Australia’s Under-16 Social Media Ban: What It Could Mean for Young People Living With Medically Unexplained Symptoms

Australia will implement a nationwide restriction preventing all under-16s from having accounts on major social-media platforms. The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Act 2024 requires platforms to verify a user’s age and block younger teenagers — a policy intended to protect children from online harm.

But for young people living with chronic, poorly understood, or medically unexplained symptoms (MUS), the implications go far beyond online safety. At FPOD, we regularly hear from teenagers who rely on digital communities for connection, reassurance, and validation when formal healthcare systems have not yet provided clear answers.

Why young people with MUS rely on online spaces

For many adolescents with medically unexplained symptoms, social media is more than entertainment. It often serves as:

1. A source of community and emotional support

Teens with MUS frequently feel isolated or disbelieved in their day-to-day lives. Online communities may be the only spaces where they encounter others with similar experiences.

2. A way to understand symptoms when healthcare pathways are slow

Long waiting lists, diagnostic uncertainty, and fragmented care can leave young people searching for information elsewhere. While not always accurate, social media offers a sense of immediacy and accessibility they may not receive offline.

3. A place to feel seen and validated

Many young patients tell us that digital spaces help them articulate what they’re going through — especially when adults around them struggle to understand or minimise their symptoms.

Removing social media altogether could unintentionally deepen feelings of loneliness or invisibility for this group.

The risks: misinformation, unqualified advice, and harmful narratives

It is equally important to acknowledge the risks that unregulated online spaces pose to vulnerable teens:

• Misinformation can spread quickly — especially when shared with confidence by unqualified individuals.

• Extreme or harmful coping strategies may be promoted without evidence or oversight.

• Online “experts” may present musculoskeletal, hormonal, neurological, or psychiatric explanations that are oversimplified or misleading.

As one colleague noted during our internal discussions:

“On the contrary, how are any benefits impacted by the harm of gaining advice from unqualified individuals speaking as professionals?”

For teens seeking clarity, inaccurate health information can reinforce fear, derail treatment engagement, or create false expectations.

A ban may not protect the young people who need help the most

While well-intentioned, the Australian model assumes that forcing teenagers offline will remove risk. In practice:

• Young teenagers are resourceful and may circumvent bans using VPNs, alternative platforms, or borrowed accounts.

• Restrictions may push them toward less monitored online spaces, not safer ones.

• Children experiencing health-related distress may become further disconnected from peers who understand them.

• A blanket age cut-off does not reflect differences in maturity, vulnerability, or support needs between ages 11, 13, and 15.

For some teenagers, social media is harmful. For others, removing it may be harmful too.

This nuance can easily be lost in national policy.

What do safer alternatives look like?

Instead of an all-or-nothing approach, several strategies could better support young people with MUS:

1. Platform responsibility

Social-media companies could develop:

• stricter content moderation for health advice

• verified “safe information” pathways

• age-tiered environments (e.g., YouTube Kids as a partial model)

• in-platform prompts directing users to qualified resources

2. Digital health literacy education

Teaching young people how to evaluate information critically is a long-term preventive strategy — far more robust than limiting access alone.

3. Supportive offline alternatives

Reliable, compassionate, youth-friendly health resources must exist outside of social media. Clear pathways for emotional support, symptom explanation, and early guidance could reduce reliance on online sources entirely.

4. Parent and caregiver empowerment

Many caregivers feel unsure how to guide their child’s digital health-seeking behaviour. Practical tools and training could make a meaningful difference.

What questions should we be asking?

As the world watches how Australia’s policy unfolds, several key questions emerge for young people with MUS:

• Will removing social media reduce harm or increase isolation?

• How do we prevent misinformation without eliminating community?

• What safeguards can be put in place to protect vulnerable teenagers without silencing them?

• Who decides what “safe information” looks like — governments, platforms, or healthcare experts?

• How can we give young people support that is both trustworthy and accessible?

These questions matter because the experiences of teens with unexplained symptoms are often marginalised in conversations about digital safety.

A call to awareness and involvement

At FPOD, we believe that policies affecting young people should include young people — especially those whose health needs are often overlooked.

As more countries consider social-media age restrictions, it is vital that teenagers with chronic, poorly understood, or medically unexplained symptoms are not left out of the discussion.

We encourage:

• clinicians

• educators

• researchers

• policymakers

• parents and caregivers

• and young people themselves

to share their perspectives, concerns, and ideas for what genuine, holistic safety should look like.

If you would like to contribute your thoughts, experiences, or recommendations, FPOD welcomes your voice as part of this conversation.

Together, we can work toward solutions that protect young people without isolating them — and uplift their stories rather than silence them.