As Australia’s under-16 ban shows, cutting kids off from social media can be hard to enforce and can push families toward workarounds. In the U.S., the debate is colliding with First Amendment limits and concerns that age verification meant to keep minors out
On a Wednesday. June 17. 2026. the debate over social media and children’s safety played out in full on The Excerpt podcast—where David Inserra. a senior fellow for free expression and technology at the Cato Institute. argued the hardest part of “protecting kids” may be the methods policymakers choose.
Governments, he said, are trying to address concerns about social media, mental health, addictive algorithms, and age-inappropriate content. Australia already enacted a ban for children under 16. The UK has announced it will move toward an even stricter version. In the U.S. the question is whether any of it can be done without breaking core rights—or simply shifting harm into different corners of the internet.
Inserra started with what he described as the current baseline in the United States: parents are largely expected to be responsible for what their kids can access. Platforms. he said. differ in how they handle safety and expression and in rules around content such as pornography or hate speech. Some platforms use parental controls, others provide special apps designed for kids. But he argued that the laws themselves are limited—because the First Amendment often prevents government from stepping in to block access to information.
“The debate,” Inserra said, is really about what restrictions lawmakers think are acceptable. He warned that policies aimed at minors can easily drift into restricting adult speech as well.
The practical problem comes fast when lawmakers reach for age verification. Inserra called the “rub” clear: age verification regimes, by definition, need to verify everyone. The intended target may be children. he noted. but enforcement can pressure systems that ultimately require adults to identify themselves too. He pointed to Australia’s experience as an example of why that approach has been difficult.
Australia. he said. implemented a nationwide social media ban for children under 16. becoming the first country to do so in that form. Yet Inserra said the estimates in Australia suggest that between 60% and 70% of minors still keep access to their social media accounts even though they are not allowed to. He cited ways kids may get around enforcement, including using VPNs and fake IDs. He also referenced arguments that some children can avoid age verification by changing appearance—for example by putting their hair in a ponytail.
When systems work, Inserra said, they can create a different set of risks. If age verification forces adults to identify themselves. he argued it can carry privacy implications. including the ability to access information that might be sensitive or involves sensitive topics. It can also reduce anonymity. For him. the core issue wasn’t only whether children could bypass the rules—it was what those rules might do to the freedom of everyone else who uses the platforms.
He described reports from Australia that offer a mixed picture. Some outcomes are framed as positive: children may be more present at the dining room table and spend more time with family. Inserra said those results. however. were always available to parents already—because parents could simply choose to restrict phone use at home.
What he emphasized were the negatives he said the blanket ban has forced onto kids. Parents, he said, have reported that their children are less connected. He added that parents reported their kids are less creative and less aware of what is going on in the world. He also said children may end up in “darker. less regulated. less safe corners” of the internet while trying to evade the ban.
The UK’s plan, Inserra said, is still in its early phase. He described initial reports: the UK government proposes banning under-16-year-olds from social media and adding restrictions on chatbots. He also said the proposal would add restrictions for under-18-year-olds on features including live-streaming. various chat features. and even a curfew for when social media can be used at night.
Inserra said the UK government claims it is learning from Australia’s experience. But he argued that the UK’s approach appears to rely on essentially the same—or potentially stronger—measures. which means the same challenges may reappear: age verification problems and privacy challenges similar to those in Australia.
He also raised an additional contradiction he said he found striking. Inserra said the UK has been considering lowering the age of voting to 16. In his view. that creates a “weird dynamic”: if a young person is one day over 16. they are old enough to vote and to debate with their peers about the future of the country. But if a young person is one day under 16. they are treated as too vulnerable or gullible to be trusted with going online.
That tension, Inserra suggested, points to a split approach to online speech and children.
Across the Atlantic, the U.S. discussion has taken on its own legal shape. Inserra pointed to a Supreme Court case called FSC v. Paxton, which he said dealt with whether states can ban children’s access to adult content, including pornography. The Supreme Court. he said. held that such bans are allowed. but it did not extend that logic to social media broadly.
He added that court signals in early actions suggest several justices are not on board with a social media ban for under-16-year-olds. The reason, he said, would be that such bans could violate the First Amendment.
Even so. he described ongoing efforts at the state level: various states have proposed social media bans. and some have passed them. with the measures moving through legislative or judicial processes. In his telling, the stakes are not only for children. Policies aimed at minors can still harm adults’ First Amendment rights.
Inserra said that if adults who want access must show “papers,” that would mean identifying themselves and losing anonymity. He described how the loss of anonymity could affect people speaking about sensitive issues—such as whistleblowing or living in an abusive relationship—where anonymity and privacy are often used to protect safety. He argued that the result would be “chilled” speech. noting that the Supreme Court has treated chilled speech as a serious First Amendment problem.
As the conversation turned to who should be in charge. Inserra said the debate has largely started with states. but federal legislation is also in the mix. He said that in both the House and the Senate, lawmakers have debated next steps to keep kids safe online. He also pointed to age verification proposals currently being considered in Congress. while noting they have not passed yet even as they have advanced in multiple states.
At the center of his argument was the idea that the fundamental problem is consistent: these policies. he said. undermine privacy and weaken expression at any level of government. He suggested that the Supreme Court may reach a different outcome than it did in the pornography-related decision in FSC v. Paxton if these kinds of cases come before the court.
Inserra also described comments from several members of Congress who. in his account. urged lawmakers to take the First Amendment more seriously when drafting online safety rules for children. The fear. he said. is that if a bill is later ruled unconstitutional. it will not only fail legally—it will also damage the public discussion around children’s online safety.
He then shifted to responsibility for addiction-related harms. referencing the recent jury finding in California and New Mexico where juries found Meta liable for designing platforms that were addictive. Inserra said those cases are being appealed and legal debate will continue. Still, he questioned whether “addiction” is the right framework.
From what he described as common sense. Inserra argued that addiction usually implies physical illness if someone stops. including withdrawal symptoms and difficulty functioning properly. He said social media does not fit that model cleanly. In his view. the real issue is that many people develop bad habits with social media. and for kids especially. that is worth addressing. But he argued the solution requires determining the right amount of content and what is appropriate for different families and individuals—decisions he said vary widely.
He pushed back hard against government mandates about what kids can watch. when they can access content. and where they can go online. For him, that approach disenfranchises parents who should be leading these decisions. He said he has sympathy for situations where kids have encountered harmful content online and harmed themselves as a result. Yet he argued lawmakers should still ask what exactly is being treated as the problem—because. in his view. the content kids consume is not unlike the company kids keep and the lessons families teach.
“Parents have to take more leadership,” Inserra said, even though he acknowledged it is hard.
So what does he suggest instead of bans and age verification that he argues can create civil liberties problems? Inserra said there are models that focus on education and tools rather than outright exclusion.
He described state-level ideas to educate kids on safe and appropriate uses of social media through bills designed to teach responsible use without forcing a single outcome. He said the instruction should help children recognize when they might be taken advantage of and when a bad actor is targeting them.
Inserra also argued that social media can’t be treated only as a forbidden product. Kids will eventually become adults who must navigate social media to interact with people. engage in business. and use it in their lives. In his view, telling children simply “no” without teaching how to handle reality leaves them unprepared.
He said states have already passed education-focused bills. He also pointed to the need to empower parents by educating them about the tools available. Inserra noted that parental control tools exist for almost every major platform. and he mentioned that there are also third-party tools beyond what platforms provide. His argument was not abstract: parents. he said. can learn how those tools work and tailor them to their own families.
The through-line of the episode was stark. Australia’s under-16 ban is meant to keep minors off social media. Yet Inserra said a large share of minors still access their accounts, using workarounds such as VPNs and fake IDs. And he said attempts to enforce age checks can come with privacy tradeoffs that extend beyond kids.
In the U.S. that same tension plays out in court and legislatures at once—state proposals. federal bills under consideration. and an underlying First Amendment question anchored in the Supreme Court’s reasoning in FSC v. Paxton. Inserra’s message to lawmakers was that privacy and expression aren’t easily separable from the methods being proposed.
By the end of the conversation, the debate wasn’t only about whether children should be protected online. It was about who should carry the burden—parents, platforms, or government—and how to keep policy from turning safety efforts into a broader loss of anonymity and open speech.
Dana Taylor thanked Inserra for sharing his insights and perspective on the episode, and the show concluded with listeners encouraged to subscribe.
social media bans children online age verification First Amendment Australia under 16 ban UK social media curfew FSC v. Paxton Meta liable addictive platforms privacy free speech Cato Institute