Australia’s Online Safety Chief Faces Abuse as Under-16 Social Media Ban Takes Effect

Julie Inman Grant, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, has become one of the most prominent — and most targeted — public officials in the global debate over online regulation, as the country enforces a landmark ban on social media use for children under 16.

Before an interview with the BBC had even begun, discussion had already turned to the regular stream of death and rape threats received by her office — most of them aimed directly at Inman Grant herself. Colleagues describe the internet as a “cesspit”, a reality she says she has endured for several years.

As head of Australia’s independent online safety regulator, Inman Grant sits at the centre of disputes over misinformation, online abuse, free speech and child protection. Her role has brought her into conflict with major technology companies, extremist groups and even lawmakers in the United States.

She has been doxxed by neo-Nazi networks, publicly clashed with X owner Elon Musk, and drawn criticism from members of the US Congress — all while overseeing the implementation of one of the world’s strictest social media laws.

The legislation, which came into force on 10 December, prevents Australians under the age of 16 from accessing major social platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube. In total, 10 platforms fall under the ban.

The policy has received strong backing from many parents, who say it strengthens their authority when dealing with children eager to join social networks. However, the ban has also sparked criticism from technology experts, digital rights groups and child welfare advocates.

Opponents argue the law is difficult to enforce, risks excluding vulnerable groups — such as rural children, disabled teenagers and LGBTQI+ youth — and prioritises restriction over education.

Technology firms, while pledging compliance, have expressed scepticism. Several companies have said they share concerns about online harm but do not believe banning children is the right approach.

Inman Grant defends the policy as an attempt to delay exposure rather than eliminate it altogether. She says pushing back children’s entry into social media by even a few years, combined with digital literacy education, could help build resilience and critical thinking.

She often compares the internet to open water — a space that carries risks but cannot simply be fenced off. Children, she argues, must learn how to navigate dangers such as algorithms, predators and scams, much like swimmers are taught to recognise rips and sharks.

Notably, Inman Grant once opposed a blanket ban, favouring education-based safeguards. She says she changed her position after being given flexibility in how the policy would be rolled out and after witnessing the scale of harm faced by young users.

Her personal life has become an unintended testing ground for the law. She has three children, including 13-year-old twins, and says reactions at home ranged from indifference to alarm at the prospect of losing access to platforms like Instagram and Snapchat.

Inman Grant’s career has long been intertwined with the tech industry. Raised in Seattle, she worked on Capitol Hill before spending years at Microsoft, Twitter and Adobe. She moved to Australia in the early 2000s and later became a citizen.

After more than two decades in private industry, she concluded that online safety could not be adequately addressed without regulation. Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull, who helped create the eSafety Commissioner role, appointed her partly because of her deep understanding of how tech companies operate.

Under her leadership, the regulator’s budget and staff have expanded significantly, and its influence has grown. Politicians across party lines have praised her tenure, describing it as unusually effective in a fast-moving and politically sensitive field.

Still, Australia’s approach has angered some overseas critics. Inman Grant has refused a request from the US Congress to testify about the under-16 ban, after being accused by Republican lawmakers of threatening American free speech.

She says Australia’s laws do not affect content shown to users outside the country and that her role is limited to enforcement, not political advocacy.

Legal challenges are already underway. Online platform Reddit and two Australian teenagers have launched cases in the High Court, while the eSafety Commission continues to pursue companies accused of breaching existing safety rules.

In 2024, Inman Grant became a lightning rod for online abuse after ordering the removal of a violent livestream from X following a stabbing in Sydney. Elon Musk refused to comply and publicly attacked her, triggering a surge in threats and harassment.

A later academic study found tens of thousands of abusive posts targeting her within days. While the video was eventually geo-blocked in Australia, it remained accessible elsewhere.

Inman Grant says the incident illustrates how violent content can normalise and fuel further harm, pointing to cases where attackers later viewed the same footage.

As she enforces the social media ban, her focus is already shifting to the next challenge: artificial intelligence. She warns governments were slow to act on social media and cannot afford the same delay with AI.

After nearly a decade in the role, her second five-year term ends next year. While she suggests it may be time to step aside, she makes clear her commitment to online safety will continue — whether by advising governments or pushing companies to design safer technologies.