On December 10, Australia began enforcing the
world’s strictest social media age rule: platforms must now verify that users are aged 16 or above, or face fines of up to A$49.5 million (US$33 million), a bold experiment in returning oversight of childhood from Silicon Valley to democratically elected institutions.
The relevant law, passed by the Australian parliament last year, represents more than protectionism or moral panic. It is a deliberate experiment in rebalancing the roles of state, family and corporations in safeguarding
child welfare in the digital age. However, Australia is not alone in grappling with these questions; it represents one of several distinct regulatory models emerging globally.
Australia’s hard ban sits alongside two contrasting approaches: mainland China’s state-led
“minor mode” and Hong Kong’s advisory guidelines. Each reveals different assumptions about state power, parental authority and corporate responsibility.
Since January 2024, China’s Regulations on the Protection of Minors in Cyberspace have required platforms, device makers and app stores to implement protections for minors. For online game service providers, these include identity authentication, age-appropriate content warnings and usage time caps.
This April, Beijing rolled out a mobile internet minor mode that parents can activate to filter out harmful content and restrict screen time for verified minors. This state-led architecture embeds child protection within broader internet governance, effective and comprehensive but inseparable from Beijing’s control over digital speech.
Hong Kong offers a softer alternative. Despite concerns over youth screen time and smartphone ownership among primary schoolchildren, the city has explicitly ruled out legislative bans, at least for now. Instead, Hong Kong is
reviewing guidelines and relying on parental discipline. A parent-led group is urging
delaying smartphone usage until age 14, but without legal enforcement, compliance remains voluntary.
