Earlier this week, Meta announced it would block Instagram and Facebook for users under 16 in Australia in advance of the 10 December deadline set by the federal legislation designed to reduce children’s exposure to social media. Although this will be a world first, many countries and subnational jurisdictions have begun to actively explore the possibility.
Several European countries, including France, Denmark, Norway and Spain, are all considering or in the process of implementing various measures and a similar law in Utah was blocked by a judge from entering into force. In the UK, after extensive revisions and debate, the Online Safety Act came into force in July, imposing hefty fines on companies (potentially even jailing their executives) if they fail to implement measures to safeguard young people from illegal and harmful content online.
There is growing evidence of a relationship between teen mental health and the use of social media, but the real question is whether there is any sort of causal relationship and, if so, what are the potential implications of different types of restrictions. In 2023, the US Surgeon General even issued an advisory against social media use, whereas the American Psychological Association issued an advisory that emphasised the risks but also sought to highlight the benefits of social media use. Some studies have found that there is no mental health benefit of restricting social media use. and the relationship may not reflect causality since those with poor mental health may want to seek refuge in social media. Another challenge in analysing recent data is that the COVID-19 pandemic may have exacerbated social media use and/or mental health issues and so it is difficult to disentangle these different drivers.
What is your view of these efforts to control or restrict social media access for children?
Given that Australia is offering a world-first experiment, should other jurisdictions wait until clearer evidence emerges and learn from the lessons of Australia or simply proceed according to their own timeline?
Should governments act even if there is uncertainty over the evidence?