top of page

The truth about kids and digital access: the science doesn’t support social media bans—so let’s build better

  • Writer: Liaura App
    Liaura App
  • Oct 12
  • 4 min read
Social Media and Digital Device Bans - What Does the Research Actually Say?

Social Media Ban – A good idea?


The public debate is loud: social media is either “destroying childhood” or being unfairly demonized. Parents are stuck between ban it and let them roam. The evidence is quieter and more nuanced: there is no coherent scientific basis for blanket bans on digital access for children. What the research does support is age-appropriate, safeguarded access, plus clear accountability for platforms.



1. What the evidence actually says




The “harms only” view — and its valid warnings



The risks of unmoderated, adult-centred platforms are real: exposure to harmful content, social comparison pressure, and time displacement from sleep, physical activity, and in-person interaction. These are not fringe worries—they’re part of the reason health institutions like the U.S. Surgeon General have called for stronger safety-by-design and transparency in tech.

Moreover, younger children are more vulnerable: for preschool and early childhood, excessive passive screen time can impede language, attention, and physical development (e.g. WHO guidelines).


However, these risks do not universally justify banning access—they demand smarter interfaces, stronger boundary controls, and developmental safeguards.



The “benefits only” view — and why it’s tempting



Used intentionally, digital tools can help children:


  • Learn new languages, coding, or creative skills

  • Stay socially connected, especially across distances

  • Experiment, explore identity, and express themselves



Indeed, large rigorous meta-analyses and preregistered studies tend to show small associations between time online and well-being, not catastrophic effects. (Odgers & Jensen, 2020) “Annual Research Review…” confirm that many earlier findings were correlational, context-dependent, and modest in effect.

One intensive ecological momentary assessment (EMA) study tracked 388 adolescents over ~13,000 observations and found that digital technology use did not reliably predict day-to-day mental-health symptoms (Jensen et al., 2019) P


This suggests that how children use technology matters far more than how much. A creative, social project is vastly different from passive scroll or viral challenge exposure.



The balanced view — where families, researchers, and policy live



Most expert bodies and high-quality reviews land here: they advocate not bans, but informed, contextual, safe use. The APA Health Advisory urges mitigation of known risks (e.g. night use, social comparison), active mediation (co-use, discussion, guiding) and not wholesale prohibition.


Research consistently finds:


  • Active parental mediation (talking, joint use, discussing content) is more protective than purely restrictive rules or device bans.

  • Family closeness and open communication often show stronger negative associations with problematic internet use than rigid restrictions do.

  • Age, mental-health vulnerability, and personality modulate effects: some adolescents are more sensitive to certain online stressors than others.



In addition:


  • Windows of developmental sensitivity exist—some research shows that younger or mid-teens may be more vulnerable to social comparison or peer-feedback systems (Orben et al.).

  • Subgroups at risk—teens with preexisting internalising symptoms often report stronger negative emotional responses from social media exposure, pointing to the need for protective design and scaffolded access rather than full ban.

  • Methodological nuance matters—when studies use within-person designs, lagged models, or preregistered protocols, many strong associations vanish or shrink, indicating that methodological bias inflated past claims.



So the balanced view: limit the harm, amplify the value, and tune design and guidance—not turn off the lights.



2. Should we ban children from digital spaces?



No. Children have rights—to information, expression, play, and social connection—even in digital spaces under UNCRC General Comment No. 25. That document explicitly calls on States to ensure children’s rights are respected, protected, and fulfilled in the digital environment (OHCHR General Comment 25). It clarifies that access to safe digital engagement should be enabled, not restricted.


Rather than banning access, the objective should be delay exposure to full-noise, open social environments for under-16s while providing safe, developmentally-oriented alternatives now.



3. A better deal for families, regulators, and designers



1. From “screen time” to “development time.”

Reject the notion that minutes define value. Prioritise quality, context, design, and alignment with developmental goals. Tools built with privacy-by-default, verified contacts, human moderation, and supportive scaffolding shift the risk/benefit calculus.


2. From policing to guided co-use.

Move away from the “digital cop” parent model. Instead, foster digital coaching: shared exploration, discussion, goal setting, and boundary negotiation. This is what research shows works.


3. From platform promises to provable proof.

Tech must not just claim “safe for kids”—it must demonstrate it: independent audits, open accountability, and verifiable safety features. The APA and Surgeon General calls are clear: embed safety mechanisms in the architecture, not as costly afterthoughts.



Conclusion & stance (amplified)



This approach aligns with children’s rights under UNCRC GC 25 and supports young people’s agency, entrepreneurship, and innovation. The delay should not be digital access altogether, but delay to full-noise, open social platforms for under-16s. Meanwhile, safe, purpose-built alternatives should lead. For that to succeed, technology must rise to the challenge—under the guidance and oversight of regulators, children, and society.

Stop debating screens as a monolithic evil. Instead, design, guide, and regulate so children can safely connect, learn, and innovate. That’s where the science, the rights, and the future all point.




References



bottom of page