Banning Social Media for Under-16s Won't Solve the Problem
- Mark Kennedy
- Jul 23
- 5 min read
Why we should focus on design, skills and wellbeing instead.
As a Senior Lecturer in Psychology and Neuroscience at King's College London, I spend a lot of time teaching students about child development, mental health, and the evidence surrounding digital technology use. Recently, proposals to ban social media access for under-16s have gained increasing political support in the UK. The idea is simple and appealing: if social media is harming young people's mental health, remove access and the problem will improve. The ban was put into motion on June 15th.
Supporters of age-based restrictions rightly point out that adolescence is a period of heightened sensitivity to peer evaluation, social feedback, and emotional reward. It is therefore entirely plausible that unrestricted access to social media creates additional risks for some young people.
The question, however, is not whether risks exist.
The evidence is clear that they do. The more important question is whether banning access is the most effective response.
Unfortunately, the evidence suggests the issue is far more complicated.
The debate often assumes that more screen time equals more harm. However, that's not what research consistently shows. Rather than focusing on how much young people use technology, we should be asking better questions about how they use it, why they use it, and whether the platforms themselves are designed in ways that encourage unhealthy behaviour.
The Myth That More Screen Time Is Always Harmful
Much public discussion treats screen time as if it were a toxin: the more exposure, the worse the outcome.
Yet one of the most influential studies in the area found a "Goldilocks effect". Young people with very low levels of screen use often reported wellbeing levels similar to those at the highest levels of use. Those in the middle frequently reported the best outcomes. In other words, technology use appears to be more of a "too little, too much, or just right" phenomenon than a simple linear relationship.
This makes sense when we think about modern adolescence. Digital technology is where many friendships are maintained, social identities are explored, and support networks are accessed. Completely removing access may reduce opportunities for connection just as much as excessive use may create problems.
The reality is that most young people appear to benefit from their digital lives far more than popular headlines would suggest.
High Use Is Not the Same as Problematic Use
One of the biggest misunderstandings in this area is the assumption that heavy use automatically indicates addiction.
It doesn't.
Many people spend several hours a day online without experiencing significant problems. Researchers increasingly distinguish between high engagement and problematic use.
The key warning signs are:
Loss of control over use
Continued use despite negative consequences
Significant impact on daily functioning, relationships, education or wellbeing
Someone can spend a great deal of time online and be functioning perfectly well. Equally, someone might spend less time online but experience substantial difficulties controlling their use.
This distinction is crucial because policies focused purely on reducing overall screen time risk targeting the wrong problem.
If We Ban Social Media, Young People May Simply Substitute It
A common assumption behind social media bans is that removing access will automatically improve wellbeing.
However, evidence from digital detox studies tells a different story.
When participants are asked to stop using a platform, they frequently replace it with something similar. They move to another app, another form of online entertainment, another social platform, video content, messaging services, or gaming. Human beings rarely remove a rewarding activity without replacing it.
This doesn't mean reducing social media use has no benefits. Some studies report small improvements in wellbeing and reductions in loneliness. But the effects are generally modest and if the underlying factors driving excessive use remain unchanged, simply removing one platform may do little to address the broader problem.
There Are Genuine Risks We Shouldn't Ignore
Acknowledging the limitations of a ban does not mean claiming social media is harmless.
There are clear and well-established risks.
Some of the strongest evidence points towards:
Sleep disruption, particularly late-night use
Cyberbullying
Social comparison, especially appearance-based comparison
Feedback-seeking and fear of missing out
Increased exposure to peer pressure and social evaluation
Importantly, many of these risks mirror challenges that already exist offline. Bullying, social exclusion and status competition are not inventions of social media. Online platforms often amplify existing vulnerabilities rather than creating entirely new ones.
Research also suggests that young people with pre-existing mental health difficulties are much more likely to experience negative outcomes online. Perhaps the strongest predictor of poor digital wellbeing is not the platform itself but the child's prior emotional wellbeing.
A social media ban alone is unlikely to address these underlying vulnerabilities.
The Real Problem May Be Platform Design
If we genuinely want to protect young people, we should pay closer attention to how platforms are designed.
Many features are intentionally built to maximise engagement:
Endless scrolling
Variable rewards similar to those used in gambling
Algorithmic personalisation (When computer systems use your digital activity to tailor content and adverts to your interests.)
Constant notifications
Lack of clear stopping points (Such as like infinite scrolling and auto-play)
Time-limited content and scarcity cues (Social media stories available for 24 hours only, and tactics making users believe an offer is available only for a short time or in limited quantity)
Virtual currencies that obscure spending (In-game currencies that make users less aware of how much real money they are spending, like coins and gems)
Psychologists have known for decades that these techniques can override people's intentions and encourage repeated checking behaviours.
Put simply, many apps are not designed to help users stop.
If policymakers are serious about reducing harm, regulating these design features may prove considerably more effective than blanket age-based bans. Specifically, platforms used by children should be prohibited from employing design features that exist primarily to maximise engagement, including infinite scroll, autoplay, gambling-like variable reward systems, excessive push notifications and artificial scarcity cues.
A Better Way Forward
Rather than focusing exclusively on restriction, we should focus on building resilience and skills.
Parents can play a major role by helping children think critically about their online experiences. Instead of simply asking "How long were you online?", we might encourage questions such as:
Why do you think this person posted that?
Is this an accurate representation of reality?
How does this content make you feel?
What do you think the platform wants you to do?
These conversations help develop metacognition: the ability to think about one's own thinking.
Schools also have an important role. Evidence suggests that positive school cultures can reduce bullying and shape norms around acceptable online behaviour. Digital literacy should be treated as a core life skill, not an optional extra.
Finally, policymakers could support parents through simpler, standardised controls across devices. One particularly useful measure would be making it easier to restrict nighttime use, given the strong links between late-night screen use, poor sleep and poorer mental health outcomes.
The Question We Should Really Be Asking
The debate around social media often becomes polarised. One side argues technology is destroying a generation. The other argues the concerns are exaggerated.
The evidence suggests both positions miss the point.
Most young people use social media without experiencing serious problems. For many, it provides enjoyment, connection and support. However, a minority do experience genuine harms, particularly those who are already vulnerable.
The question is not whether young people should be online.
The question is how we create digital environments that promote healthy development while minimising predictable risks.
A ban may be politically attractive. But if we truly want to improve young people's mental health, focusing on design, digital literacy, sleep, family support and school culture is likely to achieve far more than simply switching the apps off.
