I research the harm of social media on teens. Here’s why I don’t support a ban
The UK government has consulted on an Australian-style ban on social media for under-16s. The proposal is framed as a bold response to growing concerns about young people’s mental health, online abuse and exposure to harmful content.
At first glance, the ban seems simple: Keep children away from platforms that could cause harm. But as someone who has spent years researching young people’s digital lives, relationships and wellbeing, I believe a blanket ban risks misunderstanding both the problem and the solution.
Mine research Research on young people consistently shows that the harms young people experience online are not separate from the harms they face offline. Bullying, racism, sexism, oppression, exclusion, and body image oppression all existed before social media. Digital platforms may magnify these problems, but they do not create them from scratch.
Inside focus groups I worked with young people and The research I did Participants with youth during the pandemic described online life as an extension of school hallways, peer groups, and local communities. This is what scientists are increasingly calling “post-digital” reality. Young people experience online and offline experiences not as separate worlds but as a single interconnected continuum.
If harms are of social origin, technical constraints alone are unlikely to solve them. The ban treats social media as the problem, rather than asking deeper questions about why certain behaviors (harassment, shaming, misogyny, exploitation) occur.
We also need to ask why digital spaces have become spaces where so many needs are assumed to be met. Over the years, due to funding cuts to youth services, shrinking community spaces and intensifying academic pressures, online platforms have filled this gap.
They did not simply colonize the lives of young people. They were invited into the void created by adult policy decisions. A ban addresses the symptoms of these developments without touching the broader context.
There is also a practical problem. Age-based bans are difficult to enforce. Young people are resourceful digital citizens. Many will find workarounds, switch to unregulated platforms, or simply lie about their age.
This risks driving online activity underground, away from the oversight of parents, teachers and support services. Rather than engaging young people where they already are, banning could make it harder to identify those who are struggling and need help.
A. last joint statement The statement, signed by more than 40 children’s charities, digital safety experts and bereaved families, warns of the danger that blanket bans will isolate vulnerable young people from peer support networks and crisis resources.
They say what young people need
Many young people criticize social media. In my research on online harms and influencer culture, young people often describe being tired of comparison culture, constant notifications, and the pressure to be “always on.” They often say they want to spend more time offline and want more meaningful face-to-face connection.
This ambivalence shows that young people are not passive victims of technology, but can identify problems and articulate the type of digital life they want. They want better education, more honest conversations, and better understanding of adults.
About the author
Emily Setty is Associate Professor of Criminology at the University of Surrey.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read original article.
They want to learn how to set boundaries, recognize pressure and algorithmic manipulation, and manage conflict. Above all, they want to be taken seriously as partners in solving the problems they face.
A blanket ban treats young people as a single homogeneous group; It ignores the diversity of their experiences, needs and circumstances. Rather than recognizing that risks and benefits are shaped by identity, relationships, resources, and context, it assumes that what is protective for one young person will be protective for everyone.
What are parents really worried about?
Parents’ perspectives add another important layer. In the research my colleagues and I have conducted with families, many parents express deep ambivalence about social media. They are concerned about online harms and often express a nostalgic desire to return to pre-internet childhood.
But this nostalgia is rarely just about technology. Rather, it is an expression of feeling out of control as parents in the face of powerful technology companies, complex digital cultures, and broader social changes that they perceive are reshaping their children’s lives.
While parents acknowledge that digital communication is at the heart of modern friendship and learning, they say they are torn between wanting to protect their children. They fear both the risks of their children being online and the risks of being ostracized by being offline.
In this context, a ban may seem like a tempting offer. It promises to restore a sense of order and authority. However, there is a risk of misdiagnosing the problem. What parents want isn’t just a ban, but more support to address these tensions, including clearer regulation of platforms, better education in schools and more resources to help families manage digital life together.
The illusion of simple fixes
The appeal of a ban lies in its simplicity. But complex social problems rarely lead to simple technological solutions.
Real progress will be slower and make fewer headlines. It includes investing in high-quality relationships and sex education that reflects young people’s digital realities and supporting parents to have informed conversations. This means regulating platform design to reduce exploitation and harassment and holding social media companies more accountable. And it requires rebuilding offline services and spaces that offer real alternatives to young people.
Social media is not an external danger that young people visit occasionally. This is woven into their daily social world. A ban that removes young people from areas where they meet their true personal, interpersonal and social needs risks leaving them adrift.
A generation growing up in a networked world needs guidance, not exclusion, from the spaces where their lives emerge. Policy should start from how young people actually live, not from adults’ fears about technology. If we want young people to be safer online, the answer is not to ban their digital lives, but to help them navigate them.
