A year from now, children under the age of 16 in Australia will be barred from many social-media platforms — the highest minimum-age limit in the world. Other countries or regions have introduced similar bans and more say they’re considering them, owing to parents’ concerns that children are exposed to cyber-bullying, scams and adult content on these platforms. But researchers say there is minimal evidence to suggest such bans will keep children safe from online harm.
The Australian government says that social media is impacting children’s wellbeing. It hasn’t said which platforms will be off-limits under the new law, but the legislation will include those that allow users to post content and interact with two or more users on a platform, such as Snapchat, TikTok and X (formerly known as Twitter). Social-media companies could face fines of up to Aus$49.5 million (US$32 million) if they don’t take “reasonable steps” to prevent children younger than the minimum age from signing up for accounts.
Many parents have applauded the tough approach, but researchers aren’t convinced banning access to social media will solve the problems it is intended to address. In October, dozens of researchers penned a letter to the Australian government arguing that a blanket ban was too blunt and that addressing online risks requires a nuanced, evidence-based approach.
There is a lack of evidence to suggest that a ban will be effective, says Andrew Przybylski, a psychologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who focuses on how social media influences mental health. “It doesn’t line up with the scientific consensus,” he says.
Evidence so far
So what does the research show? A 2023 report by the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found that social media has the potential to be harmful to adolescent health, but that there is not enough evidence to suggest that it causes negative effects at the population level. Rather than bringing in blanket bans and age restrictions, the report recommends that social-media companies adopt new standards to improve the platforms’ transparency, as well as better reporting systems to tackle online abuse.
Australia is one of several countries or regions to attempt to impose social-media restrictions on children. In 2023, France introduced a law that prohibits children under the age of 15 from signing up for social-media accounts without parental consent, although it is yet to be enforced. The US state of Florida signed a bill in March that seeks to ban social-media accounts for children younger than 14 years old, but the move is being challenged in the district court over concerns about free speech. And in October, Norway announced plans to increase the minimum age for social-media use from 13 to 15 years old.
Studies suggest that children are already finding ways around existing age limits. A 2022 report by the UK government’s Office of Communications found that 60% of children aged between 8 and 11 who use these platforms have their own profiles, despite most platforms having an age limit of 13 years old. Furthermore, young users do not need an account to browse some social-media sites, such as TikTok, and can use their parents’ logins to access content on more restrictive sites, says Stephanie Wescott, a researcher at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia, who focuses on gender-based violence in schools. “There are huge enforceability issues,” she says.
Online community
Because few jurisdictions have banned social media for children, few studies have explored whether such restrictions protect children against online harassment, bullying and harmful content. There is, however, evidence that social media offers adolescents some benefits.
In a 2022 survey conducted in the United States by the Pew Research Center, based in Washington DC, roughly 80% of 13–17-year-olds surveyed said that social media made them feel more connected to what’s happening in their friends’ lives. Among the 32% of respondents who reported that social media has a mostly positive impact on them, almost half cited connections and socializing as the main reasons. Almost 60% said that social media had a neutral effect on them, whereas only 9% found it mostly negative.
For some children, particularly those in minority groups and those living in remote areas, social media is a “lifeline”, because it gives them access to communities and support systems they might not have at home or at school, says Lisa Given, an information scientist at RMIT University in Melbourne who specializes in human behaviour. Australia’s tough social-media restrictions could isolate these children. “We’re going to need many more interventions in terms of support and care for those kids who are now banned from these platforms,” she says.
Przybylski worries that the country’s blunt approach will only push vulnerable children to corners of the Internet where they are more likely to be exposed to harm, such as unmoderated chat rooms.
Westcott says governments should focus on educating children from an early age about the pitfalls of social media and how to navigate the online world more critically.
