Do social media bans work?

Research is indicating that protecting young people from online harms
requires more than age limits

I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one who has asked a child for advice on some aspect of social media. Children see social media and other technologies as a normal part of life. In the UK, for example, some 79 per cent of children and adolescents aged between three and 17 now report that they use social media.

Using social media can help children fulfil some of their social and educational needs. However, ultimately, they are commercial products designed to profit their owners and shareholders.

To drive profits, platforms prioritise user engagement and aim to generate emotional dependency. This has led to the introduction of design features that promote emotionally charged content and drive habitual usage. Social media platforms that are driven by algorithms are associated with negative health outcomes for children.

Research published in the Medical Journal of Australia this year found that a higher level of social media use among Australian adolescents was associated with small, but significant increases in the risks of depression, poor wellbeing, and self-harm.

The study followed 1,195 students, who were aged around nine years at recruitment in 2012, for 10 years. Annual surveys and measurements of mental health and wellbeing were undertaken, as well as self-reported social media use.

The results showed that children who reported an average of more than two hours of social media use each day had a 29 per cent higher risk of depressive symptoms. They also found a 17 per cent higher risk of poor wellbeing than those who were on social media for under one hour a day.

Since the research was conducted, the social media landscape has become more populated with misogynistic and racist content.

When combined with greater social media use and an increased intensity of algorithm-driven feeds since 2012, experts are concerned that the results of a similar study carried out today would find even greater health concerns for young people.

Last year, Australia became the first country in the world to introduce legislation to reduce children’s exposure to social media.

It now requires that social media platforms – including TikTok, X, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Snapchat – take reasonable steps to prevent adolescents under 16 years of age from holding accounts.

However, early data on Australia’s Social Media Minimum Age Act suggest that legal measures do not produce a noticeable short-term impact.

A study just published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and carried out three months after the law was introduced found that a substantial proportion of young people aged under 16 continued to access social media, mainly by using their own accounts.

Age verification strategies employed by platforms, primarily self-declaration of age and photo uploads, have been ineffective in reducing use.

Researchers found that 85 per cent of participants aged under 16 reported using social media platforms subject to the Act at follow-up. Some two-thirds of these reported that they had been subject to platform age verification checks, most commonly by stating their age and uploading a ‘selfie’ picture. A minority of respondents said they used fake social media accounts or accessed sites via an incognito browser.

While there was some reduction in daily social media use by 14–15-year-olds, usage increased in those over 16 and remained stable among 12–13-year-olds.

All of which must be a wake-up call for countries contemplating similar social media legislation to Australia. The UK will ban social media for under-16s next year.

Given the benefits that children perceive from social media, and the absence of consequences for non-compliance for underage children, laws alone are unlikely to shift behaviour.

In an accompanying opinion piece in the BMJ, Louise Holly, research and policy coordinator at the Digital Transformations for Health Lab at the University of Geneva, said the research findings should not be interpreted as a failure of children’s compliance.

She pointed out the law was not designed to change the habits of children, but the practices of selected social media platforms.

“If over 85 per cent of children and adolescents aged under 16 reported that they continued using the restricted platforms three months after the act came into force, the platforms have clearly failed in their duty to comply with both the letter and spirit of the law,” Holly writes.

“Age restrictions alone do not make online spaces safer or tackle platforms’ addictive features, algorithm-driven content, and commercial incentives that we increasingly understand to be at the root of harms associated with social media use.”

So what can public health policy makers learn from the Australian experience? They need to focus on what happens on social media platforms in the first place. If we are to support children to thrive in a digital world, the question is not only what should be restricted, but what kind of online environments we should be building instead.