YouTube’s Inclusion in Social Media Ban: Necessary Safeguard or Overreach?

Australia’s contentious upcoming social media restrictions for under-16s have been hailed as a “world-first” experiment in online child safety, targeting platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and Snapchat. These platforms have often been associated with addictive scrolling and harmful trends. But in a somewhat more controversial addition, YouTube finds itself joining them on the list, which has sparked another round of intense debate.

Advocates argue that YouTube is one of the most significant online influences on young people, and stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the others in terms of all the risks that come with it. On the other hand, critics such YouTube’s own parent company, Google, claim the value for learning, creativity, and cultural engagement outweighs such dangers.

So, is YouTube’s inclusion warranted, or does it overstep the line?

The Case for Inclusion

YouTube was the most frequently cited platform where children aged 10–15 reported exposure to harmful content.

When it comes to the inclusion of YouTube in the ban, the government’s central argument is simple: harmful content. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, noted that YouTube was the most frequently cited platform where children aged 10–15 reported exposure to harmful content.

On the surface, YouTube may seem safer than TikTok’s chaotic dance trends or Instagram’s image-obsessed comparison culture. After all, much of the site’s content is educational, informative, or purely entertaining. But dig deeper and the picture changes.

YouTube’s recommendation algorithm is designed to maximise watch time, in much the same way as TikTok or Instagram encourage hours of scrolling. That often means being funnelled toward extreme or sensational content, those videos more likely to capture interest, and thus prolong one’s time on the platform. What begins as an innocent search for Minecraft tips can quickly spiral into a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories or harmful social challenges. These risks are no less serious on YouTube than on other social media giants.

Furthermore, YouTube isn’t just a passive viewing platform. If it were, the new regulations would hardly be an issue. Even under the ban, youth will still be able to watch videos, but will be unable to create an account, which is necessary for actions such as commenting, subscribing, or creating content. Comment sections, livestream chats, and community posts create opportunities for interaction, including with strangers. For many, this blurs the line between YouTube and other “traditional” social media platforms, undermining the idea that it should be treated differently.

From this perspective, excluding YouTube would have created a glaring loophole in the law, one that both children and content creators could easily exploit.

The Case Against

However, YouTube is not only a site of algorithm-driven pitfalls and interaction with suspicious individuals. It is also a colossal library of free educational and cultural material. From science experiments to history lectures, music tutorials to language lessons, YouTube empowers millions of young Australians to learn new skills and explore the world in a way that they simply could not otherwise.

This raises an important question: does banning under-16s from having accounts deny them valuable opportunities for creativity and participation? The government would say no, and point to the fact that the ban still allows young people to watch YouTube videos. Opponents highlight, however, that without an account, the interactive features of uploading videos, commenting, and subscribing, are now off-limits. For many young creators, these features are sources of not just entertainment but also formative experiences in digital literacy, communication, and even entrepreneurship.

Critics also point to the freedom of expression issue. Reports have emerged suggesting Google had considered legal action on the grounds that banning YouTube accounts for minors could restrict political and creative freedoms. While some might dismiss this as corporate self-interest, the underlying question remains: where should we draw the line between protecting children and restricting their agency?

A Middle Path

One of the challenges in regulating YouTube is that it is not entirely like other social media. Its primary function is video hosting and distribution, not real-time social interaction, though the latter is still certainly possible. This doesn’t make it risk-free, but it does mean that solutions could be more nuanced.

For example, instead of a blanket ban, the government could have mandated stronger age-verification measures for mature videos, robust parental controls, and algorithm restrictions for under-16 accounts. Platforms could be required to disable autoplay, or limit video recommendations.

These kinds of measures would help to address harmful exposure without entirely removing young people’s ability to contribute, not just consume. They would also avoid the risk of pushing minors toward less regulated, fringe video-sharing sites where harmful content is much easier to come across.

The Global Context

This is a clear opportunity for us to position Australia as a global leader in the field of tech regulation and child safety. If we get it right.

Australia’s decision will be closely watched worldwide as other countries weigh up similar measures. This is a clear opportunity for us to position Australia as a global leader in the field of tech regulation and child safety. If we get it right.

This raises the stakes for tech companies, too. If YouTube wants to avoid being lumped in with TikTok and Instagram in other countries, it will need to demonstrate that it can meaningfully reduce harm to minors without being placed under the same blanked ban.

The Verdict

Without more refined restrictions over the actual content itself, young viewers may still face exposure to inappropriate or harmful content.

On balance, including YouTube in the under-16 social media ban is justifiable, but far from simple. The evidence that children encounter harmful content on YouTube is clear, and leaving it out of the ban would have created an obvious weak spot in the law. However, the fact that they will still be able to watch videos raises a glaring question: what if they continue to be exposed to harmful content anyway? While removing the ability to create accounts eliminates the social risk, that doesn’t remove the actual ability to access and watch certain videos. Without more refined restrictions over the actual content itself, young viewers may still face exposure to inappropriate or harmful content.

The inclusion of YouTube also reveals the limits of blanket bans as a policy tool. By treating all platforms as the same, the government risks overlooking important differences and cutting off positive uses of technology. A more effective, real long-term solution may require more precise regulation, not just prohibition.