Australians will not have to give tech giants their passports or drivers' licences to use social media under a proposed ban.
But glaring questions remain over how the government will stop children accessing platforms such as Snapchat, TikTok and Instagram and whether the measure will work.
A federal government proposal to ban children younger than 16 from social media is expected to pass parliament in coming days after Labor cemented bipartisan support by amending its bill to ensure Australians would not need to provide any form of government ID to verify their age.
Though 19 opposition politicians are in favour of the measure, dissent has continued to bubble within its ranks.
Coalition members Keith Pitt, Richard Colbeck, Bridget Archer and Alex Antic expressed anxieties about the bill and how quickly it was being rammed through, an MP told AAP.
Nationals Senator Matt Canavan has also argued the bill had huge implications for free speech and privacy.
It doesn't require social media companies to destroy information, according to the senator, and the way users provide digital consent is often a rushed process, which breeds concerns about the way people hand over their information.
There are serious questions about whether the ban will keep children off social media.
Age assurance mechanisms are easy to get around, according to research by Australian National University law expert Faith Gordon, and the government is pushing through this bill before its age verification trial wraps up.
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland introduced the reform to parliament on Thursday, the consultation period for groups and individuals to make submissions closed a day later and on Monday a senate committee held a one-day hearing, before it is expected to report back on Tuesday.
Echoing concerns from social media companies, Associate Professor Gordon said it had not been a considered process and noted the bill lacked details on how a ban would be executed.
Even if the ban works, it may not make online spaces safer and could disincentivise platforms offering child safety features because they will assume there are no young users there.
"Any restrictions that we place in the digital world need to be designed with care," she told AAP.
"But the ban - it's too blunt an instrument to actually address risks effectively ... it's also likely to have some really detrimental impacts for marginalised groups."
The Greens and some independents including Zoe Daniel have opposed the proposal and called on the government to address social media harms through other paths such as implementing a statutory duty of care on tech giants.
A duty of care could be a "real game-changer" if it is clearly defined, strongly implemented has effectively enforced, according to Assoc Prof Gordon.
"Focusing on driving up the safety and privacy standards on platforms will be good for all of Australian society," she said.
"That is where our attention should be, rather than on a moral panic and this knee-jerk reaction."
The proposed laws will come into effect a year from when they pass parliament.
