Actually, Let’s Keep the Kids Off Social Media

And maybe all of us too, while we’re at it.

(Credit: Jasper Langley-Hawthorne)

Last year, Australia passed legislation instituting a nation-wide ban on social media access for those under 16 years of age. Three quarters of the public support the ban, especially parents.  Last month, Anya Raghuvanshi wrote an article in The Forum critiquing Australia's youth social media ban. Despite some flaws, the ban represents an important first step to protect children from serious harm, improve teen mental health, and facilitate societal reentry into the real world.

The platforms most in need of regulation are Instagram, TikTok, Snapchat, and X. All of these mediums facilitate what Jonathan Haidt calls “asynchronous one-to-many performance,” where users “perform” by posting photos, videos, or text to be viewed by a general audience when convenient.

Raghuvanshi troublingly argues that social media is the place “where [teens] connect with friends, find support, and explore the world.” What world are we describing? A world of the near-endless scroll of insipidly perfect posts? Before social media, personal and social exploration was done in the actual world. Digital exploration is no analog. Yes, social media allows for connection, support, and exploration. But, these forms of experience are cheap and second-rate to that which you’ll find in reality. Social media also categorically harms mental health. At least 55 studies show a correlation between social media use and mental health problems.

These mental health effects can have serious consequences. Senator Lindsey Graham, addressing social media executives in a hearing last year, spoke passionately: “you have blood on your hands.” The introduction of the smartphone to US teens has been linked to a 50% spike in teenage suicides. Kids die, too, in terrifyingly inane ways, like the so-called TikTok ‘black-out challenge.’ Users were encouraged to choke themselves with household objects to film their ‘adrenaline rush’ upon regaining consciousness—at least 15 children aged 12 or younger died. I ask again: Is this seriously the place where we want kids to “find support” and “explore the world”?

The strongest argument against the ban concerns freedom of speech. Free speech is essential to any free society because it allows us to organize with others and petition the government. But social media isn’t a particularly effective conduit for political organizing and expression. Social media may increase the size of protests, but data shows that it does not make them more successful. In high profile and oft-cited cases like the Arab Spring, the impact of social media was, in truth, mixed at best. 

Moreover, a majority of Americans believe social media actually distracts us from truly important issues (so-called ‘slacktivism’.) On top of that, any positive political change from social media is counterbalanced by the contagion of disinformation, hate speech, and trolling also found on those platforms. The landscape for promoting personal expression is equally as grim, given the countervailing presence of bots, political extremists, and now AI-generated content. 

Promoting “media literacy” and “self-control” are bandaids on a broken system. Investing in “mental health resources that address the challenges kids face online” treats the symptom, not the cause. And yes, perhaps a ban treats young adults as if they “can’t be trusted.” So do the laws which control when teens can drive, vote, and drink. In the case of driving and drinking ages, the government recognizes a clear and present danger for still-developing youth. Why should social media be any different?

Though enforcing an age-restriction can be quite challenging, it’s not hopeless. Obviously, setting the U.S. drinking age at 21 doesn’t prevent all teenagers from drinking, but it does limit the ease of teen’s access to alcohol. The drinking age simply attempts to lower the number of them doing so, and doing so to excess. The same can be true for technology. When Louisiana introduced age verification laws for pornographic websites, Pornhub site traffic dropped by 51 percent. Requiring some verifiable evidence of a real photo ID for social media sites would work, so long as it is introduced for all pertinent platforms and is strongly enforced. 

Finally, there is the concern that banning social media for teens will ill-equip them for the world at large: “It’s how we communicate, network, and even work.” I would posit that teens are probably remarkably capable of learning these technologies after the age of 16 (or whatever age a restriction sets.) The boons to their development, sense of self, and overall happiness would also likely lead them to use social media in healthier and more productive ways. Beyond that, we must ask ourselves an even more important question: what if social media wasn’t the way we communicated, networked, or worked? What if social media sites (specifically those platforms which stress one-to-many performance) were banned for everyone? 

64% of Americans say social media currently has a negative effect on society. The philosophy behind a ban on social media, either age-restricted or for everyone, does not concern the world in which teens are at present growing up in. Instead, it concerns what kind of world we want our teens to grow up in, and what kind of world we ourselves would like to live in. Wouldn’t we rather live in the real world?