Kids and social media: Why TikTok and Facebook are not as harmful to children's mental health as is widely believed

RU

Support and opposition

Australia has become the first country in the world to ban teenagers from using social media. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese defended the legislation, citing a “clear causal link between the growing popularity of social networks and harm to the mental health of young Australians.”

The new law mandates that social media platforms restrict access for users under 16. Beyond verifying ages during registration, IT companies will also be required to authenticate the identities of existing account holders, regardless of their age. Platforms that fail to comply could face fines of up to $32 million. However, penalties will only apply to systematic violators, meaning the erroneous registration of individual underage users will not result in consequences for the platforms — at least not immediately.

The main outstanding questions regard how the law will be enforced and which specific companies will fall under its purview. Officials have stated that platforms like Facebook and TikTok will be subject to the ban, while YouTube will not, as it is the host of “a significant amount of educational content.” Further details are expected after mid-2025, when age verification trials are set to conclude. The law will come into force 12 months later.

According to public opinion polls, voters support the idea of banning social media for teenagers: 77% of Australians agree with the government’s initiative, up from just 61% back in August 2024. Even more respondents — 87% — back stricter measures against social networks that violate Australian law.

Although the few million young Australians set to be affected represent a relatively small segment of the multinational platforms’ overall user base, companies are not eager to see the establishment of such a precedent. Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health have found that social networks earn approximately $11 billion annually from advertising targeted at users under the age of 18.

This explains why the tech sector stands united in opposition to the Australian regulation. Meta, the parent company of Facebook, criticized the ban as overly hasty, accusing the government in Canberra of ignoring the preferences of those directly affected. Meta also stressed that tech companies already implement measures to protect teenagers. Meanwhile, Elon Musk, owner of the platform formerly known as Twitter, accused the Australian government of attempting to censor the internet.

Amnesty International joined the chorus of critics, pointing out that enforcing the new law would require all Australian social media users to verify their age through biometric data or document uploads — essentially turning internet access into a passport-controlled activity. Such a step creates significant security risks. Additionally, human rights advocates argue that social networks provide young people with opportunities for communication, learning, and self-expression — a blanket ban would strip them of these benefits.

Finally, 140 Australian scientists and international experts published an open letter urging the government to reconsider its decision. They argued that the initiative would remove platforms’ incentives to care about children’s well-being, that the ban’s effective implementation (particularly precise age verification) is unlikely to succeed, and that platforms falling outside the reach of the law — YouTube, various messaging apps, gaming services — would be largely free to disregard the wellbeing of young users.

What the research says

The safety of children and teenagers on social media is of concern not only to the Australian government, but also to researchers worldwide. One of the most extensive studies conducted on this topic was carried out by scientists from Cambridge and Oxford, who sought to determine whether social media activity in adolescence influences a person’s future happiness — and, in the other direction, whether a person’s level of happiness affects how much time they spend on social media. The analysis attempted to take into account environmental factors like family income and neighborhood prosperity in order to eliminate the potential influence of socioeconomic variables.

Data from tens of thousands of participants revealed that while the connection is generally weak, social media and “life satisfaction” are indeed linked at certain stages of life. Although the Australian government cited this study to support its impending ban, the UK-based authors accused officials of misinterpreting their findings. They emphasized that people respond differently to social media, suggesting an approach that employs targeted measures rather than a blanket ban. “It’s a pity they didn’t consult us before referencing our work,” one of the researchers remarked.

From the outset, the researchers emphasized that the link between social media use and well-being remains uncertain. Their analysis of prior scientific literature revealed only weak correlations, and the experimental data did not allow for definitive conclusions. The study itself, which garnered significant attention from policymakers, has notable limitations, the authors admit. Chief among them is the fact that no one verified how much time participants actually spent on social media — the researchers relied solely on self-reported data.

Other studies in this area provide additional insights. For instance, researchers found that posting selfies on Instagram fosters feelings of shame about one’s appearance in young people, while watching influencer videos amplifies fear of missing out (FOMO) and diminishes the social well-being of children under 14. Interestingly, Facebook’s internal research teams reached similar conclusions.

Social media algorithms also play a role, as they often promote extreme content — such as videos on starvation diets and other harmful practices — that have indeed been linked to a rise in mental health issues among teenagers. The effects include lowered self-esteem, an increase in eating disorders, and even suicidal thoughts.

Researchers propose several potential solutions. Parents should monitor their children’s online activities and provide support to mitigate the negative effects of perceived competition with influencers. Additionally, studies suggest that limiting social media use to one hour per day can reduce anxiety, depression, and FOMO among people aged 17–25 — and it can also improve their sleep quality.

It might appear from the above that the negative impact of social media on young minds has been definitively proven. However, the reality is more complex. Many studies on the perceived harm of social networks are based on surveys involving relatively small groups — just a few hundred participants. The results have been curiously mixed, with Facebook use being linked to both increased envy and reduced depression.

It is also possible that social media is not fundamentally responsible for the decline in teenagers’ overall state of mental health. According to Sweden’s Ministry of Health, this trend emerged as early as the mid-1980s. Sleep disorders, often attributed to young people’s obsession with technology, also became more frequent long before the advent of smartphones. A similar pattern is evident in other countries: the average American child in the 1980s reported higher levels of anxiety than children who were psychiatric hospital patients in the 1950s.

Overall, the scientific literature suggests that the mental health issues of young people cannot be solely attributed to new technologies. Other factors include fear of uncertainty, a sense of life’s meaninglessness, growing economic inequality, and anxiety over social status.

Complex problems rarely have simple solutions. This is why initiatives like banning smartphones or social media often prove to be overly simplistic. A total ban on children using social media may turn out to be as ineffective as Prohibition was in combating alcoholism.

How to regulate social media

Countries around the world demonstrate a wide range of approaches to regulating social media. In the EU, processing the date of people under the age of 16 requires parental consent, though member states can lower this threshold to 13 years. In the U.S., regulation has largely been left to individual states, with Florida recently banning children under 14 from creating social media accounts.

The Norwegian government has proposed raising the age at which children can independently agree to social media terms of use from 13 to 15. However, parents would still be able to allow younger children to register accounts. Additionally, authorities are working on a law to establish a mandatory minimum age for social media use. According to government data, half of Norway’s nine-year-olds are already using social networks.

Meanwhile, platform owners are taking steps to mitigate potential harm to its youthful cohort of users. For example, Instagram has prohibited teenagers from using beauty filters, and YouTube limits recommendations for videos about weight loss and fitness for teenage users.

Formally, children worldwide have been prohibited from using social media for over 25 years. In the U.S., the 2000 COPPA law banned the online collection of personal data from children under 13. While the concept of social media as we know it today was virtually nonexistent at the time — Facebook was not launched until 2004 — this law continues to govern how major global online platforms, most of which were developed in the U.S. and operate under its jurisdiction, interact with potential users of elementary school age.

Of course, children have long since figured out how to bypass restrictions — they simply add a few years to their age when signing up. According to U.S. officials, 40% of children aged 8–12 are active social media users. The experience with COPPA suggests that implementing well-intentioned legislative initiatives will almost certainly face resistance from the very people whose interests lawmakers and officials aim to protect.

The good news is that teenagers themselves have shown a capacity to recognize that excessive use of social media can be problematic. A 2022 Pew Research Center survey of Americans aged 13–17 found that 36% of respondents believed they spent too much time on social media. A six-in-ten majority acknowledged that they cannot control the personal data collected about them by tech companies. About half were confident that criminal penalties for offenders would significantly reduce cyberbullying among teenagers on social media.

According to a recent study, social media, when used thoughtfully, can enhance the well-being of young people aged 17 to 29. Researchers conducted an experiment using participants who all acknowledged that social media had negatively impacted their lives to some extent.

The participants were divided into three groups. The first group was taught to use social media more intentionally — for example, in order to strengthen personal connections. The second group attempted to stop using social media entirely. The third group made no changes to their behavior. Over the course of six weeks, researchers tracked changes in the participants’ social media habits and self-perception. The findings revealed that those who adopted a more mindful approach to social media felt less lonely and experienced reduced fear of missing out. Those who abstained from social media entirely reported lower levels of anxiety and emotional exhaustion.

The experiment highlighted that it is not necessary to completely eliminate social media — or to ban it — in order to improve well-being. Simply changing how platforms are used can lead to meaningful positive outcomes.