AS adults, many of us remember the unstructured time of childhood that allowed boredom to creep in. Once seen as something to avoid, boredom is now recognised by neuroscientists as an essential part of healthy emotional and cognitive development in young minds.
Research shows that boredom activates the brain’s Default Mode Network, which supports creativity, imagination and problem-solving. It also helps children build resilience, independence and emotional regulation, as they learn to sit with discomfort and create their own meaning rather than relying on constant stimulation from screens.
Against this backdrop, Australia’s groundbreaking social media ban came into effect on December 10, 2025. Closely watched around the world, the policy was driven by concerns about online safety, blocking children under 16 from platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and X. The aim is to protect young users from cyberbullying, harmful content, online predators and addictive design features that can disrupt sleep and mood.
Nearly two months after the ban took effect, and amid significant adaptation (and some circumvention) by the young people it targets, the debate over whether the legislation will achieve its aims continues. Never intended as a silver bullet but rather a policy in progress, the social media ban has also prompted concerns about the exclusion of vulnerable youth, the impact on digital literacy, and privacy risks associated with age-verification requirements.
In anticipation of hearing from young people in the region affected by the ban in the coming weeks, The Adviser took to the streets to gather vox populi from a cross-section of the local community. Here is what they had to say:
“Social media has a negative effect on developing young minds,” said David, a local church pastor.
“They are only a few clicks away from pornography and predators. There is no reproach for cyberbullies and kids become hyper-anxious when feeling the need to compete with online trends. Parents need to regulate screen time to prevent overexposure to a world of unreality and deceit. Children’s sense of morality and accountability can only be exercised in face-to-face communication.”
Dubious about the ban’s effectiveness, local electrician Neil said:
“The prevention of social media for under-16s has been implemented without support to provide vulnerable and growing humans with community and communication. I’m concerned with the unregulated social media that offers content that doesn’t have people’s best interests at heart.”
While other voices conveyed deep concerns about the rapid advent of technological advancement and its inevitable social and economic impacts, some were also worried that the ban could further isolate young people, particularly those within the LGBTQ+ community.
With no greater societal concern than ensuring the safety, wellbeing and resilience of younger generations, one local commenter had this to say;
“I wonder if a harm minimisation approach would work better than a blanket ban. An approach that empowers young people to have more knowledge and understanding of how social media works would significantly reduce vulnerability while putting them in a greater position of power and control.”
What do you think about Australia’s social media ban? Have your say by writing to The Adviser at editorial@sheppartonadviser.com.au, and be sure to add in the subject line: Adviser story contribution.
