{"id":102951,"date":"2026-06-10T05:00:12","date_gmt":"2026-06-10T09:00:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/?p=102951"},"modified":"2026-06-09T19:39:34","modified_gmt":"2026-06-09T23:39:34","slug":"to-protect-under-16s-from-harmful-content-everyone-will-now-need-to-show-their-id-online","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/2026\/06\/10\/to-protect-under-16s-from-harmful-content-everyone-will-now-need-to-show-their-id-online\/","title":{"rendered":"To protect under-16s from harmful content, everyone<\/em> will now need to show their ID online"},"content":{"rendered":"

Australia’s attempt to ban under-16s from accessing social media and other online sites blew up rather quickly. Britain and Canada, seeing what happened down under, chorused “Hold our beers!<\/a>“:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

“Automotive Social Media Marketing” by socialautomotive<\/a><\/span> is licensed under CC BY 2.0<\/a><\/a><\/p><\/div>\n

The government is expected to table the Digital Safety Act<\/em><\/a> on Wednesday with reports that it will include a ban on social media for those under 16, framed as a “temporary” measure<\/a> that platforms can exit once a new digital regulator certifies their safety standards. I have been writing about these issues, from the original Online Harms Act<\/em> to mandated age verification and website blocking and now the kids’ ban, for several years. This FAQ gathers the analysis in one place, with links throughout to the longer pieces for anyone who wants to go deeper. The key takeaway is that a kids’ social media ban is an ineffective and harmful policy that raises privacy concerns for tens of millions of Canadians through mandated age verification requirements. The policy fails to address the underlying concerns with social media and the prospect of a “temporary” ban makes little sense since the requirement might be reversible, but the data collection and regulatory infrastructure are permanent.<\/p>\n

What is the government reportedly about to introduce?<\/strong><\/p>\n

According to the Globe and Mail<\/em><\/a>, the forthcoming bill would bar anyone under 16 from social media. The government will indicate that this is a temporary safeguard with an opt-back-in once a regulator certifies safety standards. The government will frame this as “temporary” measure, but I argue<\/a> that once established, there is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube given that the policy will require a regulator and proof of age from everyone.<\/p>\n

Didn’t this start with Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act<\/em>? What happened to it?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Bill C-63 was the government’s 2024 online harms bill, and from my first-day take<\/a> I described it as effectively three bills in one: a defensible set of provisions focused on platforms that featured a duty to act responsibly, more contentious Criminal Code<\/em> and Canada Human Rights Act<\/em> provisions, and a powerful new Digital Safety Commission modelled on the CRTC to be funded by the tech companies. My view was that the Criminal Code<\/em> and Human Rights Act<\/em> provisions<\/a> should have been dropped or incorporated into a separate piece of legislation. Bill C-63 itself died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued ahead of the 2025 election, but the duty-to-act-responsibly model is likely to survive as part of the forthcoming bill.<\/p>\n

Why is a kids’ social media ban bad policy?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I set out at least six reasons<\/a> in this post on the issue. The most important is the first: the harms people associate with social media, such as algorithmic manipulation, addictive engagement design, weak content moderation, inconsistent enforcement, inadequate transparency, and privacy risks, affect users of every age. Treating them as a children’s problem misidentifies both the source of the harm and the right target of regulation. By focusing legislative attention on who is permitted to use social media rather than on how the platforms operate, an age-based ban lets legislators and the companies off the hook from more effective broad-based regulation. The other reasons identified in the post include the absence of evidence that bans work, the privacy harms they create, and the constitutional rights of the children they claim to protect.<\/p>\n

Does the ban actually work?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The evidence to date says no. Australia’s under-16 ban took effect in December 2025, and the eSafety Commissioner’s first compliance report<\/a> found that roughly 70 per cent of children who had accounts before the ban retained access to at least one platform three months later, with no discernible reduction in cyberbullying or image-based abuse complaints from under-16 users. Children route around age gates through VPNs, borrowed accounts, and false birthdates, and the most at-risk users are the most likely to circumvent them. Professor Lisa Given laid out much of this on a Law Bytes<\/em> episode<\/a> before most of the data was even in. Canadian politicians now citing the Australian approach with approval are pointing to a model whose own regulator’s data suggests has thus far proven ineffective. At a recent Canada 2020 event in Ottawa, Australian professor Amanda Third<\/a> confirmed that kids are actively circumventing the ban and indicated that parents are concerned<\/a> that their children are now less safe.<\/p>\n

Doesn’t polling show overwhelming public support for a ban?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The headline number is real but misleading. The March 2026 Angus Reid Institute survey<\/a> found that three-quarters of respondents support a full ban on social media for those under 16, and politicians have cited it repeatedly. But as McGill’s Sara Grimes documented on this Law Bytes<\/em> podcast episode<\/a>, the less-quoted numbers in the same survey complicate the picture: 72 per cent said parents, not governments, should be primarily responsible for regulating teens’ social media use, only 32 per cent picked 16 as the right threshold, and the survey did not ask respondents anything about the mechanism any ban would actually require. Simply put, public support for “protect kids from harm” is not the same as public support for “every Canadian must submit ID to a third-party provider in order to use the internet”.<\/p>\n

Hasn’t social media been proven harmful to kids?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The data on social media harms to kids is far more mixed than is often portrayed in the media and in Jonathan Haidt’s Anxious Generation<\/em> book that has fuelled much of the legislative panic. Grimes has produced a very accessible explainer<\/a> on the issue that walks through the science. As she notes in Panic First, Evidence Later<\/em><\/a>, “there is a serious problem. Researchers who have spent their entire careers studying adolescent mental health, children’s digital media, developmental science, and media psychology \u2013 the people who actually built the evidence base Haidt draws on \u2013 have raised sustained, substantive objections to his core claims.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Read all of Michael Geist’s FAQ here<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Australia’s attempt to ban under-16s from accessing social media and other online sites blew up rather quickly. Britain and Canada, seeing what happened down under, chorused “Hold our beers!“: The government is expected to table the Digital Safety Act on Wednesday with reports that it will include a ban on social media for those under […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[6,84,28,53,15],"tags":[459,374,58,931,458,154,593,911,504],"class_list":["post-102951","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cancon","category-government","category-media","category-politics","category-technology","tag-censorship","tag-children","tag-internet","tag-moralpanic","tag-parliament","tag-privacy","tag-socialmedia","tag-surveillance","tag-teenagers"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p2hpV6-qMv","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102951","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=102951"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102951\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":102952,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102951\/revisions\/102952"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102951"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102951"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quotulatiousness.ca\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102951"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}