Going to the park, meeting up with friends, bike-riding, having picnics and swimming - teenagers' summer to-do lists are looking awfully retro.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
At least, that's the thinking six weeks out from the federal government's much-discussed social media ban for children under 16.
Leo Blair, 13, plans to leave his phone at home, play football and hang out with his mates.
Abbey Nuttall, 12, thinks she'll go for walks and spend time with her friends in the park.
Will Driscoll reckons he'll play a lot of basketball and go to the movies, while Callum Ernst will visit his grandparents.
The way they talk about it, you'd think there had been something stopping them from doing all these things until now.
All of them agree that being without their phones will be liberating - to a point.
'It'll last two months'
Teenagers, especially 13 to 14-year-olds, are facing their first summer without access to the apps. But despite these optimistic to-do lists, most have no idea what their time will look like.
Take Abbey Nuttall, Alyssa McLean Dreyfus, Chloe Tomlinson and Anouk Starling, all in year 7 at Telopea Park and proficient users of Snapchat, Instagram and TikTok.
On an after-school hang in the park after school this week, none of them really believes the ban will have much of an effect.
Anouk says that as long as she's with her friends, she'll have fun, but she agrees with Chloe that there's no way to really keep kids off social media.
"There's no foolproof plan," Chloe says with a shrug.
Alyssa thinks the government hasn't tried hard enough to teach kids about online safety.
"Instead of, like, instead of banning it altogether, they should be banning the content that's not OK for kids," she says.
All four give the ban a short time span, after which things will go back to normal.
"It'll last two months," they all agree.
'Pretty detrimental'
Parents are more optimistic about what the eSafety Commissioner is calling a "delay", rather than a ban.
Andrew Nuttall, father of 12-year-old Abbey, has two older children and says for his family, the ban will be quite simple.
"I believe that social media was pretty detrimental to both of the older kids," he says.
"They got caught up in a fair bit of the rubbish that you see on social media. I'm not saying that there is any explicit bullying or any nastiness, but there is a lot of content on there that's probably not safe for younger eyes.
"So the ban coming into effect is going to be, I think, a positive for us."
He says it helps that other parents of kids in Abbey's friend group are also on board with the ban.
"Everyone in the friendship circle is going to be in the same boat, which is fantastic - it means that there's no one feeling left out, feeling that they're being isolated or picked on," he says.
And with a 19-year-old son and 16-year-old daughter, he's seen firsthand the dark side of social media.
For his son, it was the aggressive nature of the material he began accessing as a younger teen that worried him.
"I wouldn't say it was particularly predatory ... It's just that there was so much access, and [he] had the ability to then figure things out that he shouldn't have been knowing about until he was years older.
"It could be a rapper smoking joints and and swearing and carrying on with bigotry that then moulds the young mind. So without having access to that, I think it would have been a lot safer for him."
His elder daughter had quite a different experience.
"When it comes to to the girl side of things, it's more about body image, as opposed to being super-cool," Nuttall says.
"So they'll see things and think that's how I'm meant to look, and then start adjusting or maybe forming eating disorders, whatever it may be. And we've also seen that firsthand.
"That's why this ban is perfect for me. I think by the time they're 16, their minds are developed enough to be able to make their own decisions in life. They're driving at that stage. So I think if they're old enough to drive a car, then they can make more informed decisions."
'What bothers me is the dumbness'
Chris Bamford is also relieved to think his 13-year-old daughter will be off social media. Willow, a student at Lyneham High, looks at all the usual high school girl stuff, and her dad finds it disturbing.
"The ban for me is not about safety online, because Willow is super rules-conscious," he says.
"What bothers me is the dumbness. If I'm over her shoulder watching her go through TikTok, it's just a complete waste of time and a waste of her imagination. It's a waste of her brain power. It's the brain-rot that kills me to see. We never had that as kids."
He says Willow, like so many of her friends, hasn't really accepted that it's all going to be switched off in the near future. And like many parents, he can't quite visualise it either, having grown accustomed to a house filled with phones and screens.
"I can't compare it to anything," he says.
"To them, it's their 9/11. It will be the event they remember - that and COVID."
And while he and his wife are completely on board with the ban, he hopes other parents are too.
"I'm sort of worried that if it comes into effect and kids find a way to get through it, which they will in a matter of hours, what if I'm the one parent in a group of 10 that says, 'No, we're enforcing this', does Willow get left out of all these things?" he says.
"All parents worry about that. But I know before we let her have Snapchat, she was literally missing out on parties and all these social events."
'Too blunt an instrument'
In placing the onus on social media providers to identify under-16s and disable their accounts, the government is essentially calling their bluff. Social media has ingrained itself so deeply into so many of our lives that it is now capable of determining a person's age just by what they access and who they contact.
For some parents, the sentiment is admirable, but the implementation is naive at best. And most realise parents will definitely still have a role to play once the ban is rolled out.
Toby Ehinger isn't worried about his 13-year-old daughter Saffy missing out on anything - he's seen the dross and endless notifications on Snapchat.
But he thinks the government's intention will be thwarted by bad planning.
"My view is that it's a bit of a naive and misguided policy, because basically, kids are going to outsmart this extremely easily," he says.
"The problem is that they don't seem to have defined everything as social media. They just seem to have chosen a random selection of things, and kids will just move to another platform that isn't under the ban."
He's pleased the government won't be expecting him to prove his own age on social media, but beyond that, he can't see the ban having its intended effect.
"I think it is my job - I do allow a certain amount of trust, because I think even kids are entitled to a level of privacy," he says.
"But I think you just have to be paying attention to what your kid's life and social interactions are like at all times. I think you get a sense if something's happening online that is disturbing them - ideally you would hope that you would recognise that.
"I don't think this is a job for government, to be honest, because I just think it's too broad, it's too complicated.
"It's too blunt an instrument for such a wide-ranging problem."
'Fake sense of safety'
Emmanuelle Wintergerst, who works in IT and has a child in year 7, says the entire move is misguided.
"Putting a ban on things is not educating anyone - it's putting a fake sense of safety," she says.
"It's preventing the kids from getting educated in the ways of using social media, it's maintaining your fear instead of encouraging education. We're are not having discussions with children about what is safe to put on social media.
"How many kids are going to hide their activities because there is a ban and they can't tell their parents about it? How are we keeping anyone safe? Because I guarantee you, the kids are going to go on social media, ban or no ban - it's not going to work."
"By shifting that responsibility to the users, instead of making the platforms accountable, then we're really addressing the problem the wrong way. When there is bullying at recess at school, you don't cancel recess. You address the bullying. And on social media, we've taken this approach, thanks to our eSafety government - they decide to instead cancel recess."
She says she will likely help her children circumvent the ban if she thinks it's appropriate.
"I'm not going to demonstrate in front of Parliament House, but it's very likely that I am one of those parents who is going to help their kids find a way to get onto the platforms that are safe with supervision," she says.
"I probably will. I'll see. I'll cross that line when I get there."
'We had boys distressed'
Eddie, Will, Callum and Leo aren't just facing life without social media - they likely won't have smartphones at all next year. Their school, Catholic boys' school Marist College, has just announced that it's banning smartphones on the campus altogether for boys in years four to nine.
Deputy headmaster Liam Stakelum says the decision was made with the emphatic support of parents.
"Obviously the delay of social media made us reflect a little bit," he says.
"This is the government telling us that a lot of the use of this device is no longer appropriate for people under the age of 16 ... we hadn't put a lot of thought into [how] that would impact us as a school."
But he says it was the assassination of the American right-wing political activist Charlie Kirk in September that brought things to a head.
"It was the first time that I, in my history, knew that content was being pushed to users without them searching," he says.
"So previously, if you wanted to find gore or violence, it's always there, you kind of have to dig for it, whereas by period two that day, we had boys distressed because it's on TikTok, it's on Instagram.
"It's all part of that algorithm, so if the boys have ever watched any of Joe Rogan, or if they've ever watched any of Andrew Tate, which they all have, then TikTok says well, if you like that, you'll love this. So it just puts it in front of them without the catch-all."
He also noticed at a recent event that between 600 and 700 of the school's students had phones in their pockets, despite the school's rule that phones are left in lockers.
"It was really clear to us that it wasn't being followed, and it's not because we think they don't want to follow it. I just think they can't."
StakeIum himself has just replaced his smartphone with a dumbphone, after realising he had to lead by example.
"I had a really good conversation with our year six boys about the upcoming changes, and I walked out, and it's only 200 metres [to my office], and I grabbed my phone out and started looking at my emails as I walked. It's this constant need for connection."
