News Story and Current Event
Australia has become the most recent hotbed of discussion. Beginning December 10, 2025, age-restricted social-media platforms operating in Australia were required to take reasonable steps to prevent children younger than 16 from creating or maintaining accounts. Platforms identified by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner included: Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Threads, TikTok, Twitch, X, YouTube, Reddit, and several less notable others. Importantly, the policy does not criminalize either children nor their parents. Instead, responsibility is placed on specific technology companies, which can face significant civil penalties if they are found to have failed to take reasonable steps to comply with the new regulation. Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has described the policy less in terms of punishment for users and more as delaying access to certain types of social-media accounts.
The debate has quickly become international. Many states have already implemented school cell phone bans and as recently as September 2026, the European Commission proposed its own KIDS Act. That proposal would prohibit independent social-media accounts for children younger than 13 and require parental supervision for users ages 13 and 14. It would also attempt to address specific design elements like infinite scrolling, personal data farming for advertising, unsolicited contact, and some types of artificial-intelligence.
The controversy is psychologically important because there is evidence supporting concern about problematic social-media use, but the scientific literature is considerably more nuanced than the public debate, largely driven by one trade non-fiction book by controversial pop-psychologist Jonathan Haidt, sometimes suggests. For example, Valkenburg et al. (2022) reviewed 25 previous reviews of social media and adolescent mental health. Most characterized the associations between social-media use and mental health as weak or inconsistent, although some concluded that effects were more substantial. Similarly, Odgers and Jensen (2020) found that much of the available evidence was correlational and included a mixture of small positive, negative, and null associations. These findings make it difficult to defend the claim that simply having a social-media account causes poor mental health in every adolescent.
At the same time, this uncertainty should not be interpreted as evidence that all digital environments are harmless. Research increasingly suggests that how social media is used may be more important than whether it is used at all. Problematic or compulsive social-media use has been more consistently associated with depression, anxiety, and stress than general social-media use (Shannon et al., 2022). Social-media environments may also expose young people to cyberbullying, social comparison, disrupted sleep, persuasive design, and constant social evaluation. That said, online relationships may also provide meaningful support. Zhou and Cheng’s (2022) meta-analysis found that online social support was positively associated with adolescent self-esteem, although evidence for other mental-health outcomes was less clear.
The credibility of the current debate can also be evaluated by comparing multiple types of sources. The Australian eSafety Commissioner is an appropriate primary source for determining what Australian law actually requires, while Reuters provides independent international reporting on the emerging European debate. Trade non-fiction books like The Anxious Generation by the aforementioned Jonatan Haidt, may forward causation relationships between social media usage and anxiety and depression but other books contradicting such claims have also been published; including the recent Restoring Childhood written by Haidt’s close acquaintance and colleague Dr. Peter Gray. While these sources can establish some details surrounding the debate, they certainly cannot independently establish psychological causation. Peer-reviewed research is necessary for claims about adolescent development and mental health.
Lifespan Development
Developmental stage is at the center of this debate. Adolescence is a period when young people are developing identity, becoming increasingly independent from caregivers, and practicing the skills they will eventually need as adults. Peer relationships are also especially important during this stage. Adolescents are constantly learning where they fit socially, how other people see them, and who they want to become. Social media did not create those developmental tasks, but it has become one of the places where that development takes place.
This is why I think the binary positions of “social media good” vs. “social media bad” in this debate misses something important. While children and adolescents absolutely need protection from environments that are designed in ways they are not developmentally prepared to manage, autonomy is required for healthy development. Young people need chances to make decisions, take manageable risks, navigate relationships, solve problems, and gradually become more independent. Culture plays a huge roll in how those opportunities look for adolescents.
For example, let us consider two hypothetical 14-year-olds who both lose access to social media. One is empowered to walk to friends’ houses, ride a bike around the neighborhood, participate in independent activities, and spend time with friends without adults constantly organizing or supervising them. The other lives somewhere where friends are far away, transportation depends on parents, or the parents purposefully restrict peer-interactions. Technically, both children experienced the same social-media restriction but developmentally, the impact was substantively different.
So the developmental question is not simply, “What age should children be allowed to use social media?” We also need to ask, “What developmental need was social media meeting, and what will replace it?”
My Specific Recommendations
The first and primary recommendation is to increase real-world autonomy, independent play, community participation, and peer connection for pre-teens and teens. Simply limiting or entirely restricting social media without replacing the developmental functions it is currently meeting risks solving the wrong problem. Adolescents need places to socialize without constant adult management. They need opportunities to explore interests, develop competence, experience manageable risk, make decisions, and spend time with peers.
This recommendation is especially important because adolescents may not actually prefer online relationships to face-to-face relationships. In her interviews with American teenagers, Boyd (2014) reported, “Teens told me time and again that they would far rather meet up in person” (p. 21). She found that overscheduled lives, limited mobility, and parental restrictions often made in-person socializing difficult.
But teens are not only restricted because of overbearing parents. In the first half of 2026, numerous articles were published in major publications including the wall street journal, the atlantic, the new york post, and good housekeeping about a variety of recent efforts across the country to ban teens from congregating in public spaces such as malls, bowling alleys, roller rinks, and even parks. Removing such restrictions and building more spaces where teens are permitted to congregate independently is an essential part of mitigating screen usage. Culturally, we are, if effect, forcing teens to use social media if they want to have contact with their peers; which is essential for their development. If a culture simultaneously restricts young people’s movement in physical spaces and then restricts their ability to gather in digital spaces, adults increase isolation rather than promote development.
In short, if the goal is reducing unwanted behavior, in this case maladaptive social media usage, is not enough if adults ignore the need underneath that behavior. When children repeatedly seek something, the question should not center around how simply to stop them. Adults should also ask what function the behavior is serving. For social media, the answer may include belonging, novelty, autonomy, identity exploration, entertainment, status, or connection. Healthy developmental policy should provide better ways to meet those same needs.
My second recommendation would be to place greater responsibility on the design of digital environments. This is one of the strongest features, in my view, of the Australian approach. The law does not punish a 14-year-old for making an account or fine a parent who fails to prevent it. Instead, responsibility is directed toward companies operating platforms used by millions of children. Insofar as social media companies are intentionally preying on teens lack of brain and social maturation, that should obviously be addressed for the public good.
The third recommendation is to emphasize relational parental mediation rather than relying exclusively on surveillance and control. Beyens et al. (2022) described media-specific parenting as the ways parents restrict, regulate, and discuss adolescents’ social-media use. Available evidence suggests that certain parenting practices may help reduce some negative outcomes associated with digital media, although the authors also note that stronger causal evidence is still needed.
This third aspect is especially important because children eventually become adults who must regulate technology without a parent controlling the device. The developmental goal cannot merely be compliance until age 16. Parents should gradually help adolescents develop the skills needed to identify manipulative design, recognize how particular online experiences affect their emotions, establish boundaries around sleep and attention, respond to cyberbullying, evaluate information, and seek help when something feels unsafe.
Finally, governments and researchers should avoid creating universal child-development policies based exclusively on Western, or in this case, specifically American/UK assumptions or on averages that erase meaningful differences among adolescents. Amir and McAuliffe (2020) emphasize that developmental science has historically overrepresented WEIRD populations. Rather than assume we know what is causing the rise in mental health concerns and suicidality among young people in the United States and United Kingdom, we should ask why these trends vary so dramatically across countries, even as social media and internet use have become widespread globally (Bertuccio et al., 2024; Cosma et al., 2020). A genuinely cultural approach would involve young people and families from diverse communities in evaluating digital policy and would examine differential effects rather than asking only whether a restriction “works” on average.
Conclusion
The international debate surrounding social-media age restrictions illustrates why cultural psychology is necessary for understanding human development. Australia’s decision to delay access to many social-media accounts until age 16 and the European Union’s emerging proposals reflect legitimate concerns about the environments in which children are developing. However, psychological research does not support a simple conclusion that all social-media use inevitably harms all adolescents. Effects vary according to the individual, the type of use, the platform, the relationships involved, and the broader cultural environment.
A culturally and developmentally responsive approach should therefore move beyond the question of whether children should be “allowed” on social media. Adults should design safer digital environments while providing meaningful alternative opportunities for offline connection and autonomy and considering how these trends are culturally dependent. Protecting children and respecting their developing autonomy are not opposing goals and healthy development requires adults to do both.
References
Amir, D., & McAuliffe, K. (2020). Cross-cultural, developmental psychology: Integrating approaches and key insights. Evolution and Human Behavior, 41(5), 430–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.06.006
Australian eSafety Commissioner. (n.d.). Social media age restrictions. Retrieved September 20, 2026, from https://www.esafety.gov.au/about-us/industry-regulation/social-media-age-restrictions
Bertuccio, P., Amerio, A., Grande, E., La Vecchia, C., Costanza, A., Aguglia, A., Berardelli, I., Serafini, G., Amore, M., Pompili, M., & Odone, A. (2024). Global trends in youth suicide from 1990 to 2020: An analysis of data from the WHO mortality database. eClinicalMedicine, 70, 102506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102506
Beyens, I., Keijsers, L., & Coyne, S. M. (2022). Social media, parenting, and well-being. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101350
boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.
Cosma, A., Stevens, G., Martin, G., Duinhof, E. L., Walsh, S. D., Garcia-Moya, I., Költő, A., Gobina, I., Canale, N., Catunda, C., Inchley, J., & de Looze, M. (2020). Cross-national time trends in adolescent mental well-being from 2002 to 2018 and the explanatory role of schoolwork pressure. Journal of Adolescent Health, 66(6, Suppl.), S50–S58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.02.010
Erickson, F. (2002). Culture and human development. Human Development, 45(4), 299–306. https://doi.org/10.1159/000064993
Fung, H. (1999). Becoming a moral child: The socialization of shame among young Chinese children. Ethos, 27(2), 180–209. https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.1999.27.2.180
Gray, P. (2026). Restoring childhood: How to set kids free in the age of anxiety. Thesis.
Haidt, J. (2024). The anxious generation: How the great rewiring of childhood is causing an epidemic of mental illness. Penguin Press.
Herman, Y., & Chee, F. Y. (2026, September 17). EU Commission proposes under-13s social media ban. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/eu-commission-proposes-social-media-ban-children-under-13-2026-09-17/
Odgers, C. L., & Jensen, M. R. (2020). Annual research review: Adolescent mental health in the digital age: Facts, fears, and future directions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(3), 336–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13190
Shannon, H., Bush, K., Villeneuve, P. J., Hellemans, K. G. C., & Guimond, S. (2022). Problematic social media use in adolescents and young adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis. JMIR Mental Health, 9(4), e33450. https://doi.org/10.2196/33450
Valkenburg, P. M., Meier, A., & Beyens, I. (2022). Social media use and its impact on adolescent mental health: An umbrella review of the evidence. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 58–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.017
Zhou, Z., & Cheng, Q. (2022). Relationship between online social support and adolescents’ mental health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 94(3), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12031