Just over two months ago, Australia’s much anticipated provisions governing social media platform access by under-16s came into force. While it’s still early, let’s examine how various stakeholders have responded.

First, the eSafety commissioner has reported that in the first month of operation, 4.7 million accounts on the relevant platforms—Facebook, Instagram, Kick, Reddit, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X, and YouTube—have been deactivated. This is more than two accounts per Australian age 10–16. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese claimed this showed the legislation is working. Moreover, it is inducing a copycat effect: “This is a source of Australian pride,” he said in announcing the ban’s preliminary results. “This was world leading legislation, but it is now being followed up around the world.”

However, it is far less clear that canceling user accounts has led to a safer online environment for teenagers and other app users.

App stores have reported a big increase in downloads of substitute platforms, such as Lemon8, owned by TikTok’s owner, ByteDance, and short-form video content apps Coverstar and RedShort. WhatsApp, which was exempted from the ban, has also seen a surge in popularity. Professor Daniel Angus, director of the Queensland University of Technology’s Digital Media Research Centre, summed it up: “This is a signalling policy failure already that basically children are voting with their feet and getting around this in any way, shape or form they can.”

The eSafety Commission is aware of these behaviors. It has reminded these newly popular platforms that they must “continually assess whether they meet the definition of an age-restricted social media platform” and “if they do meet the definition—including the requirement that their sole or significant purpose is to enable online social interaction—and they are not excluded under the legislative rules, they must take reasonable steps to ensure users under 16 do not hold an account.” However, the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology’s Lisa Given likens this to the commission playing Whac-a-Mole as new platforms pop up or others that were under the radar suddenly become popular.

Some teens report a newfound freedom from the apps, such as from the addictive competition invoked by “Streaks”—a Snapchat feature requiring two people to send a Snap to each other every day to maintain their Streak, which can last for days, months, or even years. Yet others assert no change, as the games they play were never on the banned list. Moreover, their friends are still active on social media, creating new accounts using false details and using VPNs concealing their Australian location.

Free VPNs are also among the app store products enjoying a surge in popularity. Charles Sturt University’s Louis Hourany cautioned that this may prove more harmful in terms of privacy, data harvesting, and content-moderation risks than the regulated social media platforms because “in some cases, the operator of the VPN may see far more than the social media platform ever could.” While it is technically feasible for the regulated platforms to take additional measures to detect VPN use, such as detecting geotagging of photos and examining connection, engagement, and other activity to assess user age, these measures invoke further privacy questions (e.g., facial age analysis performed on uploaded photos, which may not even be of the individual doing the posting).

While some parents and grandparents have reported feeling backed by the government and relieved that it is taking online safety seriously, others have observed the work-arounds teens use. Some adults who use platforms—notably Snapchat—to communicate with teenage family members now face a moral dilemma. If the teenagers “go underground” should the adults condone that behavior by following them or stand firm by cutting off contact (and enduring their own social consequences)? Others have noted the distress as teenagers (especially socially vulnerable ones) fear the loss of social connections and the economic consequences of losing income-earning potential from content creation (notably YouTube). Some have also expressed resentment that the government has usurped responsibility for a matter they view as a family concern.

Moreover, Reddit has commenced court proceedings asking the Australian High Court to rule on whether having the significant purpose of enabling online interaction constitutes social interaction when the communicating parties are unknown to each other. This is in addition to the case brought by two teenagers arguing the unconstitutionality of provisions interfering with teens’ political communication. Both cases are expected to be heard in February.

In sum, therefore, the court of public opinion remains at best equivocal on the rules’ success. Not that this is surprising, given consequences were easily foreseen. And the Australian rules never made it illegal for under-16s to use social media—the targeted “criminals” are social media platforms (however defined) failing to adhere to self-determined provisions deterring (not preventing) a subset of users from engaging on their platforms.