This year, Australia became the first country in the world to ban social media for children under the age of 16. Many European countries, including the Czech Republic, are also considering bans for certain age groups. Proponents of the bans argue that doing so is in the interest of children's health and healthy development. However, according to researchers from the Interdisciplinary Research of Internet and Society (IRTIS) at Masaryk University and world experts from prestigious universities, hastily conceived bans on technology use affecting the 13- to 15-year-old (or 16-year-old) age group are ineffective and potentially harmful.
“As one of our reports shows, adolescents spend up to several hours a day on social media. Both our own and research from abroad also point to a number of negative and positive impacts on their well-being and mental health. In this regard, a blanket ban may seem like the most straightforward solution. However, there is currently insufficient research to clearly support that blanket bans have positive effects. There is a risk that we will introduce measures that could cause unforeseen damage and actually harm the mental health of adolescents," explains Michaela Šaradín Lebedíková, a member of the IRTIS team. Experts from abroad also point out that abstinence from social media, or so-called digital detoxes, is not globally beneficial for well-being. They are difficult to sustain given the growing need for connectivity and deprive users of all the benefits of social networks. A recent study by Harvard researchers even shows that efforts to reduce social media use rather than ban it altogether are more beneficial to adolescents' well-being, particularly because it allows them to maintain contact with friends.
The design of some platforms raises legitimate concerns. For example, the European Commission's recently released preliminary findings on TikTok, which highlight its addictive elements, prioritization of time spent on the platform over content quality, and invasive algorithms that collect detailed personal data. While these platforms may have a greater impact on adolescents whose attention and executive functions are still developing, the potential negative effects also apply to adults. Banning social media only for younger users makes little sense without putting pressure on the tech companies that are responsible for platform design. A blanket ban may create a false sense of security, primarily burdening users while allowing tech companies to continue their business model based on undesirable practices.
The use of social media also aligns with adolescents' needs, whether for establishing relationships or becoming independent of their parents. Social media can often be the only space providing autonomy and peer contact. Unless we look for ways to ensure this autonomy outside of technology, there is a risk that adolescents will simply move to other, even less regulated platforms, such as WhatsApp or Discord, which are also used by children well under the age of 13 for school or family reasons. On these chat platforms, adolescents may encounter content that can be harmful, hurtful, and difficult to control. "Adolescents search for content related to their needs on the internet and social media. However, this can be both positive and negative. For example, if an adolescent has mental health issues and is further exposed to harmful content on social networks, it is highly likely that they will find this content elsewhere on the internet, despite the ban. Plus, the ban itself will not solve the adolescent's mental health problems. It is necessary to look for the cause, not deal with the consequence," says professor David Šmahel, who has been researching the topic of internet use by adolescents for the past two decades.
Other international experts share a similar opinion on banning social media. For example professor Sonia Livingstone from the London School of Economics, emphasizes that we should primarily rely on regulations that already exist in Europe but are rarely enforced, such as the rule that social media is not intended for children under the age of 13.
Calls for pressure on corporations rather than users are also coming from the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Professor Jessica Piotrowski points out that children and adolescents are resourceful and that blanket bans will only shift the risks elsewhere, while young people will cleverly circumvent bans by using VPNs, shared profiles, fictitious dates of birth, or migration to other, not yet regulated platforms.
European countries need to rely on regulations targeting corporations, such as the Digital Services Act (DSA), and insist on real, not just formal, changes by platform operators. The pressure should be directed primarily at corporations, not at children and parents, and its goal should be to create a safer internet environment for everyone. For example, there should be greater scrutiny and changes to the algorithms used by social networks.
Adéla Švestková concludes: "Not only we, but also many international experts agree that banning social networks for children under 16 will not solve the problem. At best, it will simply shift the problem to an older age group. In our opinion, regulations should be directed more at the corporations that operate social networks, not at teenagers and parents."
Useful links:
This work has been funded by a grant from the Programme Johannes Amos Comenius under the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic from the project “Research of Excellence on Digital Technologies and Wellbeing CZ.02.01.01/00/22_008/0004583“ which is co-financed by the European Union.
