Ready pointed to Australia's ban on social media for youth under 16 as a model. The move put him firmly at odds with Silicon Valley convention. In calling for the ban, Ready is taking a different position than the leaders of the world's largest technology companies. Those companies are facing growing pressure from regulators, courts and lawmakers to change how children and teens use their products because of their mental health impacts.
The Pinterest CEO's reasoning cuts to the heart of why tech companies have resisted such restrictions for years. Pinterest's chief compares social media to tobacco and alcohol, saying children need similar protections. In essays published to LinkedIn and in the magazine Time, Ready argued that "We need a clear standard: no social media for teens under 16, backed by real enforcement, and accountability for mobile phone operating systems and the apps that run on them."
There's an obvious contradiction embedded in Ready's position, however. His own platform has more than half its user base drawn from Gen Z, yet he's advocating for rules that would block them. How does Pinterest propose to square that circle?
The answer lies in a definitional sleight of hand. Services that eSafety considers do not currently meet the criteria for being an 'age-restricted social media platform' (including those that fall within an exclusion in the legislative rules) include Discord, GitHub, Google Classroom, LEGO Play, Messenger, Pinterest, Roblox, Steam and Steam Chat, WhatsApp and YouTube Kids. In other words, Pinterest has successfully positioned itself as something other than social media. Under the terms of Australia's ban, teens under 16 are allowed to create Pinterest accounts, giving the company a regulatory edge over larger rivals like Instagram when recruiting younger users.
Ready's public advocacy for youth protections does reflect real policy changes Pinterest has made. When Pinterest removed social features for teens and made every account under 16 private—meaning no discoverability, messaging, likes, or comments from strangers—people said we'd lose the next generation of users. According to Ready, the opposite happened. Today, they make up over 50% of our users. Our experience shows that prioritizing safety and well-being doesn't push young people away; it builds trust.
Still, Pinterest's own record complicates claims about child safety. In 2023, NBC News reported that adult men were using Pinterest to create boards with pictures of young girls and teenagers. The platform responded by rolling out a suite of new Pinterest parental controls. When challenges like those emerge, company statements about putting safety first ring somewhat hollow.
The practical effect of Ready's stance is ambiguous. Critics call bans paternalistic or unworkable. They say teens will find workarounds or move to less safe platforms. Others point out that social media can offer connection and community. But today's products too often pair those benefits with serious harm: unwanted outreach from strangers, constant comparison, body image pressure, bullying, and exposure to content even many adults struggle with.
What matters is whether such laws actually protect young people or simply create a compliance burden that smaller rivals cannot afford. A provider which fails to take such steps may be subject to a civil penalty of up to AUD 49.5 million (USD 33 million). That's a price tag that concentrates power among the largest platforms.
Ready's intervention does signal something real: even from within the tech industry, the old arguments for unrestricted youth access have begun to lose their grip. Whether that leads to genuine protection or just regulatory theatre remains to be seen.