Social media bans don’t protect young people’s mental health, early research shows
The year 2026 has been an expensive one for social media platforms.
Since March, YouTube and Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, have settled or paid out in multiple lawsuits to the tune of more than US$17 billion for allegedly acting negligently, deliberately designing their platforms to hook kids and misleading the public about safety and privacy. If these suits are any indication of how states and the public are starting to view social media platforms, more may follow.
On top of these lawsuits, social media platforms are facing a loss of business as bans for minors are accelerating and spreading worldwide. Australia was one of the first with a ban on kids under 16 on social media starting in December 2025, followed soon after by the U.K. with a similar prohibition.
The current list of countries looking to ban minors from these platforms tops more than 20, from Greece to the United Arab Emirates to Canada. The proposed and enacted bans around the world vary in terms of age restriction, parental consent rules, and age verification methods. Different countries are looking at restricting different platforms, but most include a mix of Snapchat, YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and X.
These bans aren’t necessarily for mental health reasons only—some are motivated by political concerns about foreign-owned platforms, and others aim to protect young people’s privacy. But nearly every government banning social media platforms for young people mentions their mental health as a reason.
The question is, are these bans the solution to the mental health problems young people are facing? I research digital media and marketing and measure the impact of new technologies, and I’m skeptical about whether prohibiting access to these platforms will actually improve young people’s mental health.
Mental health concerns
Since Jonathan Haidt’s 2024 book “The Anxious Generation” critics of social media have increasingly focused on young people’s mental health. Haidt argues that social media disrupts kids’ social and neurological development, contributing to rising anxiety and depression through sleep loss, fragmented attention, addiction, loneliness, social comparison and perfectionism.
A 2026 study found that young people between 14 and 20 are more than 100% more likely to experience mental illness than 14- to 20-year-olds 50 years ago.
Increased use of social media and screen time is compounding an already precarious time for minors. In 2021, it was estimated that 20.5% of young people experienced elevated symptoms of anxiety, and 25.2% of youth reported elevated symptoms of depression globally.
Many factors contribute to this, including better screening and awareness of kids’ mental health problems, as well as societal disruptions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. As the world sheltered in place and moved online for work, school, and social interactions, there was an increase in isolation and loneliness.
Not all bad
In light of these concerns, some researchers argue that bans on social media platforms are like putting an age restriction on buying alcohol or cigarettes.
But unlike these addictive and potentially harmful substances, there are benefits to social media, especially for teens who feel disconnected from their local communities and want to build relationships with others who feel similarly.
Social media platforms allow for global connectivity and community-building with like-minded groups. They also provide a place for self-expression and civic engagement.
In a Pew survey of U.S. teens, 80% said social media helps them stay connected to what’s happening in their friends’ lives.
Even as states and countries are moving to ban young people from social media, there isn’t clear evidence that spending time on these platforms is the main cause of their mental health problems.
Show me the money
One place where the comparison with tobacco is actually quite apt is in relation to the money from lawsuit settlements.
In 1998, states settled a lawsuit against the major tobacco companies to recover smoking-related healthcare costs. Part of the settlement was allocated to programs aimed at reducing youth smoking. In 2026, total state funding for these programs amounts to just 3.4% of the $21.7 billion in revenue states will collect from tobacco settlement payments and tobacco taxes.
Similarly, some money from an August 2026 Meta settlement with a group of states for $17 billion is slated for state-based programs focusing on mental health infrastructure, school and community programs, and public health campaigns.
However, there is no oversight or direction as to how states should use the funds, nor is there a mechanism to report how that money has improved kids’ mental health care, safety and well-being.
Is it even possible?
Early evidence from the Australian social media ban shows that kids are finding workarounds: Roughly 61% of kids ages 12–15 continue to access platforms using false IDs, altered appearances, or virtual private networks, or VPNs, even though millions of accounts were disabled. In fact, this has become so common that U.K. lawmakers are debating restricting consumer VPN access.
Some countries, such as Australia, require the platforms themselves to develop ways of verifying a user’s age. Some minors have bypassed scans from biometric age estimation technology by using photo manipulation software, substituting celebrity photos, using clever makeup, and even utilizing older friends and parents to pass the “selfie tests” on their behalf. Others simply manipulate their birth years during registration or rely on existing adult-verified accounts managed by family members.
And all of these age-verification methods, whether developed by a government or a social media platform, rely on collecting sensitive data to estimate age accurately, which creates privacy concerns.
Australia is currently seeking to raise fines on social media platforms that fail to comply with its requirements. The Australian safety commissioner, charged with enforcing the ban, issued a compliance update that showed 7 in 10 children who held accounts in restricted platforms remained on those platforms, and more than 80% of Australian teens ages 10-15 still use social media frequently.
Beyond concerns about enacting and enforcing these restrictions, some policymakers also worry that total bans could push some kids to migrate to even riskier online spaces.
What could work
Based on the evidence, I’m not convinced that banning social media platforms will be an effective solution to the mental health crisis among young people today.
So what could work?
Supporting young people’s mental health is a complex endeavor that will require a combination of people, organizations, and resources coming together.
I believe kids’ mental health would be better served by governments enforcing safety by default standards on social media platforms rather than outright bans. This means that the highest security and privacy options are in place by default so that minors still on a platform are protected. For instance, accounts would be unsearchable by default, so users would have to intentionally make a profile change to be found by people they don’t know in real life.
Safety by default standards also place limits on the manipulation, algorithmic restraint and other addictive mechanisms that may lead to psychological harm in vulnerable populations such as young people.
Educating kids on digital literacy and online safety as well as ensuring some screen-free time are also going to help support kids’ mental health.
It’s also important for parents and other caregivers to recognize changes in behavior as a result of addiction to social platforms and screens. And when adults start seeing signs of a problem, they need clear, easy, and affordable ways to connect their kids to mental health support, which is not available in most places right now.
And finally, the United Nations recommends bringing kids into the conversation about what’s best for them online. Obviously, this does not mean putting 12-year-olds in charge of regulatory agencies. But feedback from young people about what they care about, what they get out of being online, and what makes it hard for them to look away from their screens could inform changes to social media platforms and education programs that could help young people engage online more safely and maintain a healthy balance.
Ari Lightman is a professor of digital media and marketing at Carnegie Mellon University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
3 hours ago
