking accounts on a handful of apps won’t address broader risks in the digital ecosystem, particularly as teens migrate into unregulated or lightly regulated spaces, whether gaming, niche communities or messaging services.
What this means for parents, players and policymakers
For parents and carers, the current landscape is a mixed picture:
- Under-16s cannot hold accounts on the biggest social networks in Australia, reducing certain risks linked to feed algorithms and public posting.
- But they can still play online games that allow social interaction, create content and communicate with others.
- Messaging and game chat features are not currently covered unless they meet the strict definitions of a “social media platform.”
Policymakers now face two central questions: whether the exemption for gaming platforms remains appropriate under the social media age law, and how to balance child safety with digital access and developmental benefits in an increasingly connected world.
A policy still in motion
Australia’s social media age ban is historic — but its unfolding effects are revealing both limitations and new digital frontiers. While the law is focused on high-risk social networks, the continued accessibility of online games to under-16s points to gaps in the regulatory net and poses fresh challenges as teens seek connection online in ways that lie outside traditional social media definitions.
Whether future amendments will tighten the net around online gaming remains to be seen — but for now, that loophole means under-16 Australians can still game, chat and connect online, even as their social media accounts go dark.
7 years in the field, from local radio to digital newsrooms. Loves chasing the stories that matter to everyday Aussies – whether it’s climate, cost of living or the next big thing in tech.
