Daniel Ward shares his take on social media bans
Australia’s ban on social media for children under 16 has sent shockwaves through teen communities worldwide. Now, its implementation and effects on Australian youth are being avidly monitored by activists keen to pin rising teenage depression and diminishing literacy rates on the obsessive use of social media.
While the intention behind the policy—protecting children from online abuse and potentially harmful addictive behaviors—is supported across the board, a sweeping prohibition is not only impractical but also unjust. A total ban unfairly restricts young users’ rights to communicate, learn, and connect with their peers.
Social media is more than just a source of entertainment. It has become a vital tool for communication, self-expression, and learning. For many teens—especially those who are geographically or linguistically isolated, marginalized, or struggling with loneliness—social media offers a lifeline to friendship, support networks, and educational resources. By imposing a total ban, we risk cutting off these lifelines, leaving the most vulnerable even more isolated. Despite our justified desire to restrict kids’ screentime, we must also acknowledge that social media platforms serve as modern forums for civic participation, creative expression, and collaborative learning. Taking away these opportunities undermines the development of digital literacy and essential communication skills that are critical for success in the 21st century.
Unfortunately, like many prohibitions, the impact will be most felt by less-privileged teens who are more likely to lack the resources—e.g., VPNs or tech-savvy, amenable parents—to bypass the restrictions. Like it or not, social media has become the youth marketplace, offering opportunities to young entrepreneurs that do not exist elsewhere, so restricting experience on social media will inevitably diminish users’ future ability to capitalize on it.
A more nuanced approach that prioritizes user education, more active monitoring by network providers, community involvement, and practical regulation may be the way forward. Last year, California passed the Protecting Our Kids from Social Media Addiction Act (SB 976), which makes it unlawful for an “addictive internet-based service to send notifications to a minor user between 12 a.m. and 6 a.m. or between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. local time, Monday through Friday, from September through May, unless the operator previously obtained verifiable parental consent.” Although the law came into force at the beginning of this year, it will only be in 2027 that it will apply when the social media platform “has reasonably determined” a user is a minor. So, it remains to be seen how enforceable such legislation will be.
In Pennsylvania, Governor Josh Shapiro has voiced opposition to the Australian move, suggesting that instead of social media bans, children should be educated on evaluating what they see and read.
We should acknowledge both the potential harm and the benefits of teens’ online engagement. Whatever restrictions are imposed, there will be teens with the ingenuity to find ways around them. Now that the genie is out of the bottle, we should concentrate on equipping young people with digital literacy skills and support to enable them to navigate social platforms safely while fostering meaningful connections and self-expression.
Social media is a very powerful tool that can have a negative impact on its users, especially when algorithms that encourage addiction are the norm, but its capacity to facilitate communication across borders and cultures may be its saving grace—and the route to our building of a more integrated and cooperative society.