The case for a social media prohibition on under-16s

Should we accept Ireland’s cautious approach on social media regulation when other countries are introducing age-based bans?

The American author PJ O’Rourke wrote “every generation finds the drug it needs”.

For this generation of young people, one of the primary drugs of choice is content being delivered to them 24/7 on smartphones and tablets.

“From the family of four sat in a pizza restaurant not speaking to each other because they are ‘on their phones’, to the toddler screaming in the GP’s surgery as its worried parent tries to prise it away from its iPad in readiness for a physical examination, to an anxious teenager simply too scared to go to school – the signs of an entire generation’s inability to cope with being permanently hooked up to a digital world are part of our everyday experience.”

These are the words of the UK Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the parent body representing the collective interests of over 20 medical royal colleges and faculties across the UK and Ireland.

It acts as a unified voice, coordinating standards in medical education, training, and clinical quality for the benefit of patients and healthcare professionals.

At the time of writing, the UK was reportedly set to announce a crackdown on social media for children, with age limits and changes to allegedly addictive design features due to be introduced by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, Ireland continues to prevaricate. As countries across Europe line up to introduce a blanket ban on social media access to teenagers, Ireland has resisted the call for such a move.

This is despite the support for a prohibition from key Government figures, including Tánaiste Simon Harris.

What is the stance of Irish experts?

In May 2025, the RCPI Faculty of Paediatrics launched a paper calling for improved measures to safeguard young people online that included calls for regulation and accountability for online platforms, improved awareness and information, and comprehensive research.

The Government’s online health taskforce took a similar stance in its report published in December 2025. The taskforce advocated for a harm-reduction approach that combines digital literacy, ‘safety by design’ standards for tech platforms, and proportionate regulatory safeguards under the Digital Services Act.

Notably, the taskforce prioritised fixing the underlying products, shifting the focus from blanket bans on teenagers to eliminating harmful features like infinite scrolling and algorithm-driven content.

The report highlighted the use of a blanket ban as a “blunt instrument” that will not meaningfully resolve the issue.

However, this is not the view of the President of the IMO. In February, Prof Matthew Saldier (then Vice-President) argued that a ban on social media is “imperative” in order to protect children from harmful online content.

Prof Sadlier said that while an outright ban would not be without issues, it was still preferable to the status quo, and efforts to educate young people on the dangers of social media would not be enough on its own to solve the problem.

“There will be some children who will navigate their way around a social media ban, just as there are some children who will drink alcohol before they turn 18,” he said.

“But overall, a ban is imperative because it will shift overall patterns of usage and act as a real support for parents who want to delay their children’s smartphone usage.”

Prof Sadlier added that “our children are not commodities and must be protected from targeted and extremely harmful content”.

The report from the UK Academy of Medical Royal Colleges summarises the most up-to-date evidence on what other countries are doing in terms of regulating teenage access to social media. It also outlined the evidence linking social media to poor physical and mental health outcomes.

Regulation in other countries

Countries are ranked by level of action taken to protect children from online harm. Top of the table is Australia, which introduced legislation in 2024 to require platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent under-16s from holding accounts, with fines of up to A$49.5 million for breaches.

The UK has mandated that platforms have a statutory duty to prevent children’s access to harmful content, age-gate adult material, and offer parental controls with no specific minimum age set to date.

The European Union (EU) prohibits most targeted advertising to minors and platforms must assess risks to children. Additionally, the EU parliament has a non-binding statement urging a minimum age of 16.

Several countries in Europe have announced or are in the process of introducing a minimum age ban for access to social media. These include minimum age bans in France (15); Norway (15); Greece (15); Spain (16); Austria (14); Portugal (13); and Germany (13).

Several countries in Europe have announced or are in the process of introducing a minimum age ban for access to social media

What is the evidence?

The UK report provides even more comprehensive evidence of the types and extent of harms and key findings from meta-analyses and systematic reviews exploring harms linked to social media. It is a sobering read.

The medical professional body highlights that while much of the evidence is based on correlation rather than causation, the same arguments existed in the sixties and seventies with smoking and seatbelts.

In terms of social media “there is an overwhelming consensus that excessive screen time can harm children and young people, and we need to call this out unflinchingly rather than passively wait for someone else to prove causation”, the authors concluded.

Regarding mental health outcomes, multiple meta-analyses between 2015 and 2025 show links between social media use, screen time and elevated rates of depression and anxiety. Screen time in children under five was significantly associated with hyperactivity.

Exposure to idealised influencer imagery was associated with lower body satisfaction and mood. Exposure to influencer marketing of unhealthy snacks increased caloric intake by more than a quarter (26 per cent).

Social media is consistently associated with increased alcohol consumption by adolescents. In terms of attainment and learning, excessive social media users showed a significantly smaller brain volume.

Screen time exceeding two hours per day is consistently associated with shorter sleep duration and poorer sleep quality, as well as an increased risk of overweight, obesity, metabolic syndrome, and hypertension in children and adolescents. Studies also demonstrate a linear dose-response relationship, meaning that as social media use increases, these health risks become progressively greater.

Controlled trials have shown that children in smartphone overuse groups exhibit significantly poorer visual outcomes than their peers. Screen time is also positively associated with low back pain, neck pain, and poorer bone health in children and adolescents. Evidence further suggests a linear dose-response relationship, with increasing computer use associated with a progressively greater risk of low back pain.

In terms of relationships, problematic internet and smartphone use is consistently associated with poorer quality parent-child relationships, lower self-esteem, reduced self-control, and diminished social support.

 It could be argued that failing to introduce a social media ban for teenagers now is a case of ‘the perfect being the enemy of the good’ in that such a ban might not address every aspect of the problem.

In terms of the tsunami of evidence-based studies, along with the clinical view of health professionals on the health harms of social media, is there a case for the introduction of both a ban and better standards? This would result in a ban on social media for under-16s aligned with a robust set of standards that social media apps must meet.