In this debate originally featured in Kidscreen‘s Q4 2025 magazine issue, teen development advocate Greg Attwells and kids media expert David Kleeman present opposing arguments over the question: Should kids under age 16 be banned from social media?

YES, it’s negligent to expose kids to social media

By Greg Attwells

Kids need more time to develop healthy and secure identities before they’re exposed to the minefield of social media. There is a direct correlation between the introduction of social media and the rise in anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self-harm and suicide among teenagers. The situation is so bad that keeping the status quo while we work on more nuanced remedies is simply negligent.

At 13, children are not yet ready to navigate online social networks safely. The 36 months between 13 and 16 are crucial for them to develop a secure sense of self and social confidence. Social media makes this harder, not easier. Most parents seem to agree that social media is not helping.

THE REALITIES

Each notification, like or comment triggers a dopamine release, creating a reward loop that keeps teenagers engaged and returning for more. The anticipation of receiving these rewards, and the pleasure derived from them, can make social media usage addictive and difficult to resist. This is why we’re urging governments around the world to change their policies and raise the threshold for social media citizenship, delaying the age when teenagers can sign up for social media accounts by 36 months, from age 13 to 16. We’re not trying to be the fun police, stopping young people from communicating via the internet or accessing entertainment and educational resources. The components of social media that we feel qualify a service for greater regulation are:

• Gamified online interaction that makes using the service highly addictive.
• Algorithms that target vulnerabilities in young people and feed unhealthy obsessions.
• The ability for users to share and receive commentary from an open social network, allowing online bullying to grow in the shadows of the service.

Since the Australian government has passed these social media reforms, it has clearly said that the onus will be on social media platforms to enforce an effective age gate. Parents won’t be responsible, teenagers won’t be responsible, and the government isn’t trying to backdoor digital ID to its citizens so it can spy on them. The creators of the product will be responsible for making sure that access won’t be granted to those who shouldn’t have it, for their own safety and well-being.

New York University professor Scott Galloway asks: “What’s more challenging—figuring out if someone is younger than 16, or building a global real-time communication network that stores a near-infinite amount of text, video and audio retrievable by billions of simultaneous users in milliseconds with 24/7 uptime? The social media giants know where you are, what you’re doing, how you’re feeling, and if you’re experiencing suicidal ideation…but they can’t figure out your age? You can’t make this shit up.”

The platforms could:

• Use AI to estimate when a user is likely underage based on their online behaviors, and seek age verification from at-risk people.
• Use the facial recognition capabilities that are already built into devices to scan a user’s face on account sign-up; and if they look underage, ask for ID—just like the clerk at the liquor store would.
• Collect sufficient information to confirm a user’s age, then wipe the information from their servers.

To be frank, they already know way more about us than we realize. The reason the platforms haven’t implemented these safety measures yet is because “it will reduce their profits, which will suppress their stock prices, and the job of a public company CEO is to increase the stock price. Period, full stop, end of strategic plan,” says Galloway.

ON THE EDGE

What about teenagers on the fringe who rely on social media for community? Research indicates that there is a significant link between social comparison and feelings of loneliness. Individuals often assess their social connections by comparing them to others. And upward social comparisons—viewing others as having better or more fulfilling relationships—can intensify feelings of loneliness.

Intentionally or unintentionally, social media trades in comparison, not belonging. Regardless of a platform’s promise of connection, the act of comparing your life to the lives of others via your social feed is actually making you feel more lonely.

Recent data indicates that approximately 40% of Australian teenagers report feelings of loneliness. That’s two in every five teenagers—a significant increase compared to 2001, when 18.5% of young Australians were classified as lonely. In a world where teenagers have never been more digitally connected, they’ve also never been more lonely.

Social media is a comparison trap, masquerading as community. A recent YouGov poll found that an overwhelming 77% of Australians support our new social media laws. And Gen Z is as supportive of such restrictions as older generations, if not more so, according to a recent Media & Entertainment Consumer Insights Report from Deloitte that asked more than 2,000 Australians across five generations their thoughts on social media age restrictions. This study found that 91% of Gen Zs agreed with the statement, “There should be stronger restrictions on children’s access to social media.”

These findings mirror what we’ve heard and seen as we’ve visited schools. Gen Zs breathe a sigh of relief when we take away the fear of missing out and the moment-by-moment indication of whether or not they belong in their peer group.

YES TO EDUCATION

Many ask, “Isn’t better education a more nuanced solution than a blanket ban?” We agree that a ban alone is not a silver bullet to solve all issues to do with the safety of young people online. But we also believe that we don’t need to oppose raising the age for social media access in order to say yes to better education. “Legislation versus education” is a false dichotomy. The right answer is yes to both; one is not a substitute for the other.

We’d also love to lose the word “ban” if we can. We don’t call it an “alcohol ban” or a “smoking ban” for teenagers, or a ban on driving before you get your license. Society has simply determined that there needs to be a level of developmental maturity in order to comprehend the risks and engage in these activities safely. Language matters.

We’re giving something up in order to gain something better. We’re losing social media in order to find social connection. It’s only 36 months, but it could change a life for the better.

GREG ATTWELLS is director of 36 Months, a movement for healthy teen development without the influence of social media. The organization was the catalyst behind the new social media legislation in Australia and rallied more than 127,000 petition signatures in less than six months to raise the age of social media citizenship by 36 months, from 13 to 16.

NO, kids need to learn media literacy

By David Kleeman

It’s important to acknowledge from the start that ubiquitous social media presents issues for many children, teens and families. It can be a time suck, a sleep thief or a distraction; a source of misinformation and disinformation; and a conduit for harassment or bullying. But despite hyperbolic claims, blocking access is unnecessary, impractical, ineffective and unwise, for a variety of reasons.

THE HYPERBOLE

The global movement toward bans has been driven by hair-raising claims from books such as Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation and Jean Twenge’s iGen. But scholars including Candice Odgers, Amy Orben and Andrew Przybylski have pushed back with critiques of the data used, citing issues like cherry-picked studies, inconsistent or minimal associations between well-being and social media use, the inability to prove causal connections, shortcomings of cross-sectional (snapshot) studies versus longitudinal ones, and a sole focus on technology as the source of teen anxieties (in a world of war, climate change, economic uncertainty, academic pressure and more).

For politicians and the press, simplifications claiming that phones and social media are to blame are more media-friendly than complex analyses of the content, context, personal circumstances and individual psychology that factor strongly into healthy social-emotional development.

Moral panic related to young people has a long history in the media. In 1961, Wilbur Schramm—who is considered the founder of communications studies—addressed the complexity and ambiguity of media effects, writing that “some” television is harmful for “some” children under “some” conditions, but beneficial for “other” children under the same conditions, or for the same children under “other” conditions. For “most” children under “most” conditions, “most” television is probably neither particularly harmful nor particularly beneficial. This illuminates that bans are unwise because youth development is not monolithic.

THE NUANCES

Because of individual variations in development, every young person has a unique relationship with technology and social media, so there’s not a one-size-fits-all approach. Families best understand when their kids are ready for online engagement, just as some families may decide that PG-13 movies are appropriate for their 12-year-old while others may have a 13-year-old who’s not yet ready.

Because of individual differences, social media is a boon for many youth, and a lifeline for some.

Generations Z and Alpha have never known a time without digital media. For young people, what we call a “phone” is a Swiss Army knife—its multiple tools can be used in productive or destructive ways. As adolescents explore their individuality in hobbies and passions, social media enables them to engage with both broad and niche interest groups, connecting with peers worldwide. Over the course of a day, young people pursue and express different facets of their lives in varied platforms and communities.

Most social media encourages creation, not just consumption. On YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and other social platforms, tweens and teens develop valuable creative skills as they tell their own stories, remix each other’s creations, and engage with brand and IP owners (who, if they’re smart, pay attention to fans’ views).

Many youth can’t express their authentic personas in real life (e.g., LGBTQ+ teens), so social media communities may be their only opportunity to connect with supportive voices and critical information. And all young people’s need for social media’s powers of information, connection, empowerment and education is protected by the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child. That’s why we need media literacy, not media blackouts.

THE MEDIA MINEFIELD

We can’t expect young people to become thoughtful, critical media consumers and creators if we block them from platforms and communities until a chosen age, and then throw teens into deep water. Media literacy is a muscle that’s developed with time, teaching and experience; instead of locking the pool, let’s offer “swimming lessons” from the earliest ages. (Adults aren’t always great at dealing with social media either, so let’s make media literacy education a lifelong pursuit!)

The UK government acknowledged this in its recent Draft Statement of Strategic Priorities for Online Safety, writing: “Without the skills to navigate the digital world, users are more exposed to harmful online content and ultimately can disengage from society, with serious and enduring consequences for communities and democracy.”

Everyone has a stake and responsibility in making social media safe, so don’t let big tech off the hook.

TECH TALK

In the lead-up to Australia’s social media ban, a recent research project found that 80% of Australian tweens are on social platforms that are rated 13+—meaning that they were easily able to bypass age-checking systems.

Clearly, tech needs stronger privacy and safety protections at the platform level (and age-tracking at the device level, in my opinion).

A one-size-fits-all ban, however, could give tech companies cover to lessen protections and deprioritize innovation, with plausible deniability that underage users aren’t on the platform. Moreover, we know that bans are impractical and have unintended consequences.

Until we have near-foolproof technological and human safety protocols that grant expanding circles of privilege with age and demonstrated responsibility, bans will be fraught with leaks. They give a false sense of security, discourage stakeholder conversation, encourage deception and hacks, and keep young people from vital information and communities—while serving as a boon to non-compliant platforms and the VPN industry.

For too long, we’ve created devices, applications and platforms without considering young users. And then, when they adopt (and adapt) these technologies in unanticipated ways, we block or regulate them. Going forward, we need to invite young perspectives at the outset—because in the end, youth-engaged design is youth-centered design.

DAVID KLEEMAN is SVP of global trends for Dubit, a research and strategy consultancy and games studio. He’s worked in children’s media for more than 35 years. (Full disclosure: David serves on a Meta Youth Advisory Board.)

This story originally appeared in Kidscreen’s Q4 2025 magazine issue.