Bill C-34’s proposed social media ban for kids has rightly attracted considerable criticism since the bill was tabled last month, given that it requires age verification for most Canadians to use social media and the government plans to implement it before privacy safeguards are in place. Moreover, as I wrote last week, mounting data from Australia indicates that bans simply do not work. Thanks to a reader for pointing to a new Australian study that identifies yet another cost: young people’s access to news. The concern has resonance in Canada, where youth access to news on social media has already been undermined by the Online News Act, which prompted Meta to block news links on Facebook and Instagram. Bill C-34 would exacerbate the problem by cutting kids off TikTok and YouTube, which emerged as important news sources after the Meta news link block.

The study, based on a February 2026 survey of 1,027 Australians aged 10 to 17 conducted by researchers at Western Sydney University, Queensland University of Technology, and the University of Canberra, confirms that social media is not an incidental news source for young people. Two in five (41 per cent) reported using social media for news the previous day, and one in three (32 per cent) actively follow accounts specifically to get news. Reliance also rises sharply with age, with 72 per cent of 16 and 17 year olds using social media to get news, up from 37 per cent of 10 to 12 year olds. Social media ranked as a preferred news source ahead of television, websites, apps, radio, and podcasts.

To be clear, the shift to social media over traditional news sources raises its own concerns as reliance on opinion rather that sourced news alongside the lack of transparency of algorithmic choices can create a misinformed audience. Yet blocking access is not the answer to those challenges. Indeed, the impact of the ban on news access in Australia is striking. Consistent with other studies, the researchers found that the ban has largely failed to change behaviour, with 61 per cent of under-16s reporting no meaningful change in their social media use. However, among the 26 per cent whose use was significantly disrupted, 51 per cent said they are now getting less news, together with reduced access to local news and community events, fewer discussions about news with others, and fewer opportunities to share their views or take action on issues they care about. Even 22 per cent of those not directly affected reported getting less news, which the researchers attribute to the changed experience as friends leave the platforms. The researchers pull no punches:

Social media isn’t just where young people happen to find news: it’s where they go looking for it. Our data suggests that, for many young people, blocking their social media access doesn’t redirect their news engagement – it ends it.

The findings build directly on the data I wrote about last week, with the ban causing harms both when it works and when it doesn’t. When it does not work, it generates escalating enforcement demands and mounting privacy costs; when it does, it cuts young people off from the news.

The Canadian situation would be worse than Australia. When Meta blocked news links on Facebook and Instagram in August 2023 in response to Bill C-18, the effects were immediate: the Media Ecosystem Observatory found that Canadian news outlets lost 85 per cent of their engagement on Meta platforms, Canadians encountered an estimated 11 million fewer news views per day, and roughly 30 per cent of local news outlets became inactive on social media. With news links gone from Facebook and Instagram, the news Canadians still encounter on social media increasingly comes through creators and influencers on the video platforms the block left untouched, a shift toward news creators and video that the Reuters Institute Digital News Report finds is particularly pronounced among younger audiences on YouTube and TikTok.

Bill C-34 would further isolate younger Canadians from the news. The ban is account-based, requiring platforms to take measures to prevent under-16s from holding accounts with a regulated social media service. Some may argue that teens could still access content without an account, but that response misunderstands how the services actually work. TikTok can be opened without logging in, yet without an account there is no personalized feed, no ability to follow creators or news sources, and no sharing or commenting, with the result that there is no consistent or reliable way to even see the content a user cares about. The Australian data confirms that young people’s news consumption is built on precisely these account-based features, with one in three following accounts specifically for news.

Taken together, Canadian teens face the prospect of being blocked twice: news links stripped from Facebook and Instagram for everyone as a consequence of the Online News Act, and accounts stripped from TikTok and YouTube for those under 16 as a consequence of Bill C-34. There is no indication the government has considered any of this. Much as it plans to proceed without the privacy analysis needed for the ban’s age verification requirements, there is no evidence of any assessment of the ban’s impact on young Canadians’ access to news and the civic engagement that flows from it. The Australian researchers conclude that reduced access to news cannot be accepted as a mere side effect of online safety policy. Yet Canada appears ready to compound the damage of the Online News Act, cutting an entire generation off from the news in the name of a policy the evidence thus far shows does not work.