Quote from Alex bobby on March 30, 2025, 8:18 AM

The Debate Over Banning Social Media for Children: Will It Work?

The hit Netflix series Adolescence has reignited discussions about the dangers of social media and the potential need for banning smartphones and social media for children. The show dramatises the social media-fueled murder of a schoolgirl by a 13-year-old boy, prompting renewed calls for stricter regulations on children's online access. However, experts warn that outright bans are unlikely to address the root causes of the problem.

The Rise of Online Misogyny

According to a recent Amnesty International survey, 73% of Gen Z social media users in the UK have witnessed misogynistic content online, with half encountering it weekly. Young people have vastly different perspectives on this issue. While some recognise the harm and prevalence of online misogyny, others dismiss it as harmless fun.

The influence of figures such as Andrew Tate, who promotes misogynistic rhetoric alongside financial advice, has further exacerbated concerns. In the UK, 41% of Gen Z men reported seeing Tate’s content, alongside content from Elon Musk (57%) and Donald Trump (55%). The impact of such figures on young boys’ attitudes toward women is alarming, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and toxic masculinity.

Can a Ban Solve the Problem?

Jack Thorne, the co-creator of Adolescence, has called on the UK government to ban smartphones for those under 16, following Australia's recent move to restrict social media access for minors. However, experts argue that bans may not be effective.

A study published in Lancet Regional Health Europe examined the effects of smartphone bans in schools across England and found no significant impact on students’ mental well-being, sleep, or educational outcomes. While this study only focused on bans during school hours, it suggests that an outright prohibition may be equally ineffective.

Drew Benvie, founder of the social media campaign group Raise, warns that banning social media would be difficult to enforce. Children are adept at circumventing restrictions, often using VPNs or alternative messaging apps. Additionally, banning social media might push harmful conversations into private messaging platforms, making them harder to monitor and address.

The Role of Social Media Companies

In response to growing concerns, social media platforms have implemented measures to improve safety for young users. TikTok introduced a mindfulness tool that interrupts the feed for users under 16 after 10 PM, encouraging healthier usage habits. Other platforms, including Meta, have enhanced parental controls, allowing parents to regulate screen time and access to certain content.

However, these measures remain imperfect. A study by University College London and the University of Kent found a four-fold increase in misogynistic content recommendations by TikTok’s algorithm over just five days. The longer a user engages with such content, the more frequently similar material is promoted, creating an echo chamber that normalises harmful attitudes.

The Need for Education Over Prohibition

Experts emphasise that education, rather than outright bans, is the key to addressing the dangers of social media. Benvie argues that a sudden cutoff at age 16 is unrealistic, asking, "What happens when a child is 15 years and 364 days old?" Instead of prohibiting access, children need to be educated on digital literacy, the dangers of misinformation, and the impact of toxic online cultures.

Sonia Livingstone, professor of social psychology at the London School of Economics, highlights the importance of family discussions over strict parental control. Imposing unilateral restrictions often leads to resentment or creative workarounds. Instead, she suggests that parents actively engage with their children's online experiences, fostering open dialogue about harmful content.

Stricter Regulation and Faster Content Moderation

One of the biggest challenges in combating online misogyny is the slow response to harmful content. Children report that platforms take too long to remove offensive material. For example, even though TikTok removed a beheading video within two hours, it had already been shared widely by that time. Similarly, while Andrew Tate was banned from major platforms, his content continued to spread through secondary accounts and fan pages.

Benvie advocates for more proactive content moderation and stricter penalties for those promoting harmful content. Social media companies must take greater responsibility for curbing the spread of misogynistic material and refining their algorithms to prevent the amplification of hate speech.

Moving Forward: A Balanced Approach

The debate over banning social media for children is complex. While restrictions may provide temporary relief, they are unlikely to be a long-term solution. Instead, a combination of education, regulation, and better content moderation is needed. Teaching children how to navigate the digital world safely and critically is crucial to mitigating the risks associated with social media.

Ultimately, experts agree that rather than shielding children from the internet altogether, society must equip them with the tools to engage with it responsibly. As Benvie states, "At some point, a child comes online, and we need to equip them with the skills for life online—not prevent them from accessing the reality of life."

Conclusion

Banning social media and smartphones for children may seem like a straightforward solution, but it is unlikely to be effective in the long run. Children are resourceful and will find ways to bypass restrictions, making outright bans difficult to enforce. Moreover, banning social media does not address the underlying issues of misogyny, misinformation, and harmful online behaviour.

Instead, a more holistic approach is needed—one that combines education, parental involvement, stricter regulation, and faster content moderation by social media companies. Teaching children digital literacy, fostering open discussions about online dangers, and holding platforms accountable for the content they amplify will be far more effective than an outright ban.

Ultimately, the goal should not be to keep children offline but to prepare them for a digital world in which they can engage responsibly and safely. Only through education and proactive regulation can we create a healthier and more positive online environment for future generations.