The Australian government’s approach stands out internationally, as it is one of the few countries proposing such a drastic measure to safeguard young people’s online presence. Yet, by attempting to shield youth from the dangers of cyberbullying and extremist content, Australia risks overlooking the unintended consequence of driving young people into more unregulated, extreme corners of the internet, where radicalisation can thrive, unchecked, like the GAP platform.

At the heart of the government’s proposal is the notion that social media platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram are contributing to rising mental health issues among young people. Indeed, studies have linked excessive social media use to feelings of isolation, depression, and anxiety. Cyberbullying, online harassment, and the proliferation of extremist ideologies have become pressing concerns. However, the risks of radicalisation, which have largely been discussed in separate terms, are closely related to the mental health issues the government is trying to address.

In banning access to mainstream platforms, Australia may unintentionally exacerbate these very issues. The reality is that social media, for all its pitfalls, is also a vital space where young people connect, express themselves, and find support. If restricted from these platforms, youth will not simply disappear from the digital world; they will be pushed into more obscure, unregulated online spaces where extremist ideologies can flourish.

Radicalisation often occurs in spaces where individuals feel marginalised, isolated, or alienated from mainstream society. These same feelings of isolation are precisely what a social media ban may deepen. Young people who already struggle with mental health issues may find themselves without the support systems offered by social media communities. Rather than protecting them, the ban may leave them more vulnerable to extremist groups that prey on these very feelings of alienation, offering an ideological refuge.

The risk of radicalisation is not merely a theoretical one—it’s already being seen in various instances globally. For example, the Christchurch Mosque shooter’s radicalisation was accelerated through online forums that operate on the fringes of the internet, places with minimal content moderation. Though it remains a debate whether mainstream social media directly contributed to his radicalisation, it is undeniable that these darker corners of the web played a significant role in shaping his extremist views.

The ban may also inadvertently play into the narrative often exploited by radical groups. These groups thrive on creating a sense of “us vs. them,” portraying governments as oppressive forces that seek to control youth behaviour and freedom. By enforcing an age restriction that excludes young people from platforms where they engage with peers, the Australian government could be seen as reinforcing this very narrative, strengthening the rhetoric of extremism. Youth who already feel disconnected from societal structures—be it due to their political beliefs, social status, or mental health struggles—may view this ban as an example of state overreach, thereby reinforcing their sense of alienation and increasing their susceptibility to extremist ideologies.

The global implications of Australia’s approach are also cause for concern. While the policy is framed as a protective measure, it could serve as a blueprint for authoritarian regimes seeking to control online spaces. Countries already with restrictive internet policies—such as China, Russia, or many Middle Eastern nations—may point to Australia’s model as justification for tightening their own censorship measures. These regimes have long justified internet control under the guise of protecting citizens from harmful content or national security threats. Australia’s proposal, despite its intent to protect mental health, could inadvertently provide ammunition to governments looking to further restrict online freedoms.

Other countries have adopted more balanced approaches. The UK, for instance, is focused on creating safer digital spaces through a blend of regulation, education, and support services. The Online Safety Bill aims to hold platforms accountable for harmful content, while also emphasising mental health and well-being. Canada has adopted a similar strategy by incorporating youth-focused digital literacy programs that teach young people how to critically assess online content and understand its impact on mental health. These initiatives recognise that social media is not inherently harmful; it’s the way young people engage with it that matters.

Instead of implementing a blanket ban, Australia could invest in digital literacy, mental health support, and online spaces where youth can engage in safe, meaningful interactions. Apps that allow parents to monitor their children’s online activity—sending alerts when harmful content is detected—could be one effective tool for ensuring safety while still allowing young people to participate in the digital world. Additionally, fostering open communication between youth and trusted adults, such as teachers or mental health professionals, would help guide them through the challenges of navigating the digital age.

Australia’s proposal to limit young people’s access to social media is driven by a well-intentioned desire to protect mental health and reduce harm from cyberbullying. However, the potential unintended consequence of this policy—exacerbating youth radicalisation—cannot be ignored. By restricting access to mainstream social media platforms, vulnerable youth may be driven into more extreme, unregulated spaces where harmful ideologies thrive.

Emma Gerhardy is pursuing a masters’ degree in counterterrorism and intelligence. She is a participant in the Women in Strategic Policy program run by the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at ANU and Girls Run the World.

This article is published under a Creative Commons License and may be republished with attribution.