Banning social media – does that really protect our children?
Updated: Sep 19
Social media has long been an integral part of our everyday lives – especially for children and teenagers. At the same time, uncertainty is growing among parents, teachers, and politicians: Should we simply ban social media for children?
This question is understandable. Research shows that there are risks. The World Health Organization (2024), for example, points out that problematic social media use among young people is increasing and is associated with lower well-being. At the same time, the scientific situation is nuanced: it cannot be said that social media is inherently harmful, nor that its use is without problems. Rather, studies show correlations, risk patterns, and possible amplifying effects – but not simple cause-and-effect relationships.
Why bans are being discussed
Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that political measures are increasingly being discussed. A prominent example is Australia.
Since the end of 2025, platforms in these countries have been required to actively prevent under-16s from creating accounts. The aim is to protect children and give them time to develop digital skills and resilience before they use such platforms independently.
From a developmental psychology perspective, this argument is understandable: children do not yet possess the same impulse control and self-regulation skills as adults – yet at the same time they encounter digital systems that specifically challenge these skills.
A minimum age can therefore be understood as a protective signal. Not as a perfect solution, but as a societal framework for orientation.
What speaks in favor of bans?
There are several arguments in favor of restrictive measures.
Protection during a sensitive developmental phase
Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to social comparison, peer pressure, and digital feedback mechanisms (American Psychological Association, 2023). Likes, comments, and reach affect the reward system and can reinforce emotional dependencies.
Initial empirical evidence
Studies such as that by Abrahamsson (2024) show that smartphone bans in schools may be associated with less bullying and sometimes better mental outcomes.
Precautionary principle
Since long-term effects are not yet fully understood, it seems sensible to limit risks early on – especially during a sensitive development phase.
Why bans alone are not enough
As understandable as these arguments are, the research also clearly demonstrates the limitations of such measures.
A commentary in The Lancet Digital Health (2025) emphasizes that the effects of social media bans are still unclear – they can be positive, neutral, or even partially negative.
Empirical studies also do not provide a clear picture. For example, a study in The Lancet Regional Health Europe (2025) shows that banning smartphones in schools does not automatically lead to better mental health. The BMJ (2025) comes to a similar conclusion: The evidence is currently still limited.
There's also a practical problem: bans can be circumvented. Experience from Australia shows that despite regulatory measures, many minors continue to use accounts. Technical solutions and age verification are important – but not perfect.
What we need instead
Current research and political discussion therefore point to a central issue: The debate must not be reduced to the question of "prohibition or freedom".
Instead, multiple levels are needed simultaneously.
Regulation
Platforms need to be held more accountable – for example through minimum age requirements, effective age verification, and clear sanctions for violations.
Platform design
Many risks arise from the way the platforms themselves function. Algorithms, reward systems, and endless scrolling are specifically designed to capture attention for as long as possible.
Therefore, we need more age-appropriate digital spaces and fewer manipulative mechanisms.
Support and media literacy
However, the decisive factor remains adult accompaniment.
Media literacy today means far more than just being able to use apps. Children and young people need to understand how digital systems work, how algorithms control attention, and how to use digital media consciously and thoughtfully.
What this means specifically for parents and schools
From this perspective, several key areas of action can be derived.
Boundaries provide orientation
A minimum age or clear rules can provide guidance and protection – especially at a young age.
Don't just focus on screen time
What matters is not just the duration of use, but the pattern of use. Sleep problems, social comparison, emotional dependence, or constant sensory overload are often more telling than mere minutes of usage.
Conversations remain key
Children need not only rules, but also understanding and context. Questions like "What did you see?" or "How did that feel?" encourage reflection and strengthen the ability to consciously process digital experiences.
Schools play a key role
Social media is no longer just a technical issue. It affects health, identity, communication, and social participation.
Accordingly, media literacy should be an integral part of education – not as an additional topic, but as a fundamental future skill.
Conclusion
A social media ban for children under 14 or 16 years of age can be useful – not as a final solution, but as a protective framework and a social signal.
But bans alone are insufficient. The real challenge lies deeper: children today grow up in a digital environment that actively competes for attention and uses psychological mechanisms to keep users on platforms for as long as possible.
Therefore, simply regulating access is not enough. Equally important is the question of how digital spaces are designed, what responsibilities platforms assume, and how children learn to use digital media in a healthy and thoughtful way.
The crucial question, therefore, is not only when children are allowed to use social media – but how we prepare them for it.
This requires shared responsibility: from politicians and platforms, but also from schools, parents and society as a whole.
Ultimately, it's not just about screen time or individual apps. It's about the digital culture in which children grow up – and about the values, skills, and ways of living together that we want to instill in them in this world.
Sources
Transparency note: I originally wrote this article in German and used ChatGPT to translate it into English. I also used generative AI for research, idea generation, and language editing. The ideas, personal perspective and final edits are my own.
Abrahamsson, T. (2024). Smartphone bans, student outcomes and mental health .
American Psychological Association. (2023). Health advisory on social media use in adolescence . https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet/health-advisory-adolescent-social-media-use
BMJ. (2025). School smartphone bans and adolescent mental health: Evidence review .
eSafety Commissioner. (2025). Social media minimum age obligations . https://www.esafety.gov.au
OECD. (nd). Children and digital media: Policy considerations . https://www.oecd.org
The Lancet Digital Health. (2025). Social media bans for young people: What do we know?
The Lancet Regional Health – Europe. (2025). School smartphone bans and adolescent wellbeing .
US Department of Health and Human Services. (2023). Social media and youth mental health: The US Surgeon General's advisory .
World Health Organization. (2024). Health behavior in school-aged children (HBSC) study: International report . https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289057738
Comments