The Fort Worth Press - We Banned Social Media From Our Children, Not Our Children From Social Media

USD -
AED 3.672998
AFN 64.999818
ALL 81.405563
AMD 360.510235
ANG 1.789785
AOA 917.000268
ARS 1541.744499
AUD 1.417153
AWG 1.8
AZN 1.703518
BAM 1.756231
BBD 2.013047
BDT 124.13403
BGN 1.747831
BHD 0.377302
BIF 3001.5
BMD 1
BND 1.281647
BOB 12.038845
BRL 5.351101
BSD 0.99943
BTN 95.119137
BWP 13.826143
BYN 2.945822
BYR 19600
BZD 2.010084
CAD 1.39945
CDF 2314.492461
CHF 0.827799
CLF 0.02502
CLP 987.919972
CNY 6.66605
CNH 6.6619
COP 3168.08
CRC 454.457699
CUC 1
CUP 23.987213
CVE 99.225002
CZK 21.835497
DJF 177.720354
DKK 6.700098
DOP 60.370085
DZD 135.229616
EGP 56.025299
ERN 15
ETB 161.249855
EUR 0.896402
FJD 2.23975
FKP 0.75114
GBP 0.75045
GEL 2.567498
GGP 0.75114
GHS 11.649969
GIP 0.75114
GMD 73.504684
GNF 8794.999879
GTQ 7.63805
GYD 209.438376
HKD 7.84505
HNL 27.000161
HRK 6.76901
HTG 130.948372
HUF 329.104503
IDR 18025.2
ILS 3.123155
IMP 0.75114
INR 95.20875
IQD 1514.5
IRR 1864650.000102
ISK 121.70015
JEP 0.75114
JMD 158.527332
JOD 0.709032
JPY 157.81597
KES 129.999899
KGS 87.448597
KHR 4075.500169
KMF 442.00042
KPW 899.999961
KRW 1342.620231
KWD 0.3109
KYD 0.832963
KZT 455.005455
LAK 22524.999812
LBP 89550.000069
LKR 332.317142
LRD 170.239935
LSL 16.669885
LTL 2.95274
LVL 0.60489
LYD 6.429994
MAD 9.853054
MDL 17.990957
MGA 4590.000094
MKD 55.296394
MMK 2099.630718
MNT 3601.077836
MOP 8.076272
MRU 40.202149
MUR 47.559866
MVR 15.460379
MWK 1737.000298
MXN 18.629203
MYR 4.076798
MZN 63.899112
NAD 16.669713
NGN 1344.099323
NIO 36.818268
NOK 9.255525
NPR 152.193532
NZD 1.777241
OMR 0.384493
PAB 0.999421
PEN 3.452026
PGK 4.489896
PHP 63.914989
PKR 276.650125
PLN 3.94624
PYG 5850.263778
QAR 3.64525
RON 4.796799
RSD 105.341994
RUB 80.502734
RWF 1477.5
SAR 3.753464
SBD 8.064705
SCR 13.719829
SDG 601.501353
SEK 9.90388
SGD 1.28089
SHP 0.750582
SLE 22.950068
SLL 20969.504398
SOS 571.492332
SRD 37.615504
STD 20697.981008
STN 22.05
SVC 8.745235
SYP 13001.999685
SZL 16.619851
THB 33.740241
TJS 9.205205
TMT 3.51
TND 3.00825
TOP 2.40776
TRY 49.826901
TTD 6.78409
TWD 32.411201
TZS 2644.428018
UAH 45.57773
UGX 4352.413493
UYU 40.211023
UZS 11989.99986
VES 887.00815
VND 25856.5
VUV 118.98361
WST 2.767767
XAF 588.001413
XAG 0.018531
XAU 0.000245864256
XCD 2.70255
XCG 1.801308
XDR 0.707052
XOF 588.001413
XPF 107.375046
YER 236.175035
ZAR 16.58255
ZMK 9001.170568
ZMW 20.164415
ZWL 321.999592
SSP 5745.470209
MXV 2.100686
  • RIO

    -0.3300

    97.04

    -0.34%

  • CMSC

    -0.0400

    20.67

    -0.19%

  • RELX

    0.0000

    33.41

    0%

  • RBGPF

    0.0000

    67.95

    0%

  • BCE

    -0.0700

    21.99

    -0.32%

  • BCC

    -0.0300

    75.66

    -0.04%

  • GSK

    0.8600

    51.08

    +1.68%

  • JRI

    -0.0300

    11.52

    -0.26%

  • NGG

    -0.1200

    76.68

    -0.16%

  • CMSD

    0.0900

    20.54

    +0.44%

  • BTI

    -0.0800

    55.75

    -0.14%

  • AZN

    2.0200

    168.1

    +1.2%

  • BP

    -1.4200

    43.16

    -3.29%

  • RYCEF

    0.4600

    19.7

    +2.34%

  • VOD

    0.0700

    17.02

    +0.41%

We Banned Social Media From Our Children, Not Our Children From Social Media
We Banned Social Media From Our Children, Not Our Children From Social Media

We Banned Social Media From Our Children, Not Our Children From Social Media

Safe on Social founder and Australian Age Assurance trial adviser Kirra Pendergast responds to CBS's 60 Minutes investigation into Australia's under-16 social media restrictions.

Text size:

ALEXANDRIA, VA / ACCESS Newswire / October 28, 2026 / Following CBS's 60 Minutes investigation into Australia's under-16 social media restrictions, Safe on Social founder Kirra Pendergast is calling attention to a distinction she believes has been overlooked: Australia's law places the responsibility for preventing underage accounts on social media companies, not children, parents or schools.

Pendergast, who served on the advisory board for Australia's Age Assurance Technology Trial, says the debate over whether teenagers can circumvent the restrictions risks obscuring the larger question of whether platforms are taking reasonable steps to comply.

The 60 Minutes story was strange, moving and powerful; however, thirteen minutes could not fully convey what this law actually is.

Australia did not ban children from social media. We banned social media from our children. There is no penalty for a fifteen-year-old who keeps an account, no fine for the parent who helped set it up and no expectation that teachers will police anyone's phone. The obligations, and potential penalties of up to A$109.2 million for serious non-compliance, sit with the platforms. For twenty years, the burden of keeping children safe online fell on exhausted parents, overstretched schools and children themselves. Australia became the first country to hand it back to the companies that built the products and profited from the attention of the young people using them.

The idea began in South Australia, where Premier Peter Malinauskas, the equivalent of a governor, set out to put a community standard around childhood online. He has always admitted that young people will find their way around it, and I completely share his central argument: companies that know what he eats for breakfast and where he runs each morning can certainly tell a thirteen-year-old from a sixteen-year-old.

Our trial tested exactly that. Independent assessors put dozens of age assurance technologies through their paces and found that age can be assured in ways that protect privacy and work in the real world. No single method is perfect, and the strongest results come from layering approaches with sensible fallbacks. The technology question was answered before the law took effect, which left a question of will. That is the part of the 60 Minutes story that should trouble every American watching.

Julie Inman Grant, the former Microsoft and Twitter executive who enforces the law as Australia's eSafety Commissioner, told the program she has not seen the compliance she hoped for. Her disappointment makes sense when you watch what the same industry manages once age assurance suits its own interests.

Earlier this month Pornhub returned to Australia for iPhone users whose age Apple had already confirmed, because its owner decided those checks were good enough to bring a paying audience back. Roblox offers the other half of the lesson: verified child accounts began appearing for sale on eBay, and Roblox has since introduced continuous age checks.

Both stories show that the capability exists and can be switched on quickly when a company decides it should be. They also expose a blind spot in almost every system being built today: they work hard to stop children passing as adults and do very little to stop adults passing as children.

That blind spot is what reached my friend Wayne Holdsworth's son, Mac. In 2022, Mac was deceived by a man in his forties posing as another teenager, coerced into sharing an intimate image, threatened and then exposed to his friends and family when the extortion failed. He died by suicide the following year.

American parents will recognise the pattern. The FBI has spent years warning about financially motivated sextortion aimed largely at teenage boys and run by organised networks overseas. Wayne has since carried Mac's story into more than a hundred Australian schools, speaking for every parent who was told for years that this was their problem to solve alone.

In the first three months, the number of ten- to fifteen-year-olds holding at least one account on a restricted platform fell by around a fifth, real progress for a world first. Yet half of the under-sixteens who kept their accounts said they had never once been asked to confirm their age.

When Noah Jones showed the cameras how he kept one account through a face scan and others by typing in a different birth year, he exposed a failure of corporate effort rather than of the technology. He also makes a compelling case when he calls social media the modern town square, an argument familiar to anyone following First Amendment challenges to state age-verification laws.

The Youth Digital Index found that more than half of Australian children under thirteen have a social media account, rising to seventy percent of thirteen- to sixteen-year-olds, most set up with a parent's help. A law can shift the default but cannot win the conversation at the kitchen table on its own. Children who slip through on false birthdays end up on adult accounts without teen protections, so education at home and in classrooms must keep the door to help wide open.

The companies told 60 Minutes what they tell regulators everywhere, with Meta warning that blanket bans push teenagers into unregulated corners of the internet, Snap denying its product is built to hook children and TikTok describing safety at its core.

Americans are well placed to weigh those words. Earlier this year a jury here found Meta and YouTube liable for designing products that drove harmful and addictive use among young people, a verdict both are appealing, and state attorneys general are pressing similar cases across the country.

As the United Kingdom, Norway, Spain, Canada, American states and Congress all write their own versions, the most important choice is where to place the duty. A law that asks children to prove their innocence, parents to sign forms or schools to confiscate phones will repeat the mistake of the last twenty years under a new name.

A law that places the obligation squarely on the companies, backed by penalties large enough to change their priorities, safety by design standards, the right to switch off algorithmic feeds and a firm commitment to collecting as little data about children as possible, puts responsibility where the power has always been.

Australia has not finished this work, but we have changed the narrative globally from what families should do about the platforms to what the platforms owe to families.

The measure of success I hope we use on both sides of the Pacific is not simply how many accounts are closed. It is whether a child in trouble tonight feels safe enough to tell someone, without fearing that speaking up will get them into trouble for being on a platform they are not yet old enough to use.

It is also whether the company that let a stranger reach that child is finally the one held to account.

Kirra Pendergast is available for interviews and expert commentary on Australia's social media age restrictions, age assurance technology, platform accountability and the lessons for American policymakers, schools and families.

About Safe on Social Inc.

Safe on Social, powered by Ctrl+Shft, has worked at the frontline of digital safety since 2013, building more than a decade of Earned Intelligence™ from the real-world experiences of schools, educators, families and communities.

Founded by bestselling author and digital safety expert Kirra Pendergast, that frontline knowledge now powers Ctrl+Shft, a Behavioral Risk Intelligence platform designed to identify emerging patterns of digital and behavioral risk earlier, document duty of care and help organizations act before concerning signals become serious harm.

Through its US entity, Safe on Social Inc. works with public and private schools to bring together education, risk intelligence and governance through one connected system, helping make technology a safer and more positive part of school life.

Learn more at www.safeonsocial.com.

Learn more about Kirra Pendergast at www.kirrapendergast.com.

Media, Partnership & Investor Inquiries

Will Anstee
Safe on Social Inc.
[email protected]
www.safeonsocial.com

SOURCE: Safe on Social Inc.



View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire

S.Rocha--TFWP