Bans and beyond: Is no social media for children the future?

ISTANBUL

Following Australia’s landmark decision to ban social media for children under 16, several countries are contemplating similar restrictions, as the move has ignited widespread debates about the impact of social media on children’s mental health and development.

In November, Australia became the first country in the world to enforce such a ban, seen as the strictest measure implemented anywhere so far, which will take effect at the end of next year.

The legislation will prohibit children from accessing platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, Reddit, and X, with platforms failing to comply set to face hefty fines of up to 50 million Australian dollars ($32 million).

Ripple effect across nations

Australia’s step has prompted other countries to consider similar measures, including several nations in Europe.

Greece recently announced plans to regulate social media access for users under age 15. The country, which already bans mobile phones in schools, is working to introduce stricter parental oversight and age limits.

The UK is also considering a ban on social media for under-16s, with Technology Secretary Peter Kyle recently declaring that the measure is “on the table,” pledging to safeguard young people from the adverse effects of social media.

In October, Norway proposed raising the age limit for social media accounts from 13 to 15, aiming to protect children from “the power of algorithms” and to restrict the collection of minors’ personal data by tech companies.

France has introduced legislation requiring parental permission for children under 15 to access social media platforms, Italy mandates parental consent for users under 14, and Sweden is also reportedly exploring stricter age limits on social media.

Another country mulling measures is Indonesia, where the government has said it may follow Australia’s lead, citing growing concerns over the effects of social media on children’s mental health as a driving force behind its deliberations.

Over in the US, starting in January, the state of Florida will implement its own version of social media restrictions. Signed into law in March, they allow children aged 14 and above to have accounts only with parental approval. Social media platforms will also be required to delete accounts belonging to younger children.

Should social media be banned for children?

When it comes to blanket bans on children’s use of social media, experts remain divided over the idea.

Welcoming Australia’s decision, Rachael Sharman, a psychology lecturer and researcher at the University of the Sunshine Coast in Queensland, emphasized the ban’s potential benefits.

“The social media ban is an important first step in ensuring children return to a healthy developmental environment for their physical, psychosocial, and emotional development, all of which are foundations to building good interpersonal relationships, self-regulation, and advanced cognitive skills such as critical thinking and theory of mind,” she told Anadolu.

However, others believe that bans are an oversimplified solution to a complex issue.

Vanessa Dennen, a professor at Florida State University, argued: “A ban alone merely delays the inevitable. Although older teens are more mature than younger teens and children, they will have their own learning curves when they finally are able to access social media. They will likely continue to face the negative challenges of social media, just as many adults do.”

Dennen suggested that one positive outcome of the Florida law could be increased family discussions about responsible social media use.

“Open discussion about responsible social media use and the potential dangers of social media use is important. This open discussion may offer families the chance to discuss social media use more generally. Although the focus here is on children, many parents struggle with social media use,” she noted.

Neil Selwyn, a professor at Monash University, also expressed skepticism about bans, saying that while countries need to have conversations about regulating social media, “a ban is not the best way to overcome these harms.”

“Young people are living large parts of their lives with and through social media, and are entering an adult world where social media is prevalent,” he told Anadolu.

“Supporting young people – especially teenagers and young adults – to learn to be responsible, safe, and creative users of social media would seem an essential part of growing up today.”

He argued that “a ban will not work and only distracts from the much bigger and more difficult problems of regulating social media companies and investing in digital literacy provision.”

Aleesha Rodriguez, a research fellow at the Australian Research Council’s Center of Excellence for the Digital Child, also criticized the Australian law.

“I joined over 140 national and international experts in warning the government that banning people under 16 from social media won’t make social media safe,” she said.

“We need to move away from a deficit model when considering children’s engagement with the digital world. Our focus must shift from protecting children from the digital environment and more to protecting them within the digital environment. The Internet was not created with children in mind, but children have a right to be online.”

How is social media harming children?

Opinions also vary widely on the extent of harm caused by social media.

Dennen emphasized the need to recognize its positive aspects, along with its evident ills.

“It unites people with each other, with news, and with valuable information. It provides a creative outlet for some people and fosters community for others,” she said.

She also warned that bans could create new challenges, such as restricted access to beneficial content and social isolation for teens unable to connect with their peers.

Sharman, however, pointed to compelling evidence of harm caused by excessive social media use.

“Overuse or misuse of social media can damage many areas of psychological well-being, most notably social skill development and interpersonal skills, leading to an uptick in what some researchers describe as ‘virtual autism,’” she said.

Cyberbullying, she added, has become increasingly prevalent, leading to “significant increases in self-harm and suicide” among teenagers.

Selwyn emphasized the nuanced nature of the issue, stating, “The best use of digital technology is a balancing act – not using too much technology, trying to engage in genuinely beneficial uses, and avoiding any form of technology that can be harmful.”

Implementation and effectiveness of bans

Sharman believes the Australian ban is one part of what needs to be a “long-term cultural change,” but acknowledged the challenges parents face in enforcing restrictions.

“It is quite impossible to expect parents to enact such restrictions among peer groups when ‘everyone else’ has a smartphone and access to social media,” she said.

She pointed to the success of Australia’s ban on mobile phones at schools, saying that schools are “are reporting better attention, more socializing and less poor behavior and bullying.”

The social media ban, Sharman argued, offers an opportunity for families to “reclaim childhood" and ensure that children’s brains develop properly before exposure to potentially harmful influences.

In contrast, Selwyn raised doubts about the practicalities of implementation.

“If I was being cynical, I would say that this is something that has been announced in a rush by a government looking to win votes from parents in next year’s election,” he remarked.

“It is not clear technically how age verification would work. There are fears that all social media users will have to show proof of age ID or perhaps even have their faces scanned, both methods that are wildly open to false verifications. On top of that, it is not clear how the ban will be enforced.”

Selwyn also noted that existing age restrictions – typically set at 13 – are often ignored, with many underage users accessing platforms with their parents’ knowledge.

“In reality, hard age limits like this are not effective,” he concluded.