Will teen social media bans have the desired effect, and what can be learned from the current state of teen social media restrictions that have already been enacted?
At this stage, many nations are still considering ways to reduce the negative impacts of social media usage on children and limit harmful exposure.
But Australia’s under-16 social media ban, which has been the biggest test case thus far, showed that after 6 months the push has had little impact on key areas. Most teens have circumvented the bans and the platforms themselves have failed to enact adequate restriction measures. Perhaps most importantly, the latest status report from Australia’s eSafety Commission found that there’s been no demonstrable effect on the wellbeing of young users or on behaviors associated with problematic online use.
It seems that teenage social media bans, as they’re currently being proposed, are largely going to fail. These bans could even force teens to explore less safe areas of the internet, instead of getting them off their phones and into the real world.
However, that ship has likely sailed. Interactive behaviors are evolving in line with technological developments, and moving beyond the culture and processes of the past.
New reporting also suggests that teen social media bans could have a significant impact on the economy. According to eMarketer, brands are planning to cut digital ad spend as a result of any teen ban in the U.K.
On another front, as per Reuters, France’s push to enact teen social media restrictions is facing a major legal challenge that hinges on impacts to freedom of expression among younger users.
It seems that the teen social media restriction push is not going to achieve its desired goals.
So what’s the best way forward to maximize protection and safety for kids, while also allowing them to reap the benefits of online connectivity?
First, it’s important to understand the origin of these recent restrictions.
The growing wave of support for measures designed to protect teens from the harms of social media stems from a report published in The Wall Street Journal in 2021. That report was based on leaked internal documents from Meta, alleging that the company’s own internal research found that Instagram was harmful for teenage girls. According to WSJ reporting, Meta ignored this, in favor of maximizing usage time and profit.
The report prompted a major investigation in the U.S. and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg was called to appear before a Senate online child safety hearing in 2024. As reported by CNBC, Zuckerberg apologized in that session to the parents of teens who had been impacted by harmful behavior on Instagram.
Instagram contributed to the reason some of those teens died by suicide, per the hearing.
Meta has since been the primary focus of the teen safety push. Additional insights from social psychologist Jonathan Haidt heightened concerns about the impacts of social media and smartphone use on teenage mental health and wellbeing.
Meta responded to these claims by saying that most of the accusations being leveled against its apps oversimplified the process, and that mental health professionals were divided on the impacts of social media use.
Right now, Meta is in the process of fighting off a wave of new mental health-based lawsuits. The company is arguing that social media addiction is not a recognized medical condition, and therefore Meta can’t be held liable. However, if the company can’t prove this, and social media addiction becomes recognized as a diagnosable condition, Meta could be on the line for billions of dollars in compensatory claims.
While it seems that social media platforms have had a negative impact on many users, this raises a question around who is more susceptible: tech-savvy teens who’ve been raised in the digital era, or older, less technologically aware users. Data from Harvard found that the latter group was more likely to spread misinformation, while The CareSide found older users were more likely to believe AI fakes. Meanwhile, the FTC reported that people over 60 years old were more likely to fall for online scams.
Which would be more likely to reduce social harms, banning teens or banning older adults from social media usage?
The question reflects the issue’s confusing nature. While the push to protect kids from harmful exposure makes sense, the current proposals are not going to achieve what they intend to.
So what’s the alternative?
Last week, PBS reported that a New Mexico judge had another potential consideration, as evidenced in ruling on a case related to social media harms.
New Mexico Chief District Court Judge Bryan Biedscheid ordered Meta to pay $567 million and outlined a multi-step approach that the company will be required to implement in the state to limit the negative impacts of social media on teens moving forward.
Those include:
- Meta will be required to make all profiles of users under 18 private by default, and also block adult users from connecting with teens by default also (Meta already does this).
- Meta will be required to eliminate push notifications for all users under 18 from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. every day, and from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. during the school year.
- Meta will need to hide like counts by default for users under 18.
- Meta will be required to put into effect a mandatory usage cap for users under 18 of no more than 90 hours per month across Facebook and Instagram.
Putting parameters around the use of social media apps may have a more positive impact than outright teen bans.
But that still leaves the challenge of enforcement and effective detection, as well as removal of teens from these platforms.
On that front, Meta has continued to propose that the app stores themselves are a better arbitrator of user age, because those stores have a higher level of control in the access chain.
That could reduce inconsistencies, as access to social media would no longer be reliant solely on variable approaches from each platform. That could also provide a stronger signal of user age based on app store profiles.
Another option could be an expanded ID verification process, like what’s being proposed in the EU. That would implement a digital ID requirement for all social media users, including teens, and potentially tighten access restrictions.
Both of these proposals address the core challenge of implementing age checks, and offer usage parameters and limits that align with the conflict between the positives and negatives of social media usage.
The true solution seems to lie somewhere within these variable options. However, the current push for outright teen bans seems flawed, and unlikely to result in the desired impact.
