Australia has just taken a historic step: becoming the first country in the world to ban social-media accounts for anyone under 16. Platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, Reddit and Discord will soon be legally required to block minors using age-verification systems, with multimillion-dollar fines for those that fail.
For many families, the announcement feels like long-awaited protection. Petitions demanding similar laws have spread across several countries, driven by deep concern about the content and pressures children encounter online. Parents are afraid, and understandably so. In just a few years, digital platforms have become one of the strongest influences in children’s social lives, shaping emotions, relationships, attention and even learning.
But while the concern is real, the scientific evidence behind these fears is far more nuanced than the headlines suggest. In recent months, some public arguments in favor of strict bans have circulated with references to studies that were inaccurately quoted or interpreted in the opposite direction of what the data actually showed. These misrepresentations, even when unintentional, create the impression that science has already delivered a clear verdict, when in fact it hasn’t. This misinformation is precisely why researchers urge that decisions affecting children’s wellbeing must be grounded in rigorous, socially impactful scientific evidence, not in panic or viral claims.
What research really shows about children and screens
In short: context, content and use matter far more than age alone.
Some studies do identify risks, especially in early childhood. At the University of California, for example, researchers found that toddlers aged 32 to 47 months who used mobile devices more regularly showed lower self-regulation, a developmental skill that helps children manage their emotions and impulses (Lawrence et al., 2020). Another study reported that when parents frequently used phones or tablets to calm 3- to 5-year-olds, those children later displayed poorer executive functioning and greater emotional reactivity (Radesky et al., 2023). These findings matter because they remind us the importance of promoting human interacttion among very young children, while avoiding digital distraction.
But beyond early childhood, the picture begins to shift. A large longitudinal study from Stanford School of Medicine found no association between the age at which children received their first smartphone and their sleep, depressive symptoms, anxiety or academic performance (Sun et al., 2022). In other words, simply owning a mobile phone earlier or later did not predict poorer wellbeing.
A major report commissioned by the European Commission added further nuance: digital technology can either increase or decrease empathy and attention, depending entirely on how children use it. Prosocial activities, such collaborating, helping others or connecting meaningfully, were linked to greater empathy, while violent or bullying-related uses tended to decrease it. Attention improved when digital tools supported learning, but declined with more than two hours of non-educational daily screen time (Flecha et al., 2020).
And the largest population-scale studies offer a similar message. The 2017 “Goldilocks” study of 120,115 British adolescents (age 15) found that well-being increased with screen use up to a point, then leveled off or slightly declined, indicating that moderate use was neither harmful nor particularly beneficial, and extreme use had only modest negative associations with mental health (Przybylski & Weinstein, 2017). Similarly, a comprehensive review by Odgers & Jensen (2020), summarizing 226 studies, cohort data and momentary assessments, concluded that there is no consistent evidence that smartphones or social media cause depression or anxiety in adolescents.
The takeaway
Australia’s decision is a political response to a sincere social concern. But scientifically, the evidence does not point to a universal cause-and-effect relationship that would justify banning social media purely based on age. Instead, the research suggests something more subtle and more demanding: that children thrive when they have guided use, supportive adults, high-quality digital environments, emotional and media literacy, and limits designed around content and context, not fear.
Technology itself is not destiny. What shapes children’s wellbeing is how they use it, with whom, and for what purposes, not simply whether they are allowed to access a platform at 12, 14 or 16. Families deserve decisions and public debates grounded in evidence, not alarm. And children deserve digital worlds built to help them flourish, not just rules designed to keep them out.
References
- Flecha, R., Pulido, C., Villarejo, B., Racionero, S., Redondo, G., & Torras, E. (2020). Effects of the Use of Digital Technology on Children’s Empathy and Attention Capacity. Analytical Report. European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2766/947826
- Lawrence, A. C., Narayan, M. S., & Choe, D. E. (2020). Association of young children’s use of mobile devices with their self-regulation. JAMA pediatrics, 174(8), 793-795. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0129
- 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
- Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N. (2017). A large-scale test of the Goldilocks hypothesis: Quantifying the relations between digital-screen use and the mental well-being of adolescents. Psychological Science, 28(2), 204–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616678438
- Radesky, J. S., Kaciroti, N., Weeks, H. M., Schaller, A., & Miller, A. L. (2023). Longitudinal associations between use of mobile devices for calming and emotional reactivity and executive functioning in children aged 3 to 5 years. JAMA pediatrics, 177(1), 62-70. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4793
- Sun, X., Haydel, K. F., Matheson, D., Desai, M., & Robinson, T. N. (2023). Are mobile phone ownership and age of acquisition associated with child adjustment? A 5‐year prospective study among low‐income Latinx children. Child development, 94(1), 303-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13851
Lecturer at the Sociology Department, University of Barcelona