Photo by Jakob Owens on Unsplash
On December 10, 2025, Australia became the first country to implement a nationwide social media ban for children under 16. The ban is a result of the push for betterment of mental health in children under 16 and requires age checks for apps such as Instagram, Snapchat, and X in order to protect the mental health of children. Although many apps are banned, it still allows other apps like Roblox and Discord which are classified under “gaming apps”. But this ban begs the question: Is this the best way to regulate mental health in teens? The ban is a step in the right direction, but should be seen as a starting point, not a solution. Like every issue, there are two sides to the debate. The government claims that at age 16, teens are not only at a point of higher emotional regulation but are also at a later stage of identity formation. Research by Yale Medicine supports the notion that there are correlations between high social media use and anxiety/depression. Additionally, younger teens tend to show stronger negative correlations and a newfound sense of peer pressure to participate in “trends”.
On the other hand, there are no direct studies comparing the effects of social media on teens who start on social media at an earlier age, such as 14, compared to teens who start at 16. Most studies research teens in a broad age range and conclude no evidence of a biological switch at 16. In this case, age and emotional development seem to be a gradient rather than a cutoff. In a study by students at Brigham Young University, they took data from a large northwestern city and interviewed during the first 8 months for a first wave data sample. Wave 3 took place around 2 years later. The entire longitudinal study spanned 8 years, and in that time, they found small or inconsistent links between social media use and mental health over time. This study tracks teens across adolescence but does not identify any specific turning point where the social media use suddenly no longer affected their mental health; rather, effects were gradual and inconsistent or highly individual-dependent in most cases.
The “trends” found by Yale Medicine do support the notion that teens have stronger negative correlations, however, the longitudinal study both spanned a longer time over the course of 8 years in multiple waves and allowed researchers to observe how social media use increased with mental health decline. Additionally, the design reduces the risk of confusing temporary stress levels with lasting psychological harm to help distinguish correlation from causation.
According to the Social Media and Youth Mental Health report by the U.S. Surgeon General’s Advisory, they state that causal evidence is limited, and note that age-specific data is lacking, supporting the longitudinal study. The preconceived notion that social media suddenly no longer affects adolescents is simply not true, as even the health authorities admit that exact age-cutoffs are not evidence-based boundaries.
Yet the question of why age 16 was chosen still remains. There are many logical reasons to support the age, as 16 aligns with driving age and overall cognitive growth. The policy makers saw the age as an enforceable and socially acceptable marker. However, the lack of evidence to support a hard cutoff age of 16 leads to the question: how do we know 16 is the proper age? Although not supported by hard evidence, it is still a very practical decision and will lead to the betterment of society. Still, because of the lack of evidence, the policy should be evaluated over time instead of being seen as permanent or unquestionable.
However, criticisms have already started to circulate on the internet. Some say the age restriction raises privacy concerns, as they may try to circumvent the ban through unknown or unsafe methods. Furthermore, there is a concern for support communities, such as the LGBTQ+ community. Without access to social media, teens searching for help with their own identity may not be able to receive the support they need from groups. Additionally, there is a risk of simply focusing on age limits instead of platform design reform and digital literacy education. Age limits can control who is able to use social media, but they cannot control how social media is designed. Modern platforms are designed around the maximization of attention, as opposed to the well-being of the user. Instead, these algorithms prioritize emotional content and constant novelty for the benefit and growth of their own companies. If the source of harm lies within platform incentives, then delaying access does not eliminate exposure; it simply postpones it.
The initial ban on social media in Australia is a step in the right direction. However, it should be kept in mind that the ban is a first, not a final resolution to mental health concerns. The success of the ban should be measured, not assumed. Additionally, although age does matter in the case of the tolls on mental health, there is no direct cutoff for when one is suddenly no longer affected by social media. Instead of focusing on this single ban, the policy should evolve with research and reach a resolution where both the policy and the design of social media reach an intersection for the better of all.
Be First to Comment