Australia has passed an absolute social media ban for minors under 16. Platforms like Meta’s Facebook, Instagram and TikTok will be forbidden to let minors log in. Social media companies that violate the new rules could be fined up to A$49.5 million (US$32 million). A trial of enforcement methods begins in January 2025, with the ban set to take full effect a year later.

The Law of Forbidden Fruit

But outright banning alone does not work and will not have the outcome its Aussie supporters believe it will.

This is the Law of Forbidden Fruit: When something is banned, the desire for it increases.

The story is old. The original forbidden fruit is in the account in Genesis, where God forbids eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Urged by the devil snake, the temptation was just too much for Eve. She famously chomped on the first forbidden fruit.

Banning doesn’t work but placing restrictions with explanations does. For example, during Prohibition, alcohol was banned in the US by the 18^th Amendment. When something is banned, its appeal soars. Prohibition resulted in rampant crime surrounding the production of illegal alcohol. Ultimately the 21^st Amendment made alcohol legal again.

Afterwards, alcohol was restricted rather than banned outright. There are age limits on purchasing alcohol, drinking and driving has dire legal consequences and, in my home state of Texas, you can’t take a gun into a bar even if you have a concealed firearm carry permit. Mitigation through restriction, although not perfect, is a better solution.

What Banning Does

Here’s what will happen when Australia’s law goes into effect:

First, kids will be attracted to banned sites more than ever and will figure out workarounds — also called jail breaks — to the restrictions placed on them. These cheats will be shared with friends. Never underestimate the ingenuity of young minds raised in the digital age.

Texas, for example, bans the viewing of online porn without age verification. Jail breaks to get around the law are readily available on the internet.  By using a VPN (virtual private network), teenagers can make it appear to websites that they are logging in from a different state or country.

The second effect of the Australian law will be to make kids anticipate the day they are old enough to be outside the shadow of the ban. They will ask “What is so compelling about these sites that they have to be banned?” Passing thresholds in age are anticipated. We see this in alcohol consumption where some fathers take their boys out for a legal beer to celebrate their 18^th birthday.

The Problem

This said, social media has a problem that needs addressing.

Dawn Wible, founder of Talk More-Tech Less, points to five areas of life that are deeply affected by screens: physical health, mental health, time, relationships, and ethics. Media-drenched teenage boys without girlfriends feel like social freaks. One in three teenage girls who use social media have body image issues.

Young adults who use social media are three times as likely to suffer from depression. Depression can lead to suicide. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, female suicides aged 15-24 increased by 87 percent over the past 20 years and male suicides increased by 30 percent. The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry says suicide is the second leading cause of death for “children, adolescents, and young adults age 15-to-24-years old.”

The negative impact of social media is real. Australia’s new Social Media Minimum Age law is trying to address the mental health problem challenges associated with youth social media usage. But simply banning access to social media will not solve the problem. The Law of Forbidden Fruit suggests the opposite. Banning alone will potentially increase use and amplify social media’s negative impact.

The Solution

Passing laws that ban social media is a top-down solution. A bottom-up approach is also needed.

The best solution involves parents and/or the public schools. Restricting, not banning, access is the answer and there are plenty of cell phone and computer apps to help. My son, Jeremiah, uses Qustodio for his two boys. Qustodio offers web filtering, social media monitoring, and time limits for internet and app usage. Bark software monitors texts, emails, and social media accounts for harmful content, such as cyberbullying or inappropriate language. Canopy blocks explicit content in real-time and provides alerts for potential risks on social media. [1]

Restrictions without explanation can feel like a mild form of banning. It’s important for parents and teachers to talk with their kids about why they are setting limits on web access. We already do this with illegal drugs. If kids were banned from drugs and not told why, the abuse would be greater. Just like social media, illegal drugs are available to the those who want to get them. Banning through imposed laws alone does not work. Parents and teachers talking to children does.

By setting boundaries and open communication, parents protect kids from harmful content, cyberbullying, and online predators. Monitoring internet use teaches children responsible online behavior and helps prevent overexposure to inappropriate material. Limiting screen time fosters healthier habits, encouraging real-world interactions, academic focus, and physical activity. Parents can use tools like parental controls and open communication to guide kids in navigating the digital world.

And when the children leave the nest, they will ideally have developed positive informed habits that continue into adulthood.

 [1] The mention of specific software in this article should not be taken as an endorsement of the product. Nor is there any compensation for mentioning them. These are simply a few examples among many of available parental control software options.