Is banning children from social media 'the' answer?

For many parents and policymakers alike, banning children from social media feels like the responsible thing to do in the fight against issues such as anxiety, sleep problems and screen addiction. But researchers warn that a social media ban alone cannot address the full spectrum of risks that children face online. Effective protection requires a whole-of-society approach combining regulation, education, public investment and platform accountability.

In December 2025, Australia became the first country to ban social media for under-16s. Despite it being promoted as a landmark for child safety, a few months later, the picture looks far more complicated. Around 70 per cent of Australians aged 10-16 are estimated to still be active on social media platforms, and on the day the law came into effect, platforms outside its scope shot into the app store top-10.

Recent debates in media and politics have highlighted bans as the tool of choice for protecting children online. Greece plans to ban access to social media for children under the age of 15 from 1 January 2027, and other countries are also tightening rules on social media with the United Kingdom, Malaysia, France, Denmark ⁠and Poland either considering a ban or in the process of legislating one. Last November, Members of the European Parliament were calling for ambitious EU action to protect minors online, including an EU-wide minimum age of 16 and bans on the most harmful addictive practices.

Nonetheless, some research suggests that outright restrictions alone may worsen matters – failing to address the root causes of online risks while pushing young people towards less regulated, unsafe corners of the internet.

Banning access: ‘not enough’

Experts warn that restrictions without structural safeguards create the impression that risks have been solved while harmful platform design remains unchanged. “The current business model treats children’s identities, emotions, and behaviours as monetisable assets through targeted advertising and engagement-optimising design,” says Francesca Pisanu, EU Advocacy Officer at Eurochild. A ban would do nothing to disrupt these systems.

Francesca Pisanu, EU Advocacy Officer at Eurochild: “Any restriction should be accompanied by alternatives: safe digital environments, accessible youth services, and meaningful opportunities for participation. Otherwise, children will simply migrate to platforms with weaker protections. States must stop outsourcing these responsibilities to platforms.” – Read the full interview with Francesca Pisanu

The evidence gap

A central challenge, according to Dr Mariya Stoilova, Postdoctoral Researcher at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) and Manager of the Digital Futures for Children centre, is that the available research does not support simple causal claims between social media use and harm.

Studies find both risks and benefits, with little evidence that restricting access improves outcomes. The strongest findings point not to time spent online, but to specific design features, such as algorithmic amplification, infinite scroll and autoplay, among others.

Dr Mariya Stoilova, Postdoctoral Researcher at LSE and Manager of the Digital Futures for Children centre: “The evidence strongly suggests that restriction alone does not eliminate harm – it redistributes it. Digital environments are fluid, and young people adapt quickly to regulatory changes.”
Read the full interview with Mariya Stoilova

According to Dr Stoilova, the displacement effect further amplifies this issue. Children have not stopped going online; they have shifted to gaming platforms, messaging apps, and AI tools – many less regulated than the mainstream platforms targeted by the ban.

Underrepresented in the debate: children’s voices

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to be heard in decisions that affect them. According to Dr Stoilova, children’s voices have been notably underrepresented in the design of proposed bans, despite being the group most directly affected.

Consultations conducted by Eurochild across Europe demonstrate that children understand both benefits and risks of social media. They ask for things like private-by-default accounts, limits on how personal information can be shared, and algorithmic nudges that remind them when they have been scrolling too long. Their perspectives, as Pisanu notes, “help policymakers move beyond simplified debates to design measures that are realistic, trusted, and effective.”

Francesca Pisanu: “The current debate is often framed as ‘ban or regulate platforms’, but this is a false opposition. Whether bans are introduced or not, platforms must comply with children’s rights. Core protections, including safe-by-default design and limits on addictive features, must apply to all users universally, independent of age thresholds.”

Structural change, not symbolic action

Yet criticism of blanket bans is not a call for inaction. The question is not whether to protect children online, but how to do it effectively.

Both experts support strong regulation and point to the EU’s Digital Services Act, GDPR, and the AI Act as frameworks to be enforced rather than bypassed in favour of headline-grabbing bans. Safe-by-design obligations on platforms, investment in offline youth services, and digital literacy programmes are, in their view, a better path. As Stoilova puts it, “the focus shouldn’t just be on restrictions, but also on what we offer” – and that requires moving the debate “from symbolic action towards structural change.”

Dr Stoilova: “A more effective approach would combine strong enforcement of existing regulation, child-rights-by-design obligations on platforms, investment in digital literacy and public infrastructure, and ongoing consultations with children. This moves the debate from symbolic action towards structural change.”

She says that politicians – and parents – might believe that a fence ensures children’s safety, but children can quickly reopen the gate, potentially exposing themselves to even greater risks. This demonstrates that the real question was never how to keep them out, but how to make the space behind it safer.

Useful links:
• ‘Youth and social media’ – Briefing European Parliament
• ‘Addictive design on online platforms’ – ‘At a glance’ note European Parliament