The ban on social media for under-16s in Australia, intended to protect mental health, is reportedly causing increased feelings of isolation among some teens. They argue that these platforms are integral to their social lives, and being cut off from peers is more harmful than the risks the ban aims to prevent.
Related Insights
Younger generations aren't inherently weaker; they are reacting to an unprecedented volume of external voices from social media. Previous generations contended with a few dozen key influencers (family, teachers), not the thousands that now amplify the inner critic daily.
While there is majority public support for banning teen social media use in the U.S., regulation is blocked by 'whataboutism'—a lobbying tactic of raising endless hypothetical objections (e.g., VPNs, privacy) to create legislative paralysis and prevent any action from being taken.
Following Australia's recent law restricting social media access to users 16 and older, Europe is now considering similar legislation. This signals a potential worldwide regulatory shift towards stricter age-gating, which could fundamentally alter user acquisition and marketing strategies for platforms and teen-focused brands.
Despite widespread public and political support for banning under-16s from social media, many child protection groups are against such measures. They argue that blanket bans don't eliminate risks but instead push harmful activities to less-regulated platforms, making children harder to protect and draining focus from more effective safety solutions.
Relying solely on parents to manage kids' social media use is flawed. When a single child is taken off platforms like Snapchat, they aren't protected; they're ostracized from their peer group. This network effect means only collective action through legislation can effectively address the youth mental health crisis.
Given high rates of social media addiction (24%) versus alcohol addiction (6%), the dangers of loneliness are arguably greater than those of moderate social drinking. Facilitating in-person bonding via alcohol could be a net positive for young people's well-being.
Framing teenage social media use as a public health crisis, the podcast argues it is more harmful than historical vices. While 6% of teens are addicted to drugs or alcohol, 24% are addicted to social media. This reframes the issue from one of parental control to one requiring collective, regulatory action.
In China, the domestic version of TikTok (Douyin) limits users under 18 to 60 minutes of screen time per day, enforced via mandatory real-name ID registration. This represents a form of authoritarian social engineering that many Western parents might paradoxically welcome.
The next wave of social media regulation is moving beyond content moderation to target core platform design. The EU and US legal actions are scrutinizing features like infinite scroll and personalized algorithms as potentially "addictive." This focus on platform architecture could fundamentally alter the user experience for both teens and adults.
The common advice for parents to simply ban their kids from social media is flawed. When done individually, it doesn't solve the problem; it socially ostracizes the child from their peer group, leading to more depression. For such bans to work, they must be collective actions—like school-wide or legislated policies—so children can find alternative ways to socialize together.
