EXPERT REACTION: Should we ban social media for under 16s?

I approach the issue as a clinical psychologist and researcher in eating disorders.  At our clinic, I hear countless reports of harmful impacts of social media in starting or exacerbating concerns about appearance, food, and exercise, as well as the exhausting challenges that parents are up against in managing their child's social media use.

From a research perspective, a 2023 review found “Evidence from 50 studies in 17 countries indicates that social media usage leads to body image concerns, eating disorders/disordered eating and poor mental health”.  This is consistent with my work where higher ED symptoms were found in 11–13-year-olds with: social media accounts (vs those without); more social media accounts; and, greater time spent on social media.

While scientific studies on any topic will always have some discrepancies in findings, there are a long list of risks found from social media use in youth. Indeed, a 2023 US Surgeon General advisory stated there are “ample indicators that social media can have profound risk of harm to children and adolescents”.  It encouraged governments to "Pursue policies that further limit access—in ways that minimize the risk of harm—to social media for all children, including strengthening and enforcing age minimums.” 

The current 13-year-old minimum age is based on a 1998 US data collection law rather than on appropriateness of content for children of that age.  In other words, there is no evidence that 13-years is a safe age for children to start using social media.  Further, we know that rates of use in younger children are increasing rapidly as there is no current age verification.

I fully support the increase in minimum age to 16 years along with proper age verification.  We need further change too, including the wide-scale roll-out of evidence-based programs that upskill young people to have digital media literacy skills to prevent adverse mental health outcomes, as well as better support for parents and schools in promoting safe and informed use of online media.

Developmentally, adolescents are particularly sensitive to being evaluated by others. Social media now makes it possible for anyone to be evaluated 24/7.  

The perpetual opportunity for evaluation is harmful to those most sensitive to social evaluation. Our research shows that these young people are at the highest risk of experiencing mental health problems.

But banning social media for a specific age group is ill-advised, as it implies that adolescents cannot learn to navigate these environments, when most in fact do so very successfully.

An absolute priority should instead be banning access to pornographic, especially violent pornographic content, as research shows that early exposure to pornography is associated with engaging in sexual violence in young people.

Although social media has democratised knowledge production, our online worlds are also dangerous. They are often poorly regulated, if regulated at all, and have become vehicles for circulating deeply divisive beliefs. In light of this, there is clear sense in establishing boundaries that limit young people’s access.

However, prohibition is not ‘the’ solution. To navigate social media, all young people require critical thinking skills – skills and dispositions aimed at generating relations of reparative coexistence. The world of social media may be powerfully influential, but schooling remains a core cultural experience for virtually every young Australian. Schools are spaces where inclusive, informed, and compassionate forms of citizenship must therefore be fostered and supported, and critical literacy is fundamental to this endeavour.

Teachers have always been up for this challenge. Yet, for at least three decades, both sides of government have undermined the importance of critical literacies in place of standardised tests that view literacy as a decontextualised, measurable skill. Far from making us ‘clever’, such approaches leave us vulnerable to exploitation.

Prohibiting or limiting young people’s access to social media may provide short-term protection, but it is no replacement for the forms of critical and social literacies we should have been valuing in Australian schooling for decades.

Age verification for social media would affect all Australians, and any major policy changes require stronger community consultation and engagement. For example, in our research about online age verification, people are often initially opposed to the idea. However, with a more in depth understanding of how it would work and why it is needed, they generally support the concept, while still having some concerns about efficacy and privacy.

There are certainly harms associated with social media, but it is not inherently bad, there are many positive aspects arising from it. Social media offers connections and rapid information, particularly for people belonging to marginalised groups, and during times of crisis. Social media companies need to be held to account for harmful content and addictive algorithms that have negative impacts on adults as well as children.

The government and shadow government’s recent announcement to institute a ban on accessing social media until 16 years ignores the very important fact that these platforms provide young people with a social lifeline to friends, family and community.

Discourse about the potential harms caused to children and adolescents is often spoken about without contextual factors in mind, or without specific reference to the social media platform in question. This point is significant as different channels have different affordances, and so a punitive approach, like placing a blanket ban on access to all social media for people under 16 years, poses a severe threat to their participation in society and sense of belonging.   

Many families, for example, have members who live in other states or countries and rely on online communication channels like Instagram and Snapchat to feel informed and connected. Social chat platforms like Reddit and Discord enable young people to build and belong to communities that reflect and reinforce their social interests and values. Facebook groups can offer information and discreet support networks for young people seeking mental and sexual health guidance and creativity can be leveraged through Instagram and TikTok, enabling young people to document and share their lived experiences through visual media. Not to mention the learning opportunities and outcomes afforded by YouTube. Are all these channels to be included in proposed social media bans?  

Severing young people’s social ties to reality will not only cause them great anxiety but will also reverse their digital literacy, self-regulation and autonomy. We should be building a nation of digitally responsible citizens who have the skills to assess authentic, credible and legitimate information, who can engage with cultural activities and find social well-being through online digital communication and technologies, including social media. Building such a nation requires government support, not penalty or judgement, and a shift in societal attitudes towards young people’s agency.

A social media ban that prevents those under 16 from accessing social media could worsen social harms for young people and would likely not work. Our research found that Australian teenagers aged 12-17 appreciate help to navigate social media safely, but restrictions that reduce their autonomy are not supported and could result in being socially and digitally excluded.

Age verification is one type of technology among a range of systems and approaches that limit access to apps, websites and services based on age. These technologies are still experimental and have a range of drawbacks identified by participants including privacy and data breaches. More safety education, regular conversations with parents and trusted experts, and safer online platforms are better approaches to keep young people safe online.
 
A research team at the University of Sydney carried out research from February 2022 to July 2023, with partners Youth Action and Student Edge. This project was funded by the eSafety Commissioner under the Online Safety Grants Program. We conducted seven focus groups, three co-design workshops and a national survey (n=1228) of young people aged 12-17 and parents of children in the same age bracket. We worked with young people to co-design online safety education videos and fact sheets available at https://youthonlinesafety.org.
 
Our research found that young people use social media for a wide range of activities – for entertainment, to socialise, to keep in touch with people they don’t get to see, to access news and information and to do homework. The most frequently used platforms are Instagram and YouTube, used daily by 64 per cent and 56 per cent of young people respectively. Almost a quarter of young people 12 to 17 use WhatsApp daily. One in two are daily Snapchat users. 
 
Young people are aware of many online risks and reported having negative experiences. 54% said they waste time scrolling endlessly, 51% said they saw unwanted advertisements, 46% said they experience eye strain, headaches, and physical discomfort from too much use, and 37% said they struggled with overuse. Many of these negative experiences relate to the particular operations of algorithmic feeds and recommendations which influence what content users see and interact with based on users’ online consumption and habits. 
 
Young people themselves commonly demonstrate skills, judgement, and agency in negotiating online risks. Common techniques used include avoiding scams by not clicking on suspicious links, blocking accounts (68%), avoiding/declining friend and follower requests for people they don’t know (67%), reporting an account on a platform (60%) and turning location services off (60%). Many are privacy-aware: 58% create strong passwords and 56% said they use private accounts.

Young Australians are facing a mental health epidemic. The rapid development of technology has Australians worried about how social media is impacting young people’s mental health. Contrary to popular debate, there’s no conclusive evidence social media causes mental ill health. Mental health is complex and cannot be attributed to one cause.

Some research shows a correlation between young people’s poor mental health and their technology use. That just means young people’s social media use coincides with other trends impacting mental health.

Other research shows socially engaging online powerfully supports young people’s mental health, especially with growing constraints on young people’s opportunities to socialise with others in person (due to overscheduling, the lack of public spaces for them to gather, etc). Socialising is key to young people’s healthy development.

Research consistently shows some young people are more likely to experience negative impacts of social media engagement. These same young people experience challenges in other areas of life. We need to better support our most vulnerable young people. Blanket bans are unlikely to help them because they find community and support online that isn’t otherwise available to them.

Current debates are inducing panic and perpetuating the false idea that technology is beyond our collective control.

We need vibrant debate grounded in evidence, between technology platforms, government, NGOs, educators, parents, and young people themselves. Together we can create optimal digital environments, supporting young people’s mental health and wellbeing, enabling them to safely maximise the benefits digital technology.

While there is evidence that social media can negatively impact mental health, particularly among adolescents/teens, it is hard to imagine how such a ban would work. 

Age really matters here as 17-year-olds shouldn’t be treated the same as 13-year-olds. They have different levels of emotional maturity and curiosity. Banning social media for anyone until they become an adult could have some benefits, but some negative consequences as well. 

I would argue that teenagers need to be educated about social media so that they are less prone to its negative effects and less influenced by it. Without any exposure to it, they are potentially more manipulatable by social media influences, algorithms, and ads once they start using it. It might be better to handle this at the school level, where it is against school policy for students to have certain social media accounts or to use it for certain purposes.

There is no evidence that social media use for the vast majority of 13-16 year old people is linked to negative health or wellbeing outcomes. In many ways, social media allows self-expression, network building and is an important part of learning to thrive in a digital world.

Links between youth anxiety and social media show correlations (two things happening at the same time), but not causation. There is no evidence one causes the other.

Banning social media for under16s will almost certainly prevent young people from reaching out and having important conversations about what they see and experience online. Banning social media could therefore do real harm to young people if it leads to them not reaching out for help if they need it.

If we really care about young people’s digital experiences improving, what’s really needed is greater investment in digital literacies, helping  young people make informed choices about how they participate in the digital world.

Banning versus educating is the big question. The technology to effectively ban or control access or content is advancing but we know there are still significant limitations to stop access to information completely.  As such, education, and a strong response at every level of society, is also needed to address the problems we are currently seeing. We need a much stronger emphasis, and support from educational policy makers on the important curriculum area of social and emotional learning. Schools have a respectful relationships curriculum but additional support and funding is needed to spend adequate time on these concepts in our educational institutions, both in our schools and universities.

Even if a ban were put in place, this doesn't recognise or address the wider social problem. Young people will access social media eventually, and they can use online platforms and social media responsibly, but they also need to learn to be critical consumers of information, to be critical selectors of content, and to be able to do this within a respectful relationships mindset. To create critical digital information consumers we need role models and clear approaches at all levels of society including our schools, sporting groups, workplaces, and political institutions.

Banning children under 16 from social media is a flawed approach to address complex social and technological issues. The potential harms that children face are not new; debates about appropriate access to media extend over many decades, including television and internet content.

Age verification technologies cannot provide the level of effective control required to ban all children from social media. Other technologies can circumvent controls (e.g., VPNs), and children may also access social media using others’ devices. The types of identification typically required for age verification (e.g., passports; driver’s licenses) are not available to all, so people older than 16 may also be excluded from platforms.

Age assurance technologies (e.g., where age estimates are made based on users’ online behaviours) are being explored, but cannot accurately verify age. Even if age verification were possible, an age-based ban is blunt instrument that does not recognise children’s maturity levels or parental discretion, so could do more harm than good.

There are many benefits to social media (e.g., community engagement, access to a broad range of information and perspectives, on topics like health, careers, etc.) that would be denied to children banned from these platforms. Children need to be supported in social media use (by parents, teachers, and other caregivers) to navigate social media safely and appropriately. The idea that young people could be banned from social media may provide a false sense of security to parents and others. A ban on children’s access to social media will not eliminate harmful content (e.g., image-based abuse), so we need to focus resources on regulating the provision of harmful content at source. We also need to provide support and resources for families and teachers to guide safe online and social media interactions, as this is critical to give young people the tools and knowledge they need to navigate online content appropriately.

While the debate on the social media ban for under-16s focuses on whether is a good idea (or otherwise), the actual issue of its potential implementation should not be overlooked. 
 
How can we implement such restrictions on social media platforms, which can be accessed ubiquitously on any device? 
 
Consider current age restrictions on tangible products such as alcohol and tobacco. A vendor can verify a customer's age using established forms of identity (such as a driver's license) at the point of sale.
 
Now consider online platforms, such as video game vendors or streaming media providers, which may not have the option of sighting one's ID. These systems may ask for a date of birth upon purchase of age-restricted media or upon subscription. However, oftentimes, users may enter any date of birth, which defeats the purpose.
 
For social media, one might argue that the age-check only has to happen at the point of registration, taking the online platform scenarios above. Again, how do we actually enforce this check? Could this check be circumvented altogether, say, with VPN apps to bypass regional restrictions (to jurisdictions outside Australia without such a requirement)? Do we need a bespoke mechanism to legally verify users' ages – which comes with its own legislative, technical, and privacy-related implications – and if so, should this be overseen by government or the tech companies themselves? 
 
These questions, and more, need to be considered carefully as it has impacts on the efficacy on any proposed ban.

The government and opposition’s current desire to ban social media for children is a misguided distraction from their failure to address significant challenges facing our society. Contrary to popular belief, the supposed link between social media use and a decline in youth mental health lacks robust causal evidence. Rather, studies indicate that socio-economic status and histories and experience of violence and/or trauma are more prominent factors impacting young Australians' well-being.

Rather than talking about bans which would likely exacerbate issues by removing critical social support tools and push children into lower quality and less regulated online spaces, the government should prioritise substantive action on frontline mental-health and social support services, and implement measures to reduce social inequality and close the digital gap. Digital platforms can also play a proactive role by working with government and civil society in improving the transparency and observability of their operations.

Whilst social media provides the highs of being heard by many, when group discussions turn sour it is mortifying and we know that the more a teenager uses social media, the more they need it. Moreover, those who depend heavily on online support for their social connection end up without the offline social skills and say that they no longer enjoy spending time with others in the real world. Raising the age of social media in NSW will be an initiative that is worth the effort and the summit is essential. A move in this direction will empower schools, psychologists and clinical psychologists and relieve a great deal of the mental health issues we see in anxiety at present. 

Psychologists need to take a clear stand on device use when teenagers are seen in treatment. Tackling device use needs to be part of the initial assessment and, whenever it is found to be askew, prioritised as an initial step which receives attention within treatment. This requires upskilling parents and treatment providers to be able to identify maladaptive device-use and intervene when social media use is contributing to difficulties. In addition to educational initiatives, psychologists and clinical psychologists are well placed to help adolescents but only when this is part of the treatment expectations. Often, the first and most powerful step in treatment of adolescent clients who present for help in a clinical psychologists' office is to curtail their social media use. Without this change, treatment is hamstrung.

Every new media technology from writing, through printing, photography, the telephone, radio, television, computers, video has been associated with moral panic - mostly along the lines of "it will rot your brains" and ruin society.

While we know much more about media effects today, it's still an evolving field of inquiry. The problem is always the same  - once a technology or media is developed and diffused controlling its use without restricting its use or application is usually impossible, especially on economic grounds. Twenty years ago people wanted to ban video computer games due to fears about the harm to children, but now it's a bigger industry than the global film industry concerns about harm to children, and the research findings now available, are completely overwhelmed by considerations about harm to the industry.

There are already child locks and monitoring technology available for devices, but most people don't use them; the real questions we need to ask about children's use of social media and potential harm are not about the affordances of the technology but about our own values, ethics, and the time and attention we give to children as parents, families, and society.

It does appear that Peter Dutton is announcing an election promise policy that will primarily impact teenagers without doing significant consultation with them first. Are the experiences and views of teenagers irrelevant so irrelevant to him?

Research shows that social media can be harmful to people of all ages, but it also shows that young people benefit from social media engagement—it supports their civic engagement, helps them to make and maintain friends, to pursue interests, connect with far flung family and more. A viability study alongside a national survey of young people and consultation with parents and young people should be the first step before a blanket ban policy like this is made.

It’s also vital that we think about effective measures that are needed to address concerns about social media, including media literacy education in schools, which should be a priority issue.