Countries including the United Kingdom and France are considering whether to restrict or ban children and some teenagers from using social media, following Australia’s recent move to prohibit under-16s from accessing major platforms.
The proposals have reignited debate among policymakers, researchers and mental health experts over whether such bans are effective or risk unintended consequences.
Diaspora Digital Media reported that on January 2026, Australia became the first country to introduce a nationwide ban preventing people under 16 from using platforms such as Instagram, Facebook, TikTok and YouTube.
The decision was driven by concerns over declining youth mental health and the impact of excessive screen time.
In France, lawmakers are currently debating bills that would bar children under 15 from social media, including legislation supported by President Emmanuel Macron.
In the UK, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Monday that “more needs to be done to protect children” online, after around 60 MPs from his Labour Party called for a similar ban.
Supporters of restrictions argue that urgent action is needed. Jonathan Haidt, an American psychologist and author of the 2024 book The Anxious Generation, has been cited by politicians backing tougher measures.
Haidt argues that prolonged exposure to social media is rewiring children’s brains and contributing to rising levels of anxiety and depression.
However, his conclusions remain contested. Canadian psychologist Candice Odgers has said the claims in Haidt’s book are not fully supported by scientific evidence, reflecting broader disagreement within academic circles.
Michael Noetel, a researcher at the University of Queensland, said evidence suggests social media can have harmful effects on teenagers, even if the impact on individuals appears small.
“Small effects across billions of users add up,” he said, adding that the potential benefits make a ban “a bet worth making.”
France’s public health watchdog, ANSES, said last week that social media has multiple negative effects on adolescents, particularly girls, while noting it is not the sole cause of deteriorating mental health.
Other researchers caution against blanket bans. A study led by Ben Singh of the University of Adelaide, which followed more than 100,000 young Australians over three years, found that teenagers who used social media moderately tended to have better wellbeing than those who used it heavily or not at all.
Singh said both excessive restriction and excessive use could be harmful.
French psychiatrist Serge Tisseron, who has long warned about the dangers of screen exposure, said social media environments are “appallingly toxic” but questioned whether outright bans would be effective.
He warned that tech-savvy teenagers could easily bypass restrictions and that bans might reduce parental engagement.
Some experts argue that more evidence is needed before other countries follow Australia’s example.
Cambridge University researcher Amy Orben said the impact of Australia’s policy should become clearer within a year, including whether it produces unintended effects.
Australia’s online safety watchdog said last week that technology companies have already blocked about 4.7 million accounts belonging to under-16s since the ban came into force, a figure that will likely inform the ongoing international debate.