Australia is implementing a social media ban for children under 16, and this interview with Associate Professor Dr. Lesley Anne Ey from UniSA Education Futures explains the developmental science behind the decision. Children’s brains are still developing executive functioning and critical thinking skills through their teenage years, making them vulnerable to sophisticated online predators, cyberbullying, misinformation, and harmful content ranging from pornography to eating disorder promotion. The ban serves as a protective mechanism—similar to age restrictions on driving—to give children time to mature cognitively before facing these risks. However, Dr. Ey emphasizes that the ban alone isn’t enough. Media literacy education must become as important as math and English in schools, while parents need to educate themselves about online risks, maintain open communication with their children, and reassure them that no problem is too big to solve together. The interview explores whether the ban will effectively reduce harm or simply shift risks to platforms like gaming, and discusses why education remains the most powerful long-term protection strategy. Truth matters. Quality journalism costs. Your subscription to Mencari directly funds the investigative reporting our democracy needs. For less than a coffee per week, you enable our journalists to uncover stories that powerful interests would rather keep hidden. No corporate influence. No compromises. Just honest journalism when we need it most. Five Key Takeaways * Cognitive Development Timeline Drives Policy: Children’s executive functioning skills and critical thinking abilities continue developing until around age 16-17, with peak sexual development occurring between ages 10-17, making adolescents particularly vulnerable to online risks including predatory behavior, misinformation, and content promoting self-harm or eating disorders during this crucial developmental window. * Comprehensive Risk Landscape Beyond Cyberbullying: Social media exposure encompasses far more than bullying—risks include sextortion (perpetrators coercing sexual images then using them for control), child sexual abuse, false information shaping perceptions, conspiracy theories, body image dysphoria, addiction, depression, suicidal ideation, and access to dangerous content like bomb-making instructions or hate speech. * Perpetrators Outpace Both Police and Children: Child sexual abuse perpetrators are sophisticated actors who remain consistently ahead of law enforcement detection methods, operating secretively and manipulating children through grooming techniques—if police struggle to identify and trap these perpetrators, expecting cognitively developing children to recognize and resist them is unrealistic without protective measures. * Education Trumps Regulation as Long-Term Solution: While the ban provides temporary protection, Dr. Ey emphasizes that media literacy education represents a more effective long-term strategy than regulation alone, arguing it should receive equivalent priority to mathematics and English in curricula, with systematic monitoring and assessment of what children learn about recognizing and responding to online risks. * Parental Communication Provides Critical Safety Net: Children who fall victim to online grooming or send compromising images often remain silent due to fear of consequences or punishment, sometimes resulting in tragic outcomes including suicide—parents must establish that no problem is too big to address together, creating an approachable environment where children feel safe reporting uncomfortable or suspicious online interactions immediately. Detailed Synopsis This interview examines Australia’s imminent social media ban for children under 16 through a conversation with Associate Professor Dr. Lesley Anne Ey, a child development expert from UniSA Education Futures. The discussion provides scientific context for the policy while exploring its practical implications and limitations. Dr. Ey grounds the policy rationale in developmental psychology, explaining that while the internet offers tremendous opportunities for learning, connection, and entertainment, it also creates a risk environment for which children are neurologically unprepared. The adolescent brain undergoes significant development between ages 10-17, a period that coincides with both sexual maturation and the formation of executive functioning skills necessary for critical thinking and risk assessment. The scope of online risks extends well beyond the commonly discussed cyberbullying. Dr. Ey catalogs a disturbing range of harms: sextortion schemes where perpetrators manipulate children into sending sexual images then use those images for ongoing control and abuse; direct child sexual exploitation; exposure to harmful instructional content including bomb-making guides; pornography; hate speech; misinformation campaigns; conspiracy theories deliberately designed to distort reality; content promoting negative body image and eating disorders; and platforms that facilitate addiction patterns while exacerbating depression and suicidal ideation. Schools teach critical thinking, Dr. Ey notes, but primarily in academic contexts—problem-solving exercises and curriculum-based challenges. This educational approach doesn’t adequately prepare children to identify and respond to bad-faith actors, sophisticated manipulation tactics, or the psychological techniques employed by online predators. These perpetrators represent a particular challenge because they operate with deliberate deception and remain consistently ahead of law enforcement capabilities. This creates what Dr. Ey characterizes as an impossible expectation: if trained police officers with specialized resources struggle to identify and apprehend child predators operating online, how can society reasonably expect cognitively developing children to recognize these same threats and protect themselves effectively? The social media ban emerges from this analysis as a protective mechanism rather than a comprehensive solution. Dr. Ey draws an explicit parallel to driving age restrictions—society doesn’t permit children to drive until 16 not because driving is inherently wrong, but because children require time to develop the physical coordination, judgment, and risk assessment capabilities that safe driving demands. Similarly, the social media ban provides a developmental buffer period. However, Dr. Ey repeatedly emphasizes that the ban alone represents only partial protection. Gaming platforms, text messaging, and other digital communication channels remain accessible and carry similar risks. This reality necessitates a comprehensive educational approach involving multiple stakeholders. For parents, Dr. Ey outlines specific responsibilities: self-education about social media platforms and internet safety through resources like the eSafety Commissioner website; direct conversation with children about the reasons behind the ban and the specific risks it addresses; creating an approachable communication environment; and crucially, reassuring children that no mistake or problem is too serious to address together. This last point receives particular emphasis. Dr. Ey explains that children who become victims of grooming or who make mistakes like sending compromising images often remain silent due to fear of parental anger or punishment. This silence allows abuse to continue and intensify. In worst-case scenarios, children overwhelmed by shame and fear have taken their own lives rather than face consequences they perceived as insurmountable. Establishing unconditional support and problem-solving partnership becomes a literal life-or-death communication priority. Schools carry complementary responsibilities. Dr. Ey argues that media literacy education should receive equivalent curricular priority to mathematics and English. Current Australian curriculum includes these components, but without systematic monitoring, assessment, or verification that students are actually learning protective skills. This represents a fundamental pedagogical gap. The educational approach must extend beyond traditional internet safety to encompass critical media literacy—teaching children to recognize false information, understand AI-generated content, identify manipulation tactics, and develop healthy skepticism about online interactions. Schools occupy a unique position to deliver this education systematically and universally. When asked whether media literacy might prove more effective than regulation, Dr. Ey responds affirmatively. Teaching children to recognize and manage risk creates more durable protection than any regulatory framework. However, she qualifies this by noting that education requires time to take effect, while children face immediate risks. The ban buys time for educational interventions to work while children continue maturing. Regarding the ban’s effectiveness in reducing cyberbullying specifically, Dr. Ey predicts mixed outcomes. Some children experiencing bullying will likely welcome the protection the ban provides by reducing harassment opportunities. However, bullying won’t disappear because alternative platforms remain accessible. The fundamental principle holds: reducing opportunity for harm represents improvement even when complete elimination isn’t achievable. The interview addresses socioeconomic concerns about differential access creating inequality. Dr. Ey rejects this framing based on device penetration data—approximately 80% of children age eight and older possess mobile phone access, with tablets and computers providing additional access points through family devices and schools. The ubiquity of device access means essentially all children face online risks regardless of socioeconomic status. The ban therefore provides relatively equal protection across economic strata. Throughout the conversation,