—Kaniz Kakon—

Australia has undertaken a bold civic experiment by attempting to protect childhood through the removal of children from the loudest public square of the age. In the first month after under-16 social media restrictions took effect on 10 December 2025, regulators reported that about 4.7 million accounts linked to under-16 users were deactivated or restricted across major platforms, with penalties for systemic noncompliance reaching A$49.5 million. The sheer scale points to a deeper truth about digital life: online identity is rarely singular. People maintain multiple profiles, from fan and lurk accounts to throwaway identities shaped by aspiration rather than biography. Reuters observed that the figure amounted to more than two accounts per child aged 10–16, suggesting the policy confronts not only usage but also the plural self-encouraged by online culture. Philosophically, this is unsettling. A ban does more than remove content; it redraws who counts as a participant in public culture. Aristotle linked moral development to practice within a community, while Arendt connected political maturity to appearing in public and learning judgement amid plurality. Declaring adolescents unfit for the digital commons ultimately advances a claim about citizenship itself, whether it is a capacity cultivated early or a status granted later.

The cultural effect begins with a reversal. Social media platforms were once promoted as tools of voice, connection, and creativity, particularly for young people with limited institutional power. Today, the same spaces are framed as so structurally hazardous that large-scale removal appears safest. In Australia, officials reported Meta alone removed nearly 550,000 underage accounts, with compliance placed on companies rather than children or parents, reflecting a distinctly modern form of governance in which the state directs, platforms enforce, and families absorb the consequences. Platforms are treated as quasi-public utilities required to shape users through age surveillance. The ethical problem is familiar. Reliable age verification pushes users toward greater data disclosure, tighter identity linkage, and smoother proof of personhood. Australia’s framework allows multiple methods, including ID checks and estimation tools, raising a broader cultural question about the cost of safety when it depends on deeper identification. A policy meant to limit exposure can normalise expanded monitoring. Protection may increase while privacy erodes, a trade whose effects appear gradually as exceptions settle into norms.

Place this alongside Bangladesh, where the stakes are shaped by a different demographic weight and legal climate. By the end of 2025, Bangladesh had about 82.8 million internet users, a roughly 47.0 percent penetration, and around 64.0 million social media user identities, about 36.3 percent of the population. Its population is also notably young: UNFPA reports 28 per cent are aged 0–14, a vast cohort moving toward adolescence and connectivity. The “teen question” here is therefore not marginal but cultural. Yet regulatory focus has largely centred on controlling speech and managing dissent rather than building a child-centred digital safety regime like Australia’s minimum-age model. The Cyber Security Act 2023 replaced the widely criticised Digital Security Act 2018, though rights groups argue it preserves much of the earlier framework and continues to threaten freedom of expression and civic space. The contrast is telling. Australia’s policy suggests young people need fewer platform accounts, while Bangladesh’s legal debates often ask who can speak safely at all. One society experiments with digital abstinence for minors; the other grapples with the political meaning of digital voice across generations.

Comparing the two reveals an uncomfortable philosophical point: social media is never just entertainment. It produces social reality. When adolescents are pushed out in Australia, they lose a key arena where slang becomes language, moral panics turn into trends, solidarity takes shape, and attention becomes an early currency. When Bangladesh’s digital space is shaped by legal risk and surveillance anxiety, young people absorb a different lesson: self-censorship as routine survival. Both paths risk weakening democratic habits for different reasons. In Australia, restrictions can foster withdrawal when conflict appears. In Bangladesh, fear can encourage silence before conflict emerges. Neither nurture confident citizens. Democratic culture requires practice in judgement, not only protection from harm. Bangladesh also lacks a single, universally enforced minimum-age law for social media comparable to Australia’s model. Platforms mostly rely on their own under-13 rules drawn from international practice rather than local enforcement. This leaves a policy vacuum filled by uneven parental control, unequal digital literacy, and market-driven defaults, producing a familiar outcome: middle-class families improvise guidance, vulnerable families face algorithmic exposure, and public debate trails technological change.

The most revealing question is cultural rather than technical: what story of human development is each country telling itself? Australia tells a story in which harm is mainly environmental, answered by removing minors from digital spaces and measuring mental health effects over time. Bangladesh lives within a story where digital life is politically charged and legally risky, leading to control and caution, with child safety treated as one concern among many rather than the guiding principle. Australia’s experiment should be read from Bangladesh neither as a model to copy nor as a spectacle to dismiss, since contexts differ and anxieties overlap. It functions as a provocation to build an ethical digital culture that recognises young people as developing moral agents. This requires stronger digital literacy in schools, realistic parental support, clearer protection pathways against harm, and accountability systems that do not depend on total identification. The future will not hinge on whether teenagers hold accounts, but on whether societies can teach judgement at the speed of the feed, without turning protection into control or freedom into neglect.

——————————————————————————————

The writer is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy at IUBAT and is currently on study leave, residing in Oslo, Norway