The Australian government recently passed legislation that bans social media for anyone under 16. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese hailed the legislation for putting “the onus on social media platforms — not young people or their parents” — for protecting youth from online harms.
Australia is the first country in the world to pass a nationwide ban of social media for teens, set to take effect in a year. But other measures have been enacted or considered here in Canada and elsewhere.
In the United States, it will be illegal for children under 14 in Florida to have social media accounts starting Jan. 1, 2025.
Beginning in 2024, Québec began banning cellphones in classrooms. This fall, with the start of the 2024–2025 academic year, Ontario also began banning cell phones in schools. This follows a lawsuit filed by four school boards in Ontario against social media companies for disrupting youth learning.
Québec is reportedly considering a social media ban — following Australia’s lead — that would limit social media use for teens under 16. Provincial governments recognize that social media and cellphones can be problematic for youth, and they’re not waiting on the federal government to take action.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently announced that the proposed Online Harms Act (Bill C-63), originally introduced in February 2024, will be separated into two bills. The idea is to pass the part of the bill focused on child protection to address problems like sextortion, image-based sexual abuse, revenge porn and other forms of online sexual violence.
Since the Online Harms Act is still being debated, MPs in Canada may look to other countries, like Australia, for guidance on protecting youth from these online harms.
Youth and online harms
Some people in Canada approve of Australia’s social media ban and see it as a potential solution, including some teens. This idea has received a lot of traction in public discourse too, including with the book The Anxious Generation that argues social media should be banned until age 16.
Many of us may recall the stories of Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd and more recently a boy in British Columbia who died by suicide after being cyberbullied and sextorted.
Some studies have shown that social media use is related to anxiety and depression among adolescents. Bans or regulations raise important questions about how we, as a society, should respond to social media use among youth and deal with online harms.
Challenges with bans
We are a team of researchers who study technology-facilitated sexual violence among youth aged 13–18 in Canada. We have conducted 26 focus groups with 149 youth from across the country, and launched a nationally representative survey of around 1,000 youth to learn about their experiences with online harms, what they know about the law and which resources work — and which ones don’t.
Our initial findings show that youth experience a range of harms as they use digital platforms and social media. We also found that algorithms are fueling harms. Youth have emphasized they want tailored supports and resources to help them have safe, healthy and enjoyable experiences with technology.
A full ban of social media is not realistic, in part because social media companies have no idea how to implement it. Some ideas are to use facial recognition technology or check someone’s age using credit cards. Another idea is to upload government IDs to third-party platforms for age verification.
However a ban is implemented, it will almost certainly gather more user data, which raises questions about youth data privacy and security. These measures may also drive youth towards other platforms that are less regulated, such as on the dark web. This could actually make it harder to protect youth from online harms.
Bans also don’t actually solve the problem. For example, abstinence-based interventions don’t work when it comes to sex education. It is unlikely that an abstinence-based approach would work with social media.
Furthermore, technology is increasingly integrated into our daily lives, and youth need to be taught about healthy and responsible online interactions.
Youth are learning how to become digital citizens. Kicking the problem down the road until they’re 16 or older will postpone the consequences, not solve them. This could cause more harm than a ban intends to solve.
A ban also frees social media companies, governments and parents from any accountability. Rather than meaningfully addressing the harmful content and their impacts, a ban removes any and all responsibility from the people and institutions whose job it is to protect youth.
Holistic interventions
Technology companies need to develop their products with kids in mind, rather than prioritizing their profits and putting child safety and health second. Kids need guidance and support, and a ban does nothing to remove harmful content or resolve its negative impacts.
Rather than bans, we suggest implementing holistic interventions that emphasize digital citizenship and youth rights and responsibilities so people of all ages learn how to have safe and healthy interactions with technology. This requires a consolidated effort across various sectors of society, including schools, community organizations and, importantly, both tech companies and government agencies.
While there are resources available for educators, parents and youth about how to have safe and healthy online interactions, we need to act now.
Rather than resorting to blanket bans, we should prioritize comprehensive societal changes that address the root causes of these harms. By doing so, we can promote youth safety and help our communities confront online harms.
Christopher Dietzel receives funding from Le Fonds de recherche du Québec – Société et culture (FRQSC).
Kaitlynn Mendes receives funding from SSHRC and the Canada Research Chairs Program.
