Social media bans: Protection for children or ineffective restriction?

The global trend of bans is expanding

Governments around the world are taking harsh steps, believing that social media is causing "social harm" to children:

•  Australia: In December, it made social media accounts illegal for children under 16.
• Spain: Announced plans earlier this month for a 16-year age limit.
• France and Britain: Have discussed or passed similar restrictions at the parliamentary level.
• Other countries: Austria, Norway, Malaysia, and Brazil are also working on age verification or total bans.
• USA: States like California are limiting addictive algorithms, while Meta and YouTube face lawsuits regarding the online safety of children.

The main factor driving governments to take these steps is the increase in depression, bullying, and suicide among teenagers. Jonathan Haidt’s book "The Anxious Generation" has sparked global debates on this topic.

According to research, about 7% of children aged 11–15 in Europe and Canada (reaching 14% in Spain) suffer from "social media use disorder." This condition is characterized by sleep loss, skipping school, and losing contact with family.

Why might the bans fail?

Critics and technology managers note that these bans will face several serious obstacles:

• The Age Verification Problem: The existing 13-year age limit has been widely ignored for years. According to Ofcom data, more than half of 10–12-year-olds are already using TikTok and Snapchat.
• AI and Errors: Artificial Intelligence used for age estimation (such as Yoti) works accurately for white boys but is wrong by 1.5 years when it comes to Black girls.
• Technical Workarounds: Teenagers easily bypass bans using VPNs or by scanning the faces of older friends. Although 4.7 million accounts were deleted in Australia after the ban, most young people are still on the platforms through hidden methods.
• The "Cliff Edge" Effect: Child welfare groups argue that instead of teaching children how to use social media safely, throwing them into an unregulated online environment at age 16 is riskier.

Is the danger shifting direction?

Andy Burrows, head of the Molly Rose Foundation, warns that bans do not eliminate criminals; they simply change their location. Children may move to encrypted messaging apps or gaming platforms (like Roblox) where monitoring is much more difficult.

"Are you teaching children how to swim, or are you throwing them into the deep end when they turn 16?" — Katherine Modecki, Australian Child Research Institute.

Conclusion and expectations

The example of China shows that even the strictest "minor modes" and screen time limits are not fully effective. Parents break devices out of desperation, while children find new loopholes like smartwatches.

It seems that while sharp bans are politically popular (supported by the majority according to Ipsos polls), they may not be a realistic solution from a technical or sociological perspective.

This report is based on data and analysis originally published by The Economist