Social Media Bans for Minors Spark Global Debate as Countries Weigh Australia’s Controversial Model

 

Countries across Europe, including France and Britain, are weighing whether to follow Australia’s unprecedented decision to ban children and younger teenagers from using social media platforms, even as experts remain sharply divided over the effectiveness and implications of such sweeping restrictions.

The debate has intensified following Australia’s landmark move last month to become the first nation in the world to prohibit individuals under the age of 16 from accessing widely used platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and YouTube. The ban, which targets some of the most profitable and influential technology companies globally, has sparked fierce discussion about the balance between protecting young people’s mental health and preserving their digital freedoms.

Read Also: Police Nab Social Media Bandit In Cross-Border Raid.

France is currently deliberating legislative proposals that would introduce a similar ban for those under 15, with one of the bills receiving public backing from President Emmanuel Macron. In Britain, media reports suggest that government officials have consulted American psychologist Jonathan Haidt, a prominent advocate of age-based social media restrictions, signalling growing political interest in the Australian approach.

Haidt’s 2024 bestselling book, “The Anxious Generation,” has emerged as a central text in the global conversation. In it, Haidt argues that excessive screen time—particularly on social media—is fundamentally altering the cognitive development of children and adolescents, contributing to what he describes as “an epidemic of mental illness” among young people.

While Haidt’s arguments have gained traction among policymakers and parent groups, they have also drawn significant criticism from sections of the academic community. Canadian psychologist Candice Odgers, in a published review of the book, challenged what she termed Haidt’s “scary story,” stating that his core claims are “not supported by science.” The disagreement underscores a broader fracture within the research community over how to interpret available data on social media’s impact on youth mental health.

Read Also: FG’s New Rule: The Case For Regulating Social Media In Nigeria

One of the central points of contention revolves around the magnitude of harm that social media use inflicts on young people. Michael Noetel, a researcher at the University of Queensland in Australia, acknowledged that while individual effects may appear modest, “small effects across billions of users add up.” He argued that there is “plenty of evidence” demonstrating harm to teenagers and suggested that critics are demanding an unrealistic standard of proof before action is taken.

“My read is that Haidt is more right than his harshest critics admit, and less right than his book implies,” Noetel stated, adding that given the potential benefits of a ban, it represents “a bet worth making.”

In France, the national public health watchdog ANSES released findings last week indicating that social media does have numerous detrimental effects on adolescents, particularly girls, though it stopped short of identifying the platforms as the sole cause of declining mental health among young people. The findings have added weight to calls for regulatory intervention in France, even as questions persist about the most appropriate form such measures should take.

Noetel led research published in the journal Psychological Bulletin last year that synthesised findings from over 100 studies conducted globally on the relationship between screen time and psychological distress in children and adolescents. The analysis pointed to a troubling feedback loop: excessive screen use—especially on social media and in video gaming—was associated with emotional and psychological problems, which in turn appeared to drive young people to spend even more time on their devices.

However, not all researchers support the case for outright prohibition. Ben Singh from the University of Adelaide conducted a longitudinal study tracking more than 100,000 young Australians over a three-year period, with results published in JAMA Pediatrics. The findings revealed a more complex picture: adolescents who reported the worst levels of wellbeing were those who either used social media excessively—defined as more than two hours per day—or who did not use it at all. By contrast, moderate users appeared to fare best in terms of mental and emotional health.

“The findings suggest that both excessive restriction and excessive use can be problematic,” Singh stated, pointing to the need for a more calibrated policy response. His research also highlighted gender differences, noting that girls appeared to suffer most from heavy social media use, while boys in their later teenage years experienced the greatest harm from being entirely deprived of access to social networks.

French psychiatrist Serge Tisseron, who has long raised concerns about the health risks associated with screen exposure, described social media as “appallingly toxic.” Yet he expressed reservations about a blanket ban, warning that such measures could be easily circumvented by technologically literate teenagers while simultaneously relieving parents of their own responsibility to monitor and guide their children’s online behaviour.

“In recent years, the debate has become extremely polarised between an outright ban or nothing at all,” Tisseron said, advocating instead for more targeted regulation that addresses specific harms without resorting to total prohibition.

Some experts have suggested adopting a wait-and-see approach, using Australia’s policy as a real-world test case. Amy Orben, a researcher at the University of Cambridge, noted that the Australian experiment would provide valuable empirical data on both the effectiveness of such bans and any unintended consequences that may arise.

“Within a year, we should know much more about how effective the Australian social media ban has been and whether it led to any unintended consequences,” Orben said.

Last week, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner reported that technology companies have already blocked 4.7 million accounts belonging to users under the age of 16 in compliance with the new law. The figure suggests that enforcement mechanisms are being actively deployed, though questions remain about the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of such measures, particularly given the evolving nature of digital platforms and the ingenuity of young users in finding workarounds.