Social Media: To Ban or Not to Ban?

Social media has become an inescapable part of modern life, raising concerns across generations. However, as debates over banning access for under-6-year-olds intensify, people are divided. While many anxious parents support restrictions, young people (unsurprisingly) do not; they want to maintain a sense of agency, and they want to be given the tools to navigate social media with their eyes wide open.

The problem is that social media is designed to be addictive, it capitalizes on our neurological tendencies. When we check our notifications, our brains become hooked on the dopamine that is released. The unreliable nature of notifications makes them all the more addictive; when a reward is unexpected our brains become obsessive, anticipating when we might get the next hit.

Further, social psychology explains why we are so uncontrollably enamored by social media. Humans are social beings; we require interpersonal connection. Additionally, the concept of the sociometer describes how our brains are hard-wired to crave validation; and social media makes this easier, allowing us (to our own detriment) to quantify our worth in the number of likes or notifications we receive each day.

With other addictive substances such as alcohol or tobacco, governments have implemented age restrictions. This is not because you become magically immune to the effects or addictive tendencies at 18 or 21, but because these things have particularly negative effects on children and adolescents. The same is true for social media, which has a distinct influence on young people’s developing amygdala and prefrontal cortex. Brain rot is not just a trending phrase, social media is shrinking the grey matter in our brains.

With this in mind, and where teens in the US are spending an average of 4.8 hours on social media each day, restrictions seem logical. While a majority of young people say they want to spend less time on social media, self-control isn’t easy.

But, when it comes to addiction, we know that agency is important; it should become a choice to abstain, rather than forced inaction. Further, if social media is an unavoidable part of the modern world, is it not more important that we give young people the tools they need to navigate its challenges than desperately trying to shield them?

Psychological research suggests that outright bans or restrictions often backfire. Indeed, reactance theory describes how people are motivated to regain freedom when they perceive it as being restricted, heightening the very behaviors intended to be suppressed. It will be interesting to see how effective Australia’s new social media ban is, because we’ve seen that their ban on disposable vapes has largely failed, with users exploiting loopholes and turning to the growing black market.

We can understand why parents worry about their children’s social media use, but we know from developmental psychology that children and adolescents thrive when they are allowed to make mistakes and learn in a supportive environment. Restricting access to social media may foster resentment, lead to curiosity-driven behavior, and ultimately leave young people ill-equipped to handle the challenges of digital life when they eventually encounter them.

Instead, we would do well to engage with young people’s voices. Here, we can look at a recent survey, which found that the vast majority (71 percent) of young Britons oppose a social media ban for under-16-year-olds. Instead, they want to be given more education on how to navigate social media safely, with 84 percent wanting digital literacy training to be added to school curriculums.

Additionally, young people believe that social media corporations – who exploit and profit off people’s addictive tendencies – should be the ones held to account. Some 78 percent of young Britons believe social media companies should be doing more to remove harmful content from their platforms and 88 percent believe social media companies should be transparent about how algorithms are being used. There is a clear consensus that it is social media companies, and not young users, who should be held responsible for the harms their platforms give rise to (74 percent). In a way, we can compare these suggestions to alcohol taxes or bans on tobacco commercials. Perhaps, more effective than a consumer ban would be a move to drive behavior change, a policy to tackle the issue of social media at the core.

Social Media Essential Reads

How to Become a Famous Author

The Psychological Drawbacks of Digital Comfort

We can all agree that something needs to change, but I'd argue the solution is not an all-out ban. Young people are aware of the problem, and they are asking for support; we should give them the grace of listening, and if we do, we are more likely to see the outcome we all desire.