For years, I believed bans were the wrong response to the complex problems. Especially when it came to children and technology. I’ve always argued for education, balanced parental modelling, and digital literacy over prohibition.
I’ve changed my mind.
Not because I suddenly believe bans are perfect, enforceable, or even foolproof—but because I now believe that how we act right now will define our generation of parents.
And we are running out of time.
A generation over-protected offline, under-protected online
There has been intense discussion about the impact of social media on children, with growing concern over rising levels of anxiety, depression, self-harm, bullying, and suicide. While correlation does not automatically equal causation, the overlap between these trends and the widespread adoption of smartphones and social platforms among children is impossible to ignore.
One of the clearest explanations comes from social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, who argues that we have fundamentally misjudged risk. Over the past few decades, parents have increasingly restricted children’s freedom in the real world—limiting independent play, exploration, and risk-taking—while simultaneously leaving them largely unprotected in the digital one.
The data backs this up. Long before Covid, children’s physical independence was already in decline. A British Children’s Play Survey found that, on average, children were not allowed to play outside independently until nearly 11 years old, despite their parents reporting they themselves had that freedom by age nine.
And yet, by 11:
- over 90% of children have a smartphone
- between 60–86% have at least one social media account
We have created a paradox: children deemed too vulnerable to walk to the park alone are given unrestricted access to platforms designed to capture attention, amplify comparison, and monetise emotion.
The world is beginning to act
This concern is no longer limited to parenting forums or academic circles. Governments are paying attention.
Australia has already introduced a social media ban for under-16s, with countries including Denmark, France, Norway, New Zealand, and Greece expected to follow. The UK, meanwhile, is watching closely—under increasing pressure not to fall behind.
Is it too early to judge Australia’s success? Yes. Children will always find workarounds. But that was never the point.
Why I changed my mind
For a long time, I resisted the idea of a ban because I worried it was a blunt instrument. I believed we could teach children to navigate these platforms safely, just as we teach them to cross roads or ride bikes.
But the comparison no longer holds.
Roads don’t adapt themselves in real time to exploit a child’s psychology. Social media platforms do.
I won’t rehash the now-well-documented arguments about profit being prioritised over wellbeing, or the fact that many tech executives don’t allow their own children to use the very platforms they helped build. Those points matter—but they’re not why I changed my position.
What shifted my thinking is something far more fundamental.
What a ban actually signals
A ban on social media for under-16s is not primarily about control.
It’s about values.
It signals what we prioritise as a society: human connection, real-world community, and a sense of belonging that is built face-to-face, not algorithmically manufactured.
It draws a clear boundary around childhood and adolescence—acknowledging that these are developmental stages that require protection, not exposure to constant performance, comparison, and judgment.
And it sends a powerful message to social media companies: if you refuse to design with children’s wellbeing in mind, you will lose them as an audience.
“But social media creates connection…”
This is the most common and reasonable counterargument—and it deserves to be taken seriously.
Yes, social platforms can create connection. For some children, particularly those who feel isolated or different, online communities have offered solace and understanding.
But we must ask the uncomfortable question: at what cost?
Connection which depends on constant validation, curated identities, and algorithmic reinforcement comes with trade-offs—especially for developing brains. The rise in anxiety, sleep disruption, body image issues, and emotional dysregulation among teenagers suggests the price may be higher than we are willing to admit.
As one former Facebook executive famously said, expressing “tremendous guilt” about his role in building the platform, his own children aren’t allowed to use.
That should give us pause.
A ban is not the end goal—but it is a necessary pause
A social media ban is not a long-term solution in isolation. Children will find ways around it. Technology will continue to evolve.
But a ban does something critically important: it draws a line in the sand.
It calls time on unfettered access to content that doesn’t serve adults—let alone children. It creates breathing space for families, schools, and policymakers to model healthier relationships with technology. And it allows us to teach children how to integrate online platforms wisely and intentionally, rather than handing them the keys before they’re ready.
Think of it not as a permanent prohibition, but as a developmental safeguard—a pause which protects something irreplaceable.
Childhood.
The choice in front of us
We can continue telling ourselves that this is too complicated, too political, or too difficult to regulate.
Or we can accept that inaction is also a decision—and one our children will live with.
This moment will define us. As parents. As policymakers. As a society.
And I believe we will be judged not by how convenient our choices were—but by whether we were brave enough to put children’s wellbeing ahead of corporate interests and cultural inertia.
For me, that’s why I now support a social media ban for under-16s.