Teen social media restrictions remain inconclusive

Many countries have started to implement a limit on the use of social media for children under 16. It began with Australia in 2025, followed by other countries who are now in the process of developing rules to restrict access.
Social media platforms like Tik Tok, Instagram, Facebook, X and Snapchat are having to follow stricter protocols to ensure that their users are of a legal age as established by the laws of the land.
The impetus behind this move is clear. Social media is becoming more toxic by the day, and the repercussions are felt by tweens more than any other demographic. Data suggests that more than 4.5 hours on a weekday and 8 hours on a weekend, per day, are being spent by school going teenagers browsing online.
Studies by the NHS in UK, Pew Research in the US and other academic research shows that, worldwide, more than 90 per cent of all children between 9-13 are on at least one social media platform.
The attitudes to these platforms are also worrying. Data from the WHO shows that 32 per cent of children under 16 expressed negative feelings after being on social media, with girls expressing greater levels of unhappiness. 44 per cent of girls surveyed had online friends whom they had never met, and 22 per cent of the same demographic played video games with strangers for more than 4 hours.
The argument for restrictions is thus understandable. What is more contentious is the effectiveness of such bans. This is a whole new territory. Books can be banned, as can films and media which exist in physical spaces like theatres where accountability is clearly outlined. But digital devices which are personalised spaces are almost impossible to control.
In fact, there have not been enough studies on the implications of a blanket ban on device usage by under-13s. There is a need to distinguish between being on a device and being on social media. Increasingly, young learners are using digital devices to source information, engage in discussions and become involved in community activities which benefit society.
Researchers argue that youngsters find a sense of community and individual identity in online spaces in a way that they may not be physically be able to do. More importantly, as an Australian based study asks, what are children going to do instead of being in front of a screen?
Typical answers include playing outdoors, reading books and listening to music. The first is almost impossible in urban spaces today and the latter two can also be done online. In fact, teenagers will also risk losing access to niche community building spaces which are central to their identity growing up.
There is then the issue of logistics. Bans depend on self-reporting and official identity cards as well as AI enabled features like facial recognition which in turn raise other issues of privacy and data protection. In fact, we are going to use more technology to prevent the use of digital platforms by some.
Nor is the turnaround difficult to imagine. VPNs are well known to youngsters who can easily use them to change identities and enter the desired platforms. There are sufficient loopholes in these systems for tech-savvy teenagers to work their way around them.
While bans may be necessary to ensure that vulnerable young teenagers are protected, a more sustainable strategy would be to engage in training parents, forcing tech companies to disable algorithm-based recommendations and making it difficult to access sensitive sites.
More timely and relevant research is needed to ensure that practical alternatives are offered to address the issue before imposing blanket restrictions.