Meta has removed access to 756,000 Facebook and Instagram accounts in Australia that it assessed as potentially belonging to users under 16, as the country’s world-first social media minimum-age law faces increasing scrutiny.
Between December 2025 and June 2026, Meta deactivated 462,000 Instagram accounts and 294,000 Facebook accounts. The company says it is complying with the law and using artificial intelligence, account activity and user reports to identify suspected underage users.
However, the action comes as Australian regulators and lawmakers question whether platforms are doing enough to keep children off social media. Meta said, “Enforcement is ongoing, and these numbers will continue to grow,” while stressing that it shares the government’s goal of providing young people with safer, age-appropriate online experiences.
Around 750,000 Accounts Removed by Meta
Meta said its systems look for contextual clues that could indicate a user is under 16, including references to birthdays, school grades and other profile activity. It also uses reports from users and has introduced measures designed to stop people from simply creating another account after one is removed.
The latest figure is a significant increase from the 504,000 accounts Meta said it had removed by January. However, the company has acknowledged that the accounts were suspected to belong to under-16s, rather than confirming that every account was operated by a child.
The disclosure comes as technology companies face questions at an Australian Senate inquiry over whether the ban is working effectively.
Meta and other platforms have urged policymakers to be cautious about interpreting early data suggesting that a large majority of under-16s may still be accessing social media.
Australia’s World-First Experiment Faces Its Biggest Test
Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age law came into effect on 10 December 2025, requiring age-restricted platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent Australians under 16 from creating or keeping accounts. Facebook and Instagram are among the services covered by the rules.
The government introduced the measure amid concerns about the impact of social media on children’s wellbeing, including exposure to harmful content, addictive design and online abuse.
Communications Minister Anika Wells has taken a firm position, saying companies must comply with Australian law and warning that the government is prepared to strengthen enforcement.
In June, she said she was “not satisfied” that social media companies were doing everything possible to keep under-16s off their platforms and announced plans to increase potential penalties for systemic non-compliance to A$99 million while strengthening the powers of the eSafety Commissioner.
The Senate is currently examining legislation that would strengthen enforcement, with its report due on 25 August 2026.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
Australia’s experiment raises an important question that goes beyond simply counting how many accounts have been removed: can regulation genuinely make the digital world safer for children without creating new problems around privacy, access and personal freedom?
This is not a simple yes-or-no issue, because while the intention behind such laws is clearly to protect minors from harmful content, cyberbullying, addictive algorithms and predatory behaviour, the way these protections are implemented matters just as much as the goal itself.
On one hand, strict age-based restrictions signal that governments are taking children’s online safety seriously. They can reduce immediate exposure to harmful content and force platforms to take responsibility for verifying users and designing safer systems.
However, relying heavily on account bans and automated detection also raises concerns. These systems are not always accurate, and they may wrongly flag legitimate users or push young people toward unregulated or less safe platforms.
There is also the broader issue of privacy, as stronger age verification often means collecting more personal data, which itself can create new risks if not handled carefully.
At the same time, it is important to recognise that simply restricting access does not address the root of the problem.
Children are growing up in a digital-first world, and removing them from mainstream platforms does not necessarily remove the influence of the internet. Instead, it may shift their activity to spaces that are harder to monitor.
This is why many experts argue that responsibility must be shared. Parents and educators need better tools and awareness to guide children’s online behaviour, while technology companies must be held accountable for designing platforms that do not exploit attention or amplify harmful content.
Regulators, meanwhile, face the challenge of striking a balance. Age-verification systems should not become intrusive surveillance tools, and policies should be transparent enough for the public to understand how decisions are made.
The focus should be on building safer digital environments rather than simply restricting access. This includes stronger content moderation, ethical design standards, and clearer accountability for platforms that fail to protect young users.
Ultimately, the goal should not be to isolate children from technology, but to help them navigate it safely and responsibly.
A truly effective approach would combine regulation, education, and platform accountability rather than relying on bans alone. The real question is not just whether under-16 restrictions work, but whether they are part of a broader, more thoughtful strategy to create an internet that prioritises wellbeing over engagement at any cost.
Also Read: IndiGo Passenger Confronts Staff After Flight Reportedly Cancelled at Bhubaneswar Airport
