Australia implemented one of the strictest social media bans for users under 16 years old in December 2025, prohibiting them from creating accounts on platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and Snapchat. However, a study conducted by researchers including behavioral economist Christopher Roth from the Max Planck Institute for Behavioral Economics reveals that compliance with this law has been extremely low. Six months after the ban took effect, only six percent of teenagers aged 14–15 adhered to the regulation, down from 27 percent in April and 15 percent in June. The research indicates that usage of banned platforms has increased rather than decreased, with 92 percent of 14–15-year-olds using at least one restricted platform in the past week by June. Many adolescents bypass the restrictions through methods such as false birth dates, virtual private networks (VPNs), or using accounts created by family members. Researchers argue that enforcement alone is insufficient, as long as platforms allow these workarounds, the law remains ineffective.
Bias read (Center): The article presents findings from a scientific study and quotes researchers without overtly favoring any side. It reports on the effectiveness of a controversial policy but does not take a stance on whether the policy is good or bad, nor does it frame the issue in a biased manner. The tone is fact-
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports the findings from the NBER working paper, noting that compliance dropped from 27% to 6% over six months. It correctly cites the study's main conclusions about peer pressure and social norms influencing compliance. The article also mentions the broader implications for
Why objectivity (78): The tone is generally neutral but leans slightly towards highlighting the failure of the policy, which could be seen as subtly critical. The article emphasizes the 'ernüchternd' (disappointing) outcome, which introduces some emotional framing despite presenting factual data.

